ABERDEENSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FINALISED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN CONSULTATION GARIOCH – ABERDEEN HOUSING MARKET AREA

Issue 74 Settlement - Keithhall Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p29) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

444, 496 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of MTM Holdings 849, 852 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Tor Ecosse Ltd 1175, 1176, 1177, 1179 DPP LLP (Planning Consultants) on behalf of Church of Scotland General Treasurer

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

H1 Keithhall

Support for allocation 1175, 1176, 1177, 1179: Support the allocation of site H1.

1175, 1176: The development of the site represents a logical natural expansion to the established housing area within Keithhall. There are no challenges in terms of the topography and gradient of the site, and it would reflect the pattern of development in the surrounding area. The site has excellent pedestrian and vehicular access with the required upgrading and maintenance also envisaged.

1175, 1176: The site is capable of accommodating development with no adverse visual impact and would not detract from the existing area. The proposed development would be in line with development and design principles within Planning Advice Note 44 ‘Fitting New Housing Development into the Countryside’. Developing the site will result in a sustainable and high quality development.

1175, 1176: The site is both available and deliverable. It is also suitable due to part of the site being allocated as an ‘Area of Future Housing Land’ suitable for five housing units in the current Local Plan.

1176: The proposed development will be designed having regard to the scale, colour, form and density of existing residential developments in the surrounding area, and will incorporate design features which will help create a sense of place and identity while meeting sustainability and energy efficiency demands. Development of the site will help to sustain and support local facilities and the local community.

Level of development and density 444, 496, 849, 852: The 15 houses proposed represent over-development and is considered inappropriate, as the density of housing is not in keeping with the existing characteristics of the settlement. A 100% increase within a five year period is not deemed to be small scale. This site is open, exposed and low lying in the west part of the field and goes against guidance provided by Planning Advice Note 72 on how development should fit into or nestle within a landscape, orientation, shelter and screening.

Drainage and flooding 444, 496, 849, 852: There is a history of drainage issues related to the existing houses at Keithhall. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has identified that there is a potential flood risk associated with the site due to a watercourse running through it. To mitigate this flood risk there is significant cost involved and these resources would be of better use for other community benefits. This and the poor ground conditions of the site render the

Page 1 site unsuitable for development.

Deliverability 444, 496, 849, 852: The site is constrained due to the landowners being unwilling sellers and there is a large risk it will not come forward for development through the Local Development Plan, due to the landowner not putting forward part of the site when there was a “call for sites”. This was the case with the current Local Plan where the site was allocated for five houses but was never brought forward by the landowner. If the allocated site lies dormant again, the settlement will be unable to maintain the local school roll and bring affordable housing to the area.

Designed landscape and ancient monument 849, 852: The site is unsuitable for development as it lies in close proximity to a Historic Landscape and a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Development at this site will therefore require an extremely high standard of design and very careful siting which means that the allocation of 15 units may be too high and may not be feasible.

Alternative Site Keithhall 1176, 1177, 1179: Objection to not allocating the site to the North of Keithhall, part of G29 in the Main Issues Report. Keithhall is an appropriate location for accommodating new housing, and it can help meet the Structure Plan requirements in terms of need and predicted population growth. The site is in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy, as it supports small scale housing allocations in rural communities that help ensure their viability is maintained; and due to the land being effective or capable of being effective to meet the housing land requirement, it helps ensure a minimum five years effective land supply is maintained. The development of the northern part of G29 represents a logical natural expansion to the established housing area within Keithhall. There are no challenges in terms of the topography and gradient of the site and it would reflect the pattern of development in the surrounding area. The site is accessible to public transport and has excellent pedestrian and vehicular access with the required upgrading and maintenance also envisaged. Development of the site will help to sustain and support local facilities and the local community.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

H1 Keithhall 444, 496: The allocation for H1 Keithhall should be reduced to 5 houses with the remaining 10 from the allocation being relocated to Kinmuck H1.

849, 852: Site H1 should be removed and replaced with Tor Ecosse’s deliverable sites at Kinmuck, which will help maintain the setting of Keithhall as well as deliver new housing and associated community benefits to Kinmuck.

Alternative Site Keithhall 1176, 1177, 1179: Include the remaining part of site G29 as shown in the Main Issues Report, which lies to the north of the settlement, for up to 10 houses with scope to be developed throughout the full period of the Proposed Plan.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Keithhall lies to the east of Inverurie within the Aberdeen Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. Keithhall primary school has a falling roll and is forecast to be operating at 84% in 2016. Focusing a larger allocation at Keithhall, as opposed to Kinmuck, allows pupils to walk to school.

Paragraph 94 of Scottish Planning Policy states that development plans should support more opportunities for small scale housing development in rural areas including extensions to existing clusters and groups. Therefore, the allocation at Keithhall is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy.

Page 2

Site H1 Support for allocation The support for development of site H1 is noted.

Level of development and density The level of development proposed takes into account existing service and infrastructure capacities, deliverability and local needs. The site proposed is a compact site with existing development to the north and west and is well related to the core of the existing settlement and close to the primary school. No further allocations are made in phase 2, limiting impact on the character of the settlement while still providing a viable site. Once the sites at Kinmuck and Keithhall are developed there is unlikely to be capacity for substantially more housing and new allocations are likely to be restricted.

There is no historic established density within the village, and whilst the density proposed may not be similar to the housing development to the north it would not be out of keeping. The density would equate to approximately 17 houses per hectare when taking into account the 40% open space requirement. This is well below the density of 30 houses per hectare expected within SG Housing1: Housing land allocations 2007-2016 and is more reflective of the rural location.

Drainage and flooding There appear to be no significant issues with ground conditions that could not be addressed at the detailed planning stages.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency have identified that there is a small watercourse within the site that may be a flood risk. Given the size of the site and the open space requirements there is scope for mitigation and inclusion of a buffer strip along the watercourse edge. Appropriate text has been added to the supplementary guidance in respect of requirement for a flood risk assessment.

Deliverability The bid submitted covered a larger area and also included a site to the north of Keithhall. Therefore, the entire H1 falls within the bid submitted by the landowner. The landowner has indicated an intention to bring the site forward and has confirmed deliverability.

Designed landscape and ancient monument The site is not within the Keith Hall designed landscape and this designation ends on the opposite side of the road to the site. The impact on the designed landscape is mitigated by existing development within the designed landscape opposite the site H1. Historic Scotland advised at the main issues stage that some low key development could be absorbed without significant impact on the garden and designed landscape.

Alternative site - Northern part of G29 This 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 in addition to the H1 site it would lead to over-development, and this site lies within the Keith Hall Garden and Designed Landscape.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Keithhall are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes to the plan are commended but the supplementary guidance has been changed to show the requirement for a flood risk assessment for site H1.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Page 3

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 4 Issue 75 Settlement - Kinmuck Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p33) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

444, 496 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of MTM Holdings 716 Castleglen Land Search Ltd 848, 849, 852, 853 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Tor Ecosse Ltd

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

H1 Kinmuck 716: The proposed development will provide much needed smaller homes in a mix of sizes and tenures to allow local and lower income people to live in the village. This in will help encourage and sustain local services including the primary school and the pub. The inclusion of a village green will allow a place for people to undertake social and recreational activities and help build and sustain a sense of community. The scale and form of development is achievable as per the attached layout and there are no technical constraints preventing the development progressing.

Level of demand 444, 496: There has been a proven steady demand for housing over the previous 15 years in Kinmuck compared to Keithhall. This means the 10 houses allocated to Keithhall should be removed and added to H1 in Kinmuck.

Settlement form 444, 496: Site H1 as it is currently proposed is disjointed, protrudes significantly from the existing settlement boundary, does not relate well to the village, is on a north facing slope, and the northerly part of the site is isolated. The preferred site for any housing in Kinmuck is at Beltside, incorporating part of the H1 site.

848, 853: The site does not reflect the traditional built form of Kinmuck. It would break the back line of the settlement and would not be in keeping with the existing pattern of development.

Site access 848, 853: The existing junction of the site has sub-standard visibility and is unlikely to be able to accommodate vehicles associated with a new housing development to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority.

Other issues 848, 853: The site has poor soil conditions and there are doubts about the suitability of additional septic tanks in the village. Due to the site facing north, it may deter some forms of on-site renewable energy generation.

Alternative Site Kinmuck Beltside (site G67)

444, 496: The preferred site for any housing in Kinmuck is at Beltside, incorporating part of the H1 site. It is a vacant and disused croft, in effect a brownfield site on the edge of a settlement. The site would utilise and incorporate the existing buildings in a cohesive manner.

Page 5 Site G122 848, 853: Site G122 fits better with the existing form of the village than site H1. It will continue the traditional linear form of the settlement and round off the western end. The site can provide up to 40% affordable housing with a village green/formal sports area. The site has no access constraints and the landowner has committed to bringing it forward if allocated within the plan period. There are no wildlife designations or other natural designations that would act as impediments to the development of the site. Its development will protect the setting of the listed Friends Cottage through sensitive design and strategic landscaping. It will provide planning gain contributions towards improved provision of broadband in the area, as well as enhanced public transport, core paths, and cycle links between Kinmuck and Inverurie. There is also potential to provide a recycling area off-site. The site can incorporate a Waste Water Treatment Works (as opposed to the use of septic tanks proposed for site H1) to serve the development.

849, 852: The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has stated they would like to see a new Waste Water Treatment Works located at Kinmuck. This is unlikely to happen if site H1 at Keithhall lies dormant over the next 5-10 years. Instead, this type of facility can be provided through planning gain contributions arising from the development of site G122 in Kinmuck.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

H1 Kinmuck 444, 496: Proposes two modifications: (1) the 11 houses proposed should be allocated in closer proximity to the existing settlement at Beltside. (2) Allocate 21 houses (11 from Kinmuck and 10 from Keithhall) with a denser layout over a larger area of ground at Beltside.

848, 853: Remove site H1 Kinmuck and replace with site G122 in Kinmuck, for an allocation of up to 20 houses over the lifetime of the Local Development Plan.

849, 852: Remove site H1 Keithhall and reallocate the housing units to site G122 in Kinmuck.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Kinmuck lies to the east of Inverurie within the Aberdeen Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. Nearby Keithhall primary school has a falling roll and is forecast to be operating at 84% of capacity in 2016.

Site H1 The support for site H1 and its ability to provide affordable housing and a village green/formal recreation space is noted. The developer has also confirmed deliverability of the site.

Level of demand Kinmuck has grown rapidly for its size, and only very modest further growth is supported. Allocations are split between Keithhall and Kinmuck to ensure that neither village is overdeveloped. A slightly larger allocation is made in Keithhall as this is more sustainable allowing pupils to walk to school. There is no justification to remove the allocations at Keithhall to Kinmuck (see issue 74).

Settlement form Development already extends back from the Keithall/Hatton road, and the layout proposed reflects this. This allows growth without elongating the settlement and builds on the core of the settlement. Whilst the site does extend slightly further north than existing development, the site is bounded to the north-east by an existing tree belt which provides a defensible boundary and a backdrop for development. The site has sufficient space and depth to include a village green/formal recreation area which will provide a focus for the community. The layout, siting and design of the development should ensure the more northerly areas are not isolated.

Site access The developer, having met with the Roads Authority, has confirmed that the road standards being requested can be met.

Page 6

Other issues There appear to be no significant issues with ground conditions that could not be addressed at the detailed planning stages.

The site does slope gently to the north but not to the extent that south facing aspects would not benefit from solar gain through careful location of the built development.

Alternative sites Beltside (G67) Amending the boundaries of H1 to include Beltside would encourage back-land development and would not allow for a functional village green/recreation area to be created, as there would not be sufficient depth. The site is not brownfield as there is no evidence of the land having previously been developed, with the exception of the small group of buildings to the north-east. There may be opportunities to develop the redundant buildings through Policy 3 Development in the Countryside.

Site G122 This 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 development would be detrimental to the character of the village since it would continue elongation along the Keithhall to Hatton road. An allocation of 20 houses would lead to over- development, and the preferred option is to split development between Keithhall and Kinmuck. It is also desirable to protect the setting of the B listed Friends Cottage adjacent to the site.

The levels of development proposed are unlikely to provide sufficient planning gain contributions to provide a new waste water treatment works at Kinmuck. Inverurie Waste Water Treatment Works takes flows from Keithhall and whilst this has limited capacity there is no justification to move the allocation at Keithhall to Kinmuck where there is no existing waste water provision.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Kinmuck 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 7 Issue 76 Kemnay Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Development Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p29) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

205, 222, 223 Kemnay Community Council 233 Mr Dorothea Adam 266 Norman P. Lawie Limited on behalf of S. Ross, Milton Farm, Kemnay 367 Ryden LLP on behalf of Barratt East Scotland 955, 1066 Barton Willmore on behalf of Stewart Milne Homes 1371 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Deveron Homes Ltd 1373, 2158 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Deveron Homes Ltd and Aberdeenshire Housing Partnership 1599 Archial Planning on behalf of Stewart Milne Homes 1601, 1602, 1605, 1606, 1608,1609, 1614 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of John Martin Assets Ltd 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2176, 2183, 2212, 2362, 2446 Miss Claire Martin 2345, 2408 Mrs Gillian West 2684, 2685 Dr James Piggins

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

Kemnay - general 955, 1066: Sites H1, H2, H3 & H4 are too great for a settlement of Kemnay’s size to accommodate. Development in Kemnay is entirely dependent on delivery at Kintore which is also scheduled to deliver in the second phase of the Local Development Plan. Any delay in development at Kintore will have a consequential and unavoidable effect on the delivery of the Kemnay sites. This places at risk the Council’s ability to maintain an effective and deliverable housing land supply within the lifetime of the Local Development Plan. The sites are poorly located in relation to public transport and employment, resulting in increased car use, giving the site poor credentials in sustainability terms and making it potentially undeliverable. Sites H1 and H2 represent ribbon development of the settlement into the open countryside. There are no defensible boundaries in the fields on the edge of the settlement to halt this development creep.

2176: The proposed 212 houses in Kemnay seem rather excessive to provide for local needs, especially since the settlement is not in a Strategic Growth Area as per the Structure Plan.

2685: There is no evidence of the “local needs” that justify housing stated in the Key Planning objectives for Kemnay. Due to the late allocation of H4 Kemnay for 77 houses at Aberdeenshire Council’s Garioch Area Committee, it allows for removal of one or more of the proposed housing sites in Kemnay itself, while still meeting the

Page 8 originally intended allocation for houses in Kemnay.

H1 Kemnay 955, 1066: Sites H1 and H2 represent ribbon development of the settlement into the open countryside. There are no defensible boundaries in the fields on the edge of the settlement to halt this development creep.

1599: Site H1 has been allocated but, is already an existing development site. Scottish Planning Policy encourages choice in the identification of sites for housing, and it would therefore be preferable if future housing allocations in the Local Growth and Diversification Areas offered the opportunity for proportional expansion in settlements which did not contain existing development sites.

2685: Construction of houses on site H1 would leave only a small, almost triangular field on the east side of the Place of Origin viewpoint. This is inadequate to protect the Place of Origin. It would ruin the view from the south-east and entrance into Kemnay, while also for visitors to the viewpoint who would be looking almost directly down on the roofs of houses on site H1, rather than enjoying the present rural aspect in that direction from the viewpoint.

1371, 1373, 2158: H1 is capable of contributing to the overall growth envisaged for the Kemnay area. The site can be developed so as to create a logical and sustainable extension to the existing settlement in conjunction with the two adjoining proposed developments to the south. It is in close proximity to the range of services and facilities the village has and this continued investment will ensure it continues to prosper. The allocation of 50 units to the site is supported. However the 40% reduction from the original site size is not supported. While the sensitivities of the Place of Origin and the views from that site are acknowledged, it is refuted that there is any necessity for the site to be almost halved in size. The Place of Origin is not in the Valued Views appendix of the Proposed Local Development Plan. Development to the south of H1 was designed to access site H1 in the future. The site is earmarked to deliver 50% affordable housing. If the Council insist on reducing the site area, it will threaten the site’s overall development.

H2 Kemnay 367: The allocation of 65 units at site H2 in Kemnay is welcomed. However, objection is taken to the fact that it has been allocated for development in the period 2017 to 2023. There is no impediment to the development of the site in the period 2007-2016. The site should be identified for development in the first period of the Local Development Plan in order to help address the shortfall in the housing land supply. Capacity issues at Kemnay Academy can be addressed through the provision of temporary accommodation. There are no technical constraints to the development of the site itself, with service connections being readily available.

955, 1066: Sites H1 and H2 represent ribbon development of the settlement into the open countryside. There are no defensible boundaries in the fields on the edge of the settlement to halt this development creep.

1599: Site H2 has been allocated, but is already an existing development site. Scottish Planning Policy encourages choice in the identification of sites for housing, and it would therefore be preferable if future housing allocations in the Local Growth and Diversification Areas offered the opportunity for proportional expansion in settlements which did not contain existing development sites.

2684: Development of H2 would greatly increase traffic along Bogbeth Road past the

Page 9 recreation ground, and impact on accessibility, congestion and safety, which would be a risk to young people playing there. The development of the site will be prominent from a large distance. It will impact on the amenity of Bogbeth Road. This site represents ribbon development, and does not contribute to a rounded development of the existing village. Site H2 is a significant distance from the centre of the village and the public transport route, resulting in residents using a vehicle for most of their journeys.

H3 Kemnay 233: Does not consider site H3 Kemnay suitable for development for 20 houses due to its proximity to a main road, with the volume and speed of traffic on the road. It creates ribbon development of the settlement and will not enhance the sense of community or deliver an aesthetic appeal. The site is also prone to flooding.

266: In order to enable the reservation and subsequent provision of an area of ground for sports pitches the adjoining site H3 requires to be allocated for more than 20 houses. The site is capable of accommodating around 50 houses together with sports pitches and facilities. The site will remain undeveloped unless a viable scheme for residential use is provided, which would allow the remainder of the ground to be handed over for community purposes. Unless this housing is provided in the first phase of development, the community facilities would be unable to be provided until the access to the housing area was undertaken.

H4 Kemnay 205, 222: At the Main Issues Report stage the Community Council previously supported the allocation of the range of sites and uses at Fetternear of which site H4 was a component. Within the Proposed Plan the proposal has now changed and only includes site H4. Unless it generates jobs and facilities for Kemnay, the respondent opposes the allocation on the grounds that it is an inappropriate development in a rural area which will increase pressure on Kemnay’s facilities without any commensurate benefits.

955, 1066: Site H4 is visually and physically separated from the existing settlement by the River Don which provides a strong defensible edge to Kemnay. Breaching this edge could give rise to pressure for further development on the west side of the Don in the future representing an undesirable pattern of growth. Site H4 does not require to be allocated, as it would be able to come forward to enable the redevelopment of the Fetternear Estate, under the enabling development policy within the Proposed Local Development Plan.

2183, 2446: The Main Issues Report bid sites for site H4 were submitted as an enabling development proposal for multiple uses, now it is only a housing allocation but it still requires a strong business case to justify it. The Proposed Local Development Plan needs to be changed to reflect this.

955, 1066, 2212, 2345, 2408: Object to H4 as it lies outwith Kemnay’s settlement boundary, is poorly connected with the village and with public transport. The respondent (2212) states it is also an area of landscape significance, bordered by ancient woodland and it is designated countryside. It is arable land that should not be developed upon. Previous planning applications APP/2008/3890 and APP/2010/2075 were refused as they were premature to the Local Development Plan and did not meet policy. It is not viable for the site to be assessed under enabling development. It is feared the developer will take advantage of the policy holes and want 77 houses on site H4 as well as all the other bid sites which appear in the most recent planning application.

Page 10

2362: H4 is incorrectly classified as Local Growth Aberdeen Housing Market Area 2017 to 2023. The boundary line is not being questioned as it is correct and it clearly shows H4 to be in the Rural Housing Market Area. The change needs to be made to ensure that the correct policies are applied to the planning application i.e. Policy 3 Development in the Countryside, Policy 10 Enabling Development Policy etc.

2345, 2408: Object to site H4 as it appears difficult to justify the 77 houses when there are another 135 homes proposed in Kemnay, with a large number currently being built with many sites unfinished due to the recession. This allocation makes it not comply with the 2009 Structure Plan, due to this level of growth not relating to the local needs of Kemnay. Site H4 is not in accordance with the following sections of Scottish Planning Policy; Rural Development Paragraphs 94-96 due to being over 50 units; Trees and Woodlands paragraphs 146-148; Transport paragraph 168 as the nearest bus stop is 650m away. It is also in contravention with several Policies from the Aberdeenshire Proposed Local Development Plan including: Policy 3 Rural Development and the accompanying Supplementary Guidance Rural Development 1; Policy 9 and the accompanying Supplementary Guidance Developer Contributions 2: Access to new Development (as it is not well related to the existing settlement and does not create an impermeable barrier to further development); Supplementary Guidance Developer Contributions 4: Waste Management Requirements (as it will be hard for it to provide access and turning space for service and delivery vehicles). Site H4 has not demonstrated yet any of the criteria required in Policy 10: Enabling Development and Supplementary Guidance Enabling Development 1. It is difficult to see how residential construction on this site complies with the intent of the above policies, as it would undoubtedly cause great harm and degradation to the natural environment in medium to long term as well as a short term loss of amenity.

R1 Kemnay 1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency raises no objections to the provision of sports pitches providing there is no landraising, fencing or buildings on the site, but as site R1 is entirely within a floodplain, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency objects to the site unless additional text is added to the Plan or Supplementary Guidance highlighting the flood risk.

Alternative Sites Kemnay 223: Concerned that site P1 could not be developed for a swimming pool and recreational facilities with the present ‘Protected’ designation. The respondents wish to see this site afforded maximum protection from inappropriate development of a nature other than outlined above.

233: Land adjoining to site H2 should be allocated instead of H3 because the site is at the heart of the village and any development would be a natural extension of the village rather than looking like an add-on piece of ribbon development. This alternative site provides safe access to schools and amenities away from main roads. Recreational space is easily accessible. There are opportunities for ongoing development should the need for more housing arise.

1601; 1602: Site G112 from the Main Issues Report should be allocated for a mix of uses. This is due to the excessive amount of employment land which has been reserved in Kemnay.

1605, 1606, 1614: The local community suggested site G112 as an alternative location for the swimming/leisure facility. One respondent states this residential element will help fund the mixed-use proposal of the site and no more than 50

Page 11 houses will be allocated there, (1614). There is a far greater case to allocate housing to a brownfield site with a piece of underused scrubland which is only 0.5km from Kemnay town centre rather than new greenfield sites in other areas of Aberdeenshire which would be more in line with the Structure Plan strategy. There was a mixed response from the community to the site, but more recent community views support the location of a new community Leisure/Swimming Pool at this location. The environmentally sensitive land is protected and public access improved into and across the site in this bid. The area of protected land to the west remains protected.

1608, 1609: Due to site G112 already being within the settlement boundary of Kemnay, a planning application for the site could therefore be determined under the provisions of the existing Local Plan. It could therefore, be delivered early to help Aberdeenshire Council meet the requirement to maintain a 5-year housing land supply and the Structure Plan strategy of early delivery of mixed-use and housing sites in the first phase of the plan or could be provided in the second phase of the plan.

1614: There is no justification for extending the P1 protected area as proposed in the Kemnay Settlement Statement onto site G112, as it has already been identified in previous Local Plans as an area of unused space suitable for development.

2684: An objective for the settlement is stated to be "Sustain and enhance services", but all that is allocated by way of enhancement is more sports pitches (at R1), and a very small area R2 for possible medical facilities. There is a severe need in Kemnay for more indoor recreation facilities. Despite the construction of a few hundred new houses in the past 20 years, there has been no increase in such facilities.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Kemnay - general 955, 1066: Delete sites H1, H2, H3 and H4 with their allocation being relocated to our clients’ land at Westhill which represents a more sustainable location.

H1 Kemnay 1599: Remove site H1 and replace with a site in Pitmedden.

2176: Reduce the allocation of site H1 to 35 houses.

2685: Remove site H1 and redesignate the site so it is included within site P2.

1371, 1373, 2158: Site H1 should be increased to its original size, that of site G115 of the Main Issues Report.

H2 Kemnay 367: The development of site H2 should be amended to permit development in the period 2007 to 2016 instead of being restricted to the period 2017 to 2023.

2176: Reduce the allocation of site H2 to 45 houses.

2684: Remove site H2 from the plan.

H3 Kemnay 233: Remove site H3 from the plan and replace with land adjoining site H2 in Kemnay.

Page 12 266: Increase the allocation of H3 to around 50 houses to enable the provision of sports pitches at R1. Allocate the land in the first phase of the plan.

H4 Kemnay 205: Site H4 should either be changed to accord with the Main Issues Report proposal of 70 houses or to the submitted planning application, or should be deleted.

222: Site H4 should be deleted and incorporated within the sites previously identified in the Main Issues Report as part of the mixed use development of Fetternear Estate (see alternative sites).

2176, 2212, 2345, 2408: Remove site H4 from the Plan.

2183: Change wording to: “H4 is allocated for up to 77 houses to enable development of the Fetternear Estate subject to a strong business case to justify the enabling development.”

2362: Site H4 needs to be moved from the Local Growth Aberdeen Housing Market Area to the Local Growth Rural Housing Market Area.

2446: Change wording in the settlement statement to: “H4 is allocated for up to 77 houses in the second phase of the plan subject to the provision of a masterplan and a strong business case to justify the enabling development of the Fetternear Estate. The enabling development proposals must meet Policy 10: Enabling Development.”

R1 Kemnay 1979: Delete site R1, unless the following wording is included in the settlement statement for Kemnay: “The 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 should any landraising, building or structures be proposed that will reduce the flood storage capacity of the flood plain."

Alternative Site Kemnay 222: Site H4 should be deleted and replaced with the sites previously identified in the Main Issues report, which were G170A South Lodge, G170B Longdykes, G170D Broomhaugh and also including the additional two sites which appear in the current planning application APP/2010/2075 and are referred to as Birchgrove and St Ninians. The sites should then be designated as sites H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8 and the following penultimate paragraph on page 30 should be amended to read as follows: “Sites H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8 are allocated for up to 77 houses in the second phase of the plan to enable development of the Fetternear estate, which will include stabilisation works at Bishops Palace, employment opportunities derived from visitor and conference centres, leisure development including all weather football pitches and changing facilities and also a swimming pool which may be located at a suitable site within Fetternear estate or an alternative suitable site in Kemnay. Upgrading the public and private road network is required in the Fetternear Estate. A Masterplan is required for the sites.”

223: Part of site P1 should be identified as: R3 Reserved for community, recreational and amenity use. This is due to present indications that there is an interest in developing this site for a swimming pool, amenity and recreational facilities.

233: Allocate the land extending to approximately 60 acres adjoining site H2 instead of site H3.

Page 13 1601, 1602, 1605, 1606, 1608, 1609, 1614: Allocate site G112 as M1 Kemnay, with the preferred wording being: "Site M1 is allocated for up to 50 houses and new community leisure facilities in the first phase of the plan. This will assist in the delivery of the new community facility and affordable housing in the first phase of the plan." Alternatively, if the educational constraints are considered to outweigh the public benefit derived from this proposed development, it could be allocated as follows: "Site M1 is allocated for up to 50 houses and new community leisure facilities in the second phase of the plan. These may be brought forward in specific circumstances where it helps to deliver the proposed community facility or educational constraints are lifted. Alternative employment use may be appropriate on the eastern section of the site."

2684: Divide off an area on the eastern side of P1, and re-designate the area as R3. This area between BUS1 and Bremner Way, would be a suitable location for a much needed leisure complex including such facilities as a swimming pool, gymnasium, sports hall and changing rooms. Allocation in the plan of a site for such a complex would facilitate its creation in due course.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview

The allocation made in Kemnay is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and Structure Plan. By allowing local growth and diversification in the Aberdeen housing market area. Kemnay is identified for an allocation of 212 units to support rural growth and diversification. 77 of these units are allocated to enable the development of the Fetternear estate.

Many of the issues raised in relation to this settlement were also raised in response to the consultation on Main Issues Report, and were considered in the ‘Issues and Actions’, Vol 5, Garioch, page 59, (May 2010).

Kemnay - general

The level of growth in Kemnay is at an appropriate scale considering the size of Kemnay. For further information see Issue 66 Spatial Strategy: Local Needs. For a comparison of Kemnay with other settlements in the Aberdeen Housing Market Area in these respects, see Issue 66 Spatial strategy Local Needs. The 212 housing units and employment allocations can deliver benefits to the community within the limits of the current primary school capacity.

Allocations are made in Kemnay in phase 2 due to the constraint of secondary education capacity which is currently operating at 117% capacity and by 2016 is forecast to operate at 134%. The strategy allows for a new secondary school provision serving the Kemnay catchment area to be developed in phase 1. This strategy is detailed in Issue 34 Blackburn to Inverurie Spatial Strategy.

Compared to other settlements in Aberdeenshire, Kemnay is a settlement with a range of local facilities. It is not in the strategic growth area, but requires a range of allocations including employment land in order to support the maintenance of a sustainable settlement. The allocations are appropriate in scale to a settlement of this size. It is an accessible location. The allocations are made in the second phase, allowing for current development which is nearing completion; this ensures that development does not overwhelm the settlement. .

Page 14

Site H1

Site H1 is not ribbon development. It consolidates development towards Kemnay rather than along the B933. The only plausible way of completely consolidating development around Kemnay would be to allocate land which has not been proposed by developers and which would be highly unlikely to be delivered.

Site H1 is not an existing development site, but is adjacent to a site which has planning permission for housing and is being developed by the same developer. In terms of the provision of a range of housing allocations across settlements, this issue is covered in Issue 066 Local Growth and Diversification Areas under ‘Kemnay’.

A significant area has been given protection to the west of the Place of Origin. This surrounds the monument park and is allocated as P2. Site H2 remains sufficiently distant to protect the view from the monument and its setting. The allocation will not spoil the south-east approach to Kemnay. Development is set back from the road behind the existing mixed use site which will form the new approach to Kemnay. Building on the edge of settlements undeniably alters the landscape, but the existing sites and new site can be developed together to form a new development which is sympathetic and improves the setting of the village.

The points of support for the site are noted. However, the site is not considered to has not been halved in size. The site is still allocated for 50 units, as was the developers’ bid. The area which has been changed to protected status (P2) would have been likely to have required protection through the site’s masterplan due to landscape issues discussed. The site would under any circumstances have to provide 40% open space through Policy 8 Layout, siting and design of new development. The P2 section of the site can form the bulk of the open space contribution. We support a very slight alteration to the boundary of the P2 site to allow access to site H1 from the adjacent site. There is a requirement to provide only 25% affordable housing on this site but the aim to provide 50% is welcomed.

H2 Kemnay

Development at Kemnay cannot be delivered in phase 1 of the plan. Advice provided by the education authority states that Kemnay Academy cannot even accommodate additional temporary accommodation.

The site does not represent ribbon development, but it is accepted that neither does it contribute to the ‘rounded development’ of the village. The transport authority is satisfied that there are no major traffic safety issues. The allocation accords with Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 168 as direct links to walking and cycling networks are available. It is less than 400 m from the bus stops on the Bogbeth Road (B933/B944) route and 600 metres from the village centre.

Site H3

The transport authority has not identified an issue with the proximity of the B933, only that a possible extension of the 30 mph limit may be required. In terms of ribbon development, the site is located along the B933, but does not set a precedent for further development. It is hemmed in by Milton Farm on the west side, the golf course to the south, and the sports pitch allocation to the north. The design of the development will have to lend to the sense of place and aesthetic appeal in Kemnay by adhering to Policy 8 Layout, siting and design of new development. It could be

Page 15 argued that it will enhance the sense of community by providing land for sports pitch development which would otherwise be unavailable. The site is not prone to flooding: it avoids the flood risk area.

The site was allocated in order to allow the development of sports pitches on the adjacent land. Allocations have been made for 20 units with consideration given to its viability. Other sites in Kemnay are required to contribute towards sports pitch provision on the site as well. The effective contribution is the handing over of an otherwise undevelopable flood plain site for recreation use with a proportional contribution to the facility. Re-phasing the allocation in order to provide the sports pitch is not favoured given the immediate constraints to development.

Site H4

The H4 allocation was altered during the plan making process (for further information on this, see the Main Issues Report ‘Issues and Actions’ paper (May 2010)).The H4 housing allocation is still primarily to enable the development of facilities on the Fetternear Estate. The other uses which the housing development will enable, rather than being identified at the development plan stage; require to be identified as and when the full scope of enabling development is justified.

The allocation of H4 is specifically made (subject to masterplan and a business case) in order to give a firm indication of where the housing component should be located, and to avoid an undesirable pattern of growth along the western banks of the River Don and other parts of the estate. However, the application(s) will still be subject to the full development management process and the requirement for a business case and masterplan.

The developer is intending to provide a new bridge across the river, which will significantly increase the connectivity to the settlement. The ‘areas of landscape significance’ no longer apply under the new Policy 12 Landscape conservation (see issue 20). The policy and supplementary guidance does recognise that a particularly high standard of design will be required in the areas which have historically been identified as ‘areas of landscape significance’. The ancient woodland on the site will be protected through Policy 12 Landscape conservation. Policy 8 Layout siting and design of new development will be used to ensure that the design of development proposals respect the landscape and setting. Around half of the site is prime agricultural land, but paragraph 97 of Scottish Planning Policy allows allocation where it is an essential component of the settlement strategy, or is associated with rural business. The Enabling Development policy and supplementary guidance will be altered to make it clear that it is to be used to judge planning applications which are related to enabling development land allocations, such as site H4 (see Issue 18 Enabling Development). There are no loopholes which will allow additional development.

The H4 allocation contributes to the Aberdeen Housing Market Area allocation as it is realistically a Kemnay settlement allocation which will affect Kemnay and has been assessed and consulted upon within that context.

The allocation of 77 units is the level which has been set out as justified to deliver the restoration of an historic building and the provision of community facilities (including a bridge and a swimming pool) within an existing business case drawn up by the developer. However, a new updated business case and masterplan will be required in order to consider an application and reflect prevalent market conditions. The allocation of the site should not simply be viewed under Scottish Planning Policy

Page 16 paragraphs 94-96, which actually does not advise on the scale of development to enable rural diversification. As well the provision of community facilities, the allocation will provide listed building restoration, which is in line with Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 114. In terms of the other elements of Scottish Planning Policy referred in relation to Trees and Woodlands and Transport, there is no reason to believe that the allocation contradicts these. In terms of the policies listed which the respondent considers a future application could not comply with, any application will have to conform to all relevant policies of this plan. However, it should be noted that enabling developments, by their nature may involve a decision being made to consider if the public benefits of a proposal outweigh the ordinary policy presumptions against development.

Site R1

The land is allocated at the request of the landowner and Kemnay Boys Football Club for the provision of sports pitches. No landraising, buildings or structures which will reduce the flood storage capacity of the flood plain will be permitted and a detailed flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any future development proposals.

Alternative Sites

Site P1

Site P1 is to protect the sports pitches and the amenity area. It is correct that proposals for alternative community uses have been suggested for this site as part of the Fetternear proposal. However, a ‘reserved’ allocation would have been inappropriate considering there are no firm plans for such a development on the site from any developer, and the Council has stated that it cannot commit to the facility.

Main Issues Report Site G112

It is stated that this is a suitable site for 50 Houses and a swimming pool. The part of the site for the swimming pool is a functioning employment site and part of Bus 1. Kemnay has very few employment sites, and the fact that Kemnay is around 4 miles from the Inverurie and Kintore employment allocations does not mean that the current business use should be replaced by other uses.

The provision of this land as a potential swimming pool site is only on the condition of allocating another 50 units on the site and thus for Kemnay. The H4 allocation has already been factored into the growth strategy in Kemnay as it is very clear that it is likely to come forward over the lifetime of the development plan. Ignoring this information and allocating an additional 50 units in the village would bring the realistic allocations in Kemnay to 272. This would put pressure on the primary schools. This would be at the cost of a functioning employment site and all in order to provide a site for swimming pool which, according to the Fetternear Estate (who would fund the pool), could actually be provided elsewhere. The strategy of protecting site P1 from infill development and allocating site Bus 1 as employment site is reasonable.

Land adjoining H2

The rationale for allocating land at H3 has been set out previously in this paper. There is no need for a replacement allocation, by extending site H2.

Recreation Facilities

Page 17

It is recognised that indoor recreation facilities in Kemnay are not ideal. The development of the Fetternear estate aims to improve facility provision. However, the funding for community facilities in general is notoriously difficult to achieve. Further information on the delivery of community facilities from development is provided in Issue 17 Developer contributions.

Conclusion The allocations in Kemnay reflect its status as a popular and growing village. Development is promoted for local needs, principally diversification of the Fetternear Estate, and to meet affordable housing needs. They are appropriate and sufficient and none of the proposed changes are accepted.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: It is suggested that a footnote should be added to Table 5 within the Proposed Plan to reinforce that any development on Kemnay site H4 be enabling development clearly justified by the provision of a strong business case.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 18 Issue 77 Cluny & Sauchen Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p5) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

465, 467 William Lippe Architects Ltd (on behalf of) Ed Dinnie 536, 537, 704 Mr Jeffrey Adam 861, 862, 863 Mrs Wendy Watson 865, 1145 Ms Lilian Miles 911, 916 Stewart Milne Homes 1389, 1403 Wallace Planning Ltd (on behalf of) Barratt East Scotland and Dunecht Estates 1799, 1800, 1802, 1803, 1805, 1806 Paull & Williamsons LLP (on behalf of) Springhill Nurseries (Wholesale) Ltd 1850 Ryden LLP (on behalf of) Trustees of the castle Fraser Estate Settlement 1982 1945 Mr Ian George 1979 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 2247, 2620 Mr Andrew McNair 2248 Mrs Aileen McNair Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in around Sauchen and which the issue relates: Cluny

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

Site H1 Cluny & Sauchen

911, 916: Welcomes the allocation of 50 houses which helps sustain local facilities. Sauchen has the benefit of mains drainage, the treatment works have been extended and there is spare capacity for future development. It is the most appropriate site for development due to its central location, being immediately adjacent to the proposed shop, the existing recycling centre and the local bus stops. There are no technical constraints that would prevent the site’s development. A retail unit and village green are proposed to be included as previously committed through a section 75 agreement.

465, 467: Allocating 50 units within Sauchen represents over-development, and is disproportionate to the size of the settlement and community facilities available. The number allocated is questioned, as well as the capacity of Cluny Primary School, as development of the site may be required to provide contributions towards a classroom extension. The proposed site brings nothing that will benefit the community and the Environmental Report 2010 shows negative impact for all sites related to Sauchen.

536, 537, 704, 861, 862, 863, 865, 1145, 2248: Objects to site H1 and believes that the site adjacent to the primary school at Cluny would be more appropriate.

1389, 1403: Sauchen is a highly unsustainable location when compared with Westhill. It has no Secondary School, the development may exceed primary school capacity, and local water mains reinforcement may be necessary. Given the absence of employment and other facilities, any development in Sauchen is reliant on unsustainable travelling to Westhill and Aberdeen. This will result in a high reliance on the private car, meaning there is no potential to “reduce the need to travel”. This will place further pressure on the A944 due to its close proximity.

1806, 1850: Support the allocation of 50 houses to Sauchen and Cluny, but disagree with the allocation being given to site H1. Development of this site is illogical as children would have to

Page 19 travel to school, when land is available for development immediately adjoining the school. This will increase traffic problems and encourage the greater use of private vehicles for this journey.

1806, 1850: Development of H1 would not enable the development of the footpath cycleway between Cluny and Sauchen that has been identified, as the landowners of site H1 do not control any of the land required to construct it unless the Council compulsorily acquire the land.

1806, 1850: The site would compound the issue of there being no facilities or services there; meaning residents are obliged to commute to access employment, educational and retail opportunities, as well as community facilities. It does not have the local community’s support since no employment uses are being proposed on site, or near the primary school in Cluny.

1850: The development of H1 could potentially detract from the setting of the village. The Cluny Burn may also be subject to localised flooding, which could have impact on parts of the site.

1979: More than 30% of the site is at medium to high risk of flooding 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 EH1 Cluny & Sauchen

1945: Object to site EH1. It should be used for agricultural purposes or for a school car park rather than housing. The allocation is in conflict with the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan 2009 in relation to sustainable development and climate change. There are no facilities or employment opportunities near the site apart from the primary school. Public transport is also grossly inadequate. The site constitutes ribbon development in the countryside and conflicts with the proposal to protect site P1 to provide a safer route to school, due to it being on this site. Access to the site directly across from the school will considerably increase traffic dangers to school children and local residents. The allocation of this site is out of character with the settlement and will destroy in perpetuity the organic nature of the hamlet.

Alternative Site Cluny & Sauchen

Site G121

536, 537, 704, 861, 862, 863, 865, 1145, 1799, 1800, 1802, 1803, 1805, 1806, 1850: The site adjacent to the primary school at Cluny (G121) should be allocated for 50 houses as it is in close proximity to the school (within 300m), meaning it is more sustainable as children are able to walk to school. It means there will be safer access for pupils being picked up/dropped off and provide additional parking to the school, which will stop the current situation where vehicles are utilising an already narrow ‘B’ road when the school is being used for a meeting etc.

1799, 1800, 1802, 1803, 1805, 1806, 1850: Development of site G121 would provide community benefits in terms of: improved access and parking for the school, employment land, a ‘village green’, a safe footpath from Sauchen to the school, traffic calming measures around the school and first time sewage treatment for the area.

1850: The proposed development at this site (G121) has the potential to significantly enhance the village through a sensitively designed traditional form of development which respects the local vernacular and architectural features of the area. A public meeting was also held in regard to this proposal and the majority attending were supportive of it.

2247, 2248, 2620: The settlement of Cluny should develop around the school instead of increasing the residential capacity of H1 at Sauchen.

911, 916: Land should be reserved to the immediate south of H1 for residential use for the period beyond 2023 in order to meet structure plan requirements.

Page 20 Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Site H1 Cluny & Sauchen

465, 467: Reduce the allocation of H1 to 30 units and relocate it to the south of Sauchen where an opportunity is afforded to create a village entrance, community space, community parkland and walk ways. Redirect the 20 units to a more sustainable location such as Oldmeldrum or Alford.

911, 916: Amend the boundary of H1 to take account of a retail unit, village green and recycling facility previously committed through a Section 75 Agreement.

1979: Delete site H1 unless the following wording is included in the supplementary guidance text for Cluny and Sauchen “A significant portion of the 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 planning application and an appropriate buffer strip will be required adjacent to the Cluny Burn. Any morphological improvements made to the Cluny Burn, currently at moderate status due to morphological pressures and diffuse pollution, will be welcomed.”

1389, 1403: Site H1 should be deleted and the 50 houses relocated to the Kirkton of Skene, Westhill proposal.

536, 537, 704, 861, 862, 863, 865, 1145, 1799, 1800, 1802, 1803, 1805, 1806, 1850, 2247, 2248, 2620: Site H1 should be deleted and relocated to the site adjacent to Cluny Primary School (Site G121 in the Main Issues Report) for 50 houses.

Site EH1 Cluny & Sauchen

1945: Remove site EH1 from the Plan.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview

The allocation made in Sauchen is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan by allowing local growth and diversification in the Aberdeen housing market area. Sauchen is identified for an allocation of 50 units to specifically support Cluny Primary School which is located close by. The Plan requires the allocation to provide a new footpath link between the school and the village.

Most of the issues raised in relation this settlement were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in the ‘Issues and Actions’ paper (May 2010).

Site H1

This was identified as a ‘possible’ site in the Plan’s Main Issues Report, meaning it was a developable option. The Planning service’s recommended site was located north of the settlement at Cluny, adjacent to the school. At the Garioch area committee in March 2010, the Council took a view which placed greater weight on the perceived community benefit of development adjacent the larger settlement of Sauchen, but with provision of a new footpath link between the school and the village.

The benefits of the site’s location are supported by the capacity for utilising spare capacity in the waste water treatment works in the village, and the possibility of integrating and supporting the development of the existing facilities, and the committed retail unit and village green. The proposals for 50 houses on site H1 is not over-development. The School is forecast to be at 70% of capacity by 2016 and even 50 houses would not result in exceeding its capacity. The site itself is significantly larger than would normally be required for this scale of allocation to address issues associated with flooding.

Page 21 The allocation of the site also supports Cluny school, where there is existing capacity. The education service has highlighted that contributions may be required to a school extension, but this is only a precautionary statement: there is sufficient capacity for the allocation. The Strategic Environmental Assessment showed a neutral effect for the site.

Scottish Water have not indicated that water main reinforcement will be required. The benefits of Westhill rather than Sauchen for an allocation are discussed under Issue 66 “Local Growth and Diversification”.

There is a requirement for development to provide a footpath from Sauchen to Cluny Primary School (800 metres). This will provide an allocation closer to the heart of Sauchen, where the bulk of pupils live, but deliver the missing link which is required to provide a safe and sustainable transport method to the school. It is accepted that the provision of the route is complicated by land ownership issues and this will have to be addressed at the planning application stage.

It is accepted that the development does not provide employment facilities. A small retail facility is supported by the developer. Educational opportunities are provided by the fact that the allocation supports the school roll of Cluny Primary. It cannot be assumed that the community does not support the site as no representation has been received on the allocation from the community council and there are a very limited number of responses against the allocation.

The development would be subject to the Plan’s Layout, Siting and Design policy. Sauchen is a settlement dominated by post 1970s housing, and the physical attributes of the land allocated are not such that development is likely to undermine the setting of the village. The Cluny burn is subject to flooding and this has been accounted for in the area of the allocation. The developable area is sufficient for the housing allocation. A flood risk assessment will be required prior to the development of the site. The area at risk from flooding will form part of the open space requirement.

A boundary alteration to the effect suggested by respondents 911 and 916 has been implemented in the settlement statement for the village.

Site EH1 The site is already allocated in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan and is subject to a planning application. The primary school is a facility which is worthy of support and the continued allocation of the site would support local growth and diversification in line with the Structure Plan paragraph 3.13. To remove the allocation would be inappropriate when it is part of a formally adopted development plan which has attracted developer interest and has not been subject to any new information which warrants its removal. The site does not constitute ribbon development in the countryside. It supports, rather than conflicts, with the provision of a safer route to school.

Alternative Sites Main Issues Report Site G121

This site was the Planning Service’s favoured site at a previous stage of the plan process. However, the Council took a view which placed greater weight on perceived community benefit which would derive from the alternative site H1. Both sites have their merits. In terms of the sustainability of locating the allocation on the site adjacent the school, this was a favourable aspect of the site. However, the village’s facilities such as the play park and the bulk of the population are located in Sauchen and there would still be a large degree of travel in the direction from Cluny to Sauchen if the site had been allocated.

The benefits of locating the site close to the school have been discussed. A village green can be incorporated into either site and is not a particular attribute of G121. The traffic calming measures around the school would have to be provided if a need for these exists. They would not be expected to be delivered as a developer contribution. No such need has been identified by the Council. The developer of site H1 has stated that sewage treatment works

Page 22 can be provided on site H1.

The design possibilities of site H1 are just as strong as site G121 and there are no site attributes which favour one over the other. Both will be subject to the Plan’s Layout Siting and Design policy. Public preference for one site over the other has not been conveyed through the consultation process.

There is no requirement to allocate land in Sauchen or Cluny for the period beyond 2023.

Conclusion None of the modifications are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Sauchen and Cluny are already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No further changes commened.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 23 Issue 78 Echt Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p11) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

65 Ms Helen May 1868, 1869 Ryden LLP (on behalf of) Cabardunn Development Company Ltd & Dunecht Estates

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

Site H1 Echt 65: Houses should not be built on this site until the flooding issues have been resolved in the area and until the foul water system is able to cope.

1868, 1869: Welcomes the additional allocation to the existing housing site. Objection is taken though to only 25 additional units being allocated to the site. Objection to the two sites (existing site and additional site) being amalgamated into one site in terms of the boundaries and not being defined as two distinct sites.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

65: The removal of site H1.

1868, 1869: The allocation of site H1 should be increased from 50 houses to 55. The carried forward existing site should be identified as EH1 for 30 houses in accordance with the Council’s willingness to grant Planning permission. The additional housing site should be enlarged with amended site boundaries to reflect Development Bid G51 submitted for the site and to accommodate around 25 houses.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview

The allocation made in Echt is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan by allowing local growth and diversification in the Aberdeen housing market area. A site for 50 dwellings incorporating the existing allocated site in Echt in proposed. This will support local services and provide for a masterplanned approach to the village’s development over the course of the plan.

Most 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 the ‘Issues and Actions’ paper (‘Issues and Actions’, Vol 5, Garioch, page 27, (May 2010),

Site H1 The settlement statement for the village acknowledges that the Echt Waste Water Treatment Works will require an upgrade. Development at the site will have to contribute to this. The houses will not be developed until suitable infrastructure is provided to the satisfaction of the relevant agencies. Scottish Water has stated that they will initiate a growth project at the Echt waste water treatment works once development meets their 5 criteria.

The site is adjacent to a watercourse which is at risk of flooding according to the Scottish

Page 24 Environmental Protection Agency. The site itself is not at risk, but a flood risk assessment will be required and mitigation measures are likely to include a buffer strip adjacent to the watercourse. This is identified in the settlement statement for the community and will be addressed at the time of the application.

The allocation of a total of 50 units is appropriate. It would be inappropriate to consider EH1 as a stand alone development due to the need for comprehensive planning of the two sites. The increase of the EH1 site to 30 units has not been approved and it should not be pre- empted through an additional allocation within this Plan. Site H1 is intended to produce a 50 unit allocation which incorporates both the existing site and the new allocation. The two sites require a joint masterplan, but there is nothing stopping the existing allocated site coming forward in the meantime. Given the changed context of this site, that application would have to consider how the site is to be incorporated with the new allocation anyway and it would be inappropriate to regard it as a stand alone development in this instance.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Echt 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 25 Issue 79 Dunecht Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p7) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

847, 850 Knight Frank LLP (on behalf of) Tor Ecosse Ltd 1871, 1872 Ryden LLP (on behalf of) Cabardunn Development Company Ltd & Dunecht Estates

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

Site H1 847, 850: A large portion of the site lies at risk of flooding. The site is physically incapable of accommodating the proposed allocation. Taking this site into account with the existing allocation at EH1, it would approximately double the size of the village which is considered excessive due to the lack services in the settlement. The site is constrained by the National Transmission Pipeline safeguard zone. The allocation of the site is not in keeping with the traditional linear street pattern of the settlement.

1871, 1872: Welcomes the allocation of 50 houses at the site. It will help sustain the local primary school and other local services, such as increase the support of public transport services which could discourage the use of the private car for trips into Aberdeen City. The site provides a safe footpath link to the primary school avoiding the need for any major road crossing. The topography and existing landscape features of the site help contain the proposed development, meaning visual impacts arising from it will be minimal.

Site EH1 847, 850: Object to the carrying forward of site EH1 from the current Aberdeenshire Local Plan. The draft Housing Land Audit 2010 shows that site EH1 has been constrained (due to ownership) for a number of years. There is no value in carrying forward allocations from the previous local plan, if there is little or no prospect of the site actually being developed. The site should be deleted and not carried forward unless there is a statement of this site's deliverability over the lifetime of the Local Development Plan.

1871, 1872: The carrying forward of site EH1 from the current Aberdeenshire Local Plan is welcomed. Site EH1 is a natural extension to the village. The strategic landscaping provided by EH1 will form a defensible boundary to further development in the west of the village. It will benefit the village through a substantial area of open space which can be used by the primary school as a playground. It will also provide connectivity to the core path network proposed by Aberdeenshire Council.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Site H1 847, 850: Consideration should be given to the removal of H1 or at least a substantial reduction in the number of units to around 20 over the lifetime of the Plan, with this being reflected through the boundaries of the site being reduced to reflect the actual area of the site that is likely to be developable. The remaining units should be redistributed to Lyne of Skene.

Site EH1 847, 850: Remove site EH1 from the Plan.

Page 26 Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview

The allocations made in Dunecht are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan by allowing local growth and diversification in the Aberdeen housing market area. A site for 50 units is proposed. This will support local services and provide for a masterplanned approach to the village’s development over the course of the Plan.

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 the ‘Issues and Actions’ paper (‘Issues and Actions’, Vol 5, Garioch, page 17, (May 2010),

Site H1 The support for the site and the positive aspects of its allocation are noted.

No part of the site is at risk of flooding according to records held by the Council and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. However, there is an adjacent burn which may be at risk of flooding. A flood risk assessment will be required as part of an application and this is likely to recommend a buffer strip to minimise the risk. It is accepted that the allocation, in addition to the existing site, is of a large scale in the context of the present size of the village. However, there are local services including a village shop to support, and the village is located on the A944 with a regular bus service between Aberdeen and Alford. Dunecht can support and would benefit from the scale of the allocation. The outer and medium zone consultation zones of a pipeline cross the north eastern section of the site. These areas could be developed for housing - in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive - or incorporated into the open space requirement of the site. The site -still contains enough land for the 50 unit allocation. The allocation does not maintain a traditional linear pattern of development in Dunecht, but the site’s topography and location will allow for a development which will focus on the core of the village and allow easy pedestrian access to the school. The site’s location means that there will be no need for pedestrians to cross the A944 and it avoids the pipeline and flooding constraints which exist elsewhere in the village. A masterplan will be required for the site; this will have to detail how development will maintain the character of Dunecht’s built heritage.

The site’s allocation should not be reduced to 20 units over the course of the plan given the objectives of the allocation, existing infrastructure capacity and the deliverability of the site. There is no need to alter the boundaries to reflect the developable area as this limits the scope for masterplanning and the creation of a development in keeping with the village. This may mean, for instance, that a significant proportion of the north east of the site is allocated as open space or low activity uses such as parking and gardens, but there is no reason to exclude it from the site at this stage. For the summary of responses on reallocating units to Lyne of Skene, please see “Issue 82 Other Garioch Housing AHMA.”

Site EH1 The support for site and the positive aspects of its allocation are noted.

The site is not shown as ownership constrained in the Housing Land Audit 2010 and the owner has stated that it will be developed.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Echt are considered appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority:

Page 27 No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 28 Issue 80 Westhill Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p44) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

478 Westhill & Elrick Community Council 550 Ryden LLP on behalf of Mr & Mrs Michael 589 Mr & Mrs W Leslie 909, 914 Stewart Milne Homes 922 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Bett Homes Ltd 955, 1000, 1066 1269 Barton Willmore on behalf of Stewart Milne Homes

1387, 1388, 1393, 1394 Wallace Planning Ltd on behalf of Barratt East and 1397, 1403, 1406 1407 Dunecht Estates

1430, 1451, 1455 Bancon Developments 1839, 1840, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of CALA Management Ltd 1854 Ryden LLP on behalf of Westhill Developments (Arnhall) Ltd

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

General 1430, 1451: Object to sites H1 & H2 based on the lack of compliance with the aim to utilise existing infrastructure. Further development in the west of the town will put pressure on either Crombie or Elrick primary schools, both of which are at capacity, whilst Westhill Primary School in the east of the settlement is under capacity, with a falling roll. There are also concerns regarding traffic congestion in the west of the town, while development in the east of the town would cause significantly less impact.

1430, 1451, 1455: Object to development in the west of the town due to the risk of coalescence with Kirkton of Skene. This was also stated in the recent Capacity Study undertaken for Westhill in 2008, which included community consultation on the subject. One respondent also states that the Garioch Area Committee asked for area 10 in the Capacity Study to be amended to a ‘protected area’, to ensure coalescence between Westhill and Kirkton of Skene did not occur. Now area 10 has become site H1. Bancon consider that the decision of the Garioch Area Committee to support site H1 is contradictory to previous committee decisions. This is in direct conflict to Scottish Planning policy, which seeks to ensure clarity in the planning system (1455).

1000: Westhill’s allocation has been consulted upon throughout the plan process as a 200 unit allocation. It was reduced from 200 units in phase 1 at the time of the Council’s Infrastructure and Services Committee 29 April 2010 to 150 units in phases 1 and 2 at the final Infrastructure Services Committee 17 June 2010. It has been verbally stated that the reduction was likely due to a need to balance housing numbers in line with structure plan requirements. However, it is not possible to confirm that the Committee Members were fully aware of this reduction.

Site H1 1000, 1269: Support the allocation for residential development on site H1, but consider the site can accommodate up to 190 units instead of the 140 units allocated. By not allocating as many units as the site can hold it reduces the level of affordable housing that can reasonably be achieved on the site. Sufficient developer contributions would be made that could

Page 29 satisfactorily address any issues in relation to educational capacity in Westhill. The transport appraisal undertaken for the site demonstrates that site H1 is accessible from a range of sustainable forms of transport, including walking, cycling and public transport with strong links to existing facilities and employment. The local road network has the capacity to accommodate new development of the scale proposed and would not result in unacceptable traffic impacts. Some of the allocation from Kemnay should be redistributed to Westhill due to being more deliverable than Kemnay, which would help enable the maintenance of an effective housing land supply as required by Scottish Planning Policy and the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan. Site H1 is already under control of the client Stewart Milne Homes, is effective and free of constraints, therefore representing a logical expansion to Westhill (See Issue 75 Kemnay).

922: Bett Homes Ltd has concerns regarding the deliverability of site H1. This is due to the promoter initially proposing around 500 houses and a level of affordable housing at 25% or less. However, the Proposed Plan only allocated a small proportion of the site for up to 140 houses. With this reduced size and increased requirement of 40% affordable housing in Westhill it could have an adverse impact on the feasibility of the scheme, which may result in the much needed affordable housing units not being delivered.

1841: Site H1 is constrained due to relying on the completion of the current development adjoining it, site fh3 in the current Aberdeenshire Local Plan. This is a risky strategy as the planning authority is relying on one developer at one or two locations to deliver all the new housing in Westhill. This could add to the shortfall of effective housing land in the Proposed Plan instead of helping reduce it.

Site H2 589: Support site H2. The area is surrounded with housing on 3 sides and the respondents feel that even low cost housing would benefit and tidy up this area.

478: Site H2 should remain undeveloped because of the encroachment on neighbouring communities. If there is need for a larger number of smaller properties, the respondents believe they could be incorporated into site H1.

Site E1 478: Object to site E1. It should not be developed. The respondents feel that the attractive entrance to Westhill from the east will be visually impacted, if there is development there.

1854: Welcome the identification of site E1 in the Proposed Local Development Plan.

Alternative Sites

Main Issues Report Site G50 550: Objection is made to the failure of the Proposed Plan to allocate land for employment use at Damhead Farm, Westhill, identified as site G50 in the Main Issues Report. A large allocation of employment land in Westhill is required to contribute to population targets set by the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan. The site is conveniently located to contribute to strategic growth in a sustainable manner due to having a substantial workforce nearby in Westhill and Aberdeen City. This makes it in accordance with Policy 3 of the Proposed Plan as it helps reduce commuting distances. With 96.5 hectares of employment land being allocated in Garioch, and the majority not being allocated in Westhill, it may result in a stagnation of development and infrastructure services in Westhill. If the site were allocated it would be in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy and the objectives of the Proposed Plan. The allocation of this site would support infrastructure improvements to the south of Westhill, in the form of improving sustainable transport links through developer contributions.

Site G149 909, 914: Object to the failure to include Cadgerford Farm, Westhill, for Mixed Use Development. Westhill should be recognised as a strategic location due to its proximity to Aberdeen on a major public transport corridor and its position in relation to the proposed Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. The allocation of housing over and above that at site H1 would reduce the number of people commuting to work in Westhill from Aberdeen due to

Page 30 providing homes which are in closer proximity to their work. This would also help provide improvements to public transport infrastructure, as more housing would increase bus services. It would also provide improvements to local services, shopping and open spaces in the settlement. The Westhill Capacity Study also favoured the release of development to the south of Westhill in support of the provision of a new road system considered as part of the Proposed Local Development Plan.

Site G109 922: Object to the failure to allocate site G109 from the Main Issues Report in the Proposed Plan. The site is a logical extension to the adjacent Broadshade housing development which is allocated in the current Local Plan. It can round off the settlement and provide a long term landscape buffer to prevent coalescence with neighbouring Kirkton of Skene. A detailed landscape appraisal has been undertaken to show how a designed woodland edge can integrate the site with the Broadshade development and prevent coalescence with Kirkton of Skene to the west. Bett Homes are committed to providing 40% affordable housing at this site. The housing can be provided on the existing road network, as well as providing pedestrian and cycle links from the site to local facilities in Westhill.

Site G132 1000, 1269, 955, 1066: Stewart Milne Homes also controls land lying to the north and west of Broadshade (Broadshade pahse 2 and Strawberry Fields) Both sites were previously excluded from being allocated due to them being constrained by the presence of a major gas pipeline. This pipeline has now been re-routed and upgraded, reducing the stand-off to 6m, meaning it no longer poses a constraint to development. The site could satisfactorily accommodate new development without giving rise to any significant adverse landscape impact by carefully controlling proposed densities and open space. The development of the Strawberry Fields site would bridge the gap between the existing and proposed development to the south and Old Skene Road to the north, representing a logical extension to the settlement. The sites are constraint free with the exception of a ridge line on the very north west corner of Broadshade Phase 2 and the power line at Strawberry Fields. The sites are both well served by public transport, local facilities and employment opportunities, in line with the aims and policy requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and the approved Structure Plan. There is adequate capacity at the Invercannie water treatment works and sewage treatment works to accommodate large scale residential development, far beyond the capacity of the proposed sites in conjunction with site H1. The allocations from Kemnay should be moved to this site (955, 1066).

Site G62 1387,1388, 1393,1394, 1397, 1403, 1406,1407: Object to the failure to allocate land (Main Issues Report site G62) for 250 units, community facilities and new village centre. A new site ‘H2’ (Main Issues Report site G62) at Kirkton of Skene should be allocated for 250 units, community facilities and new village centre. The site is supported by a transport assessment (Colin Buchanan), the Westhill Capacity Study (2008), an indicative masterplan (HFM), an infrastructure statement (Cameron and Ross), a landscape assessment (EDAW), an ecological survey, a report on community engagement (HFM) and discussions with Council services on education and planning gain (all supporting documents attached).

The site is in a sustainable location, adjacent Westhill with scope for increased connectivity. Site would reduce the reliance on a 25% windfall contribution in the local growth and diversification areas and assist in relieving the shortfall in the housing land supply by providing towards a range of smaller sites. The site is deliverable and will contribute 50 units per year to the housing land supply and is a first phase site which is not reliant on the delivery of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. Development would reinforce the settlement function of Westhill as well as an employment centre. Development is of a size which can be accommodated without major new infrastructure requirements. Development would support Kirkton of Skene’s community facilities and provide and improved village centre. The site was incorrectly categorised as technically unsuitable for development in the Council's Main Issues Report, which led to it being unfairly excluded from proving exercises and appropriate assessments since 2008. The Council has admitted that this was incorrect

Page 31 (related correspondence attached to submission), but this has unduly hindered the site's analysis in the Local Development Plan process (1397). Previous local plan enquiries have confirmed the suitability of the site for development. Westhill Capacity Study (2008) identified it as the most suitable housing site. The transportation assessment considers additional factors including a proposed A944 to B979 link road: the study shows these will have beneficial impact on traffic flows. Infrastructure study shows the site is deliverable. Landscape study shows the site will permanently avoid coalescence. There are no archaeological or ecological constraints. Community is supportive of the development. Pupils can be accommodated in Westhill Primary, and a new site for new primary will be provided. Development will provide affordable housing, but at 25%. (1387)

Site G118 1455: There is strong support for development in the east of Westhill in the Capacity Study, especially site G118 as identified in the Main Issues Report. Development in the east of the town will help re-balance the school roles in the settlement, with Elrick and Crombie Primary Schools in the west now close to or exceeding capacity, while Westhill Primary School in the east has available capacity. Small scale development in the east of the town will have minimal traffic impacts compared to development in the south and west of the town. Local road improvements will also be put in place with the development. Allocating land at this site would be in line with the Spatial Strategy of the Proposed Local Development Plan due to development being directed to mainly provide numbers to primary schools where their pupil numbers are dropping within the Local Growth and Diversification Areas. This limited expansion to the east of the town is sustainable and will bring benefits to the town such as road and drainage improvements, improved pedestrian access, playing fields, informal recreation areas and the required affordable housing contribution of the settlement.

Site G61 1839, 1840, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846: The allocation of Souterhill Farm, identified as site G61 in the Main Issues Report, in the first phase of the plan, would help supplement the effective housing land supply in a sustainable way and deliver a community park and affordable housing in a pressured area. One respondent states that up to 50% affordable housing can be provided (1843).

1840: Site G61 would support the planning objectives for Westhill. It will assist in meeting the established need for a choice and range of housing in the settlement. It can deliver effective housing at a scale appropriate to the settlement that will not adversely impact the existing infrastructure. The site can also make use of an existing development at Blacklaws Brae, which allows for an access connection and can make full use of the bus turning circle that was provided as part of the earlier development.

1841: There are no technical issues with site G61, as it was dealt with through a previous planning application. It was refused at the time on the principle of development in the countryside on land outwith Westhill’s settlement boundary. Although site G61 is zoned to Elrick Primary School which is at capacity, it could easily be included within the Westhill Primary School catchment area. Site G61 is also approximately 300m closer to Westhill Primary School, meaning it provides a suitable alternative. This site is immediately deliverable creating a high quality amenity area at the top of Souter Hill, above the golf course.

Site G39 1854: Object to the failure to allocate land for employment use to the south of the B9119. It is part of site G39 in the Main Issues Report, which is split by the aforementioned B9119 road. The current scale of employment land proposed for Westhill is insufficient to sustain and improve infrastructure requirements. A larger allocation is required to maintain Westhill as a sustainable vibrant community. The site would be a logical expansion of the existing Business and Industrial Park. It is conveniently located to contribute to strategic growth in the area in a sustainable manner. It would be in accordance with Policy 3 of the proposed Plan due to being close to the workforce in both Westhill and Aberdeen City reducing commuting distances. The southern part of the site has been excluded from the Proposed Plan due to perceived concerns over the potential infrastructure constraints which would be caused by further development in the area. But after a recent traffic study it was demonstrated that the

Page 32 constraints are significantly less than initially perceived. On this basis further consideration requires to be given to the scale of development proposed for Westhill. Developer contributions would provide the required infrastructure improvements to the south of Westhill, which would help ensure sustainable growth for the area. The presence of the pipeline in the area is not a significant constraint on development and the part of site G39 through which it runs should not be excluded from the Proposed Plan. Rather, that is for detailed consideration at the time of a planning application, when the uses proposed can be assessed against the ‘Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations’ guidance published by the Health and Safety Executive.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Site H1 1000, 1269: The capacity of site H1 should be increased to 190 units as was initially approved by the Special Garioch Area Committee and the Infrastructure Services Committee.

922: Increase the physical extent of site H1 to incorporate the adjacent site G109, where there is a commitment from the promoter to bring forward new housing that can deliver up to 40% affordable housing.

1841: Remove site H1 and replace with site G61 from the Main Issues Report.

Site H2 478: Re-allocate 10 houses from site H2 and put all 150 houses allocated for Westhill in site H1.

Site E1 478: Remove site E1 from the Proposed Local Development Plan, and replace with the land lying on the south side of Tarland Road, across from the existing commercial developments.

Alternative Sites

550: Allocate employment land at Damhead Farm, Westhill, identified as site G60 in the Main Issues Report, extending to approximately 17.0 hectares.

909, 914: Allocate Cadgerford Farm, Westhill as a mixed use development (M1) in either 2017-23, or post 2023 Structure Plan period.

922: Allocate land at Cairnfield, Westhill identified as site G109 in the Main Issues Report for up to 90 houses.

1000, 1269: Allocate land at Broadshade Phase 2 and Strawberry Fields, Westhill in conjunction with site H1 Westhill for up to 400 houses.

955, 1066: Remove sites H1-H4 Kemnay and reallocate at Broadshade Phase 2 and Strawberry Fields, Westhill which represent a more sustainable location within the Aberdeen Housing Market Area.

1187: Allocate land to the north of Kirkton of Skene for development in the first phase of the Proposed Plan.

1388, 1406: Allocate land to reflect the existing fh1 allocation from the current Aberdeenshire Local Plan. This site should be identified as H3 Westhill for 20 houses.

1393, 1394: Allocate land at site G62, Kirkton of Skene, Westhill from the Main Issues Report for 250 units over the first phase of the Proposed Plan.

1455: Delete sites H1 and H2 Westhill and allocate site G118, Westhill from the Main Issues Report for the development of 150 houses instead.

1839, 1840, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846: Allocate site G61 Westhill as identified in the

Page 33 Main Issues Report as H3 for 70 houses in the first phase of the Proposed Plan.

1854: Allocate the southern part of site G39 as allocated in the Main Issues Report. This will increase the amount of employment land for Westhill up to 23.0 hectares, which will help it continue to prosper, thereby allowing it to contribute effectively to the regional economy.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview

The allocation made in Westhill is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. It allows local growth and diversification in the Aberdeen housing market area. Westhill is identified for an allocation of 150 units and 4 hectares of employment land. The settlement has grown significantly in recent years and has reached the point where major traffic and educational infrastructure investment would be required in order to deliver larger allocations. The strategy recognises that most major infrastructure constraints can be resolved through funding, but this requires continual and increasing levels of development to provide such funds. Given the role identified for Westhill through the Structure Plan spatial strategy, this Plan allocates Westhill a scale of development which specifically supports the delivery of affordable housing and the continued limited development of Arnhall Business Park.

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 the ‘Issues and Actions’ paper (‘Issues and Actions’, Vol 5, Garioch, page 113, May 2010), Further information on the spatial strategy for Westhill is available in Issue 66 Spatial Strategy-Local Growth and Diversification Areas.

General Development of housing to the west is not ideal in terms of the existing capacity of the schools in the area, but the education authority has stated that this could be resolved through schooling children in an alternative location in Westhill. Development to the east would be more suitable in terms of capacity at Westhill primary school, but would not have a significantly lower impact on traffic congestion.

On the issue of providing clarity in planning system, the local development plan process can take 3 years and within that period there is obviously scope for views to change. This is especially the case in regards to supporting information such as the Westhill Capacity Study 2008, which was produced prior to the commencement of the assessment of developer bids. However, regardless of this, the respondent is incorrect that there has been a lack of clarity on the issue of the avoidance of coalescence between Westhill and Kirkton of Skene; it is an objective which has been highlighted and reported on throughout the plan process.

The “Westhill Capacity Study 2008” has always been identified as a document which sits alongside a wide range of other information, in informing Westhill’s allocations. The area referred to in the study as ‘area 10’ is a very large area which was subject to multiple developer bids. The development of the area in its entirety would have caused coalescence with Kirkton of Skene. The Committee has consistently shown, in a transparent manner, that it is satisfied that the scale and extent of allocations west of Westhill, although falling within area 10, meet the needs of the settlement without producing coalescence.

In terms of the reduction of units in Westhill, the Committee was advised that there was likely to be some adjustment of the figures and phasing in order to meet the Structure Plan allocations. Westhill was selected for such an adjustment due to the constraints facing the settlement.

Site H1 The support for the allocation is welcomed. The 140 unit allocation is an appropriate number of units. The allocation is likely to create the need for schooling of approximately 49 children. The education authority has stated that a solution to capacity constraints at Skene School will be available. This is likely to involve the children of the H1 site being schooled at Westhill

Page 34 Primary which is likely to have capacity for around 130 children.. Traffic modelling has considered up to 250 units and employment land. This results in increased congestion, particularly at known pinch points and this was shown to be almost twice as bad if the allocations were increased to 500 units.

For information on the reallocation of sites from Kemnay to Westhill, refer to Issue 66.

It is acknowledged that a low allocation will lower the opportunity for affordable housing to be provided. There are very few other developer contributions required in Westhill (compared to other settlements) and this is a virtue of the lower scale allocation which will aid the viability of a development with a high affordable housing component in Westhill. In addition, the affordable housing requirement can be made up of a variety of methods. It is not a 40% contribution of public rental housing. This is discussed further under Issue 13 Affordable Housing Policy and Issue 28 Affordable Housing. .

The developer confirmed deliverability earlier in the plan process. There is a high demand for housing in Westhill to serve the needs of Aberdeen City, and the delivery of the allocation within the allocated phases is not expected to be a problem. The adjacent existing allocation is progressing well and has proven to be a popular development.

Site H2 It is agreed that the site offers the opportunity to provide a mix of housing types on what has now become a gap site. Given the context of the location and site characteristics, the 1.3 ha site is only allocated 10 units to reduce encroachment on neighbouring properties.

Site E1 The supporting comments are welcomed. There is a need to support the continued development of Westhill’s successful employment base while accounting for the traffic constraints which exist in the settlement. This allocation balances these. The allocation, set back from the Six Mile fork roundabout, will provide the opportunity for a gateway employment development which provide the opportunity for an attractive entrance to Westhill.

Alternative Sites Main Issues Report site G50 Westhill is not within a Strategic Growth Area and is not expected to deliver a large allocation of employment land. In this context here is no need to consider other allocations in Garioch. The allocation of the site, and thus major employment allocations in Westhill, would not accord with the Local Development Plan’s visions and aims, specifically, ‘’f) To make efficient use of the transport network’’ (page 4). Its allocation would not comply with Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 45) because it is not providing economic development in the most ‘’sustainable location, particularly in terms of accessibility.’’ The plan identified the scope for development through the Westhill Traffic Capacity Study (April 2009) and its update in April 2010; this demonstrates “the efficient use of existing, buildings, land, and infrastructure’’ as required by paragraph 77. It also promotes‘’ the effective use of infrastructure and service capacity’’ in paragraph 80 which the plan also achieves. Paragraph 167 states ‘’ When preparing a development plan, planning authorities should appraise the pattern of land allocation, including previously allocated sites, in relation to transport opportunities and constraints based on the current or programmed capacity of the transport network and sustainable transport objectives.” Again, this is the strategy followed by the plan in its allocations in Westhill.

Main Issues Report Site G149 There is no need to release major allocations in the south of Westhill to support a new road system. Mixed use communities and homes in close proximity to workplaces are supported through the visions and aims of the plan. Westhill, through recent local plan strategies has moved towards such a function and balance; this plan aims to avoid damaging the success achieved so far. The use of the Westhill Capacity Study (2008) is considered above under Part A General. The current bus service and range of facilities and services in the town will be supported by the allocations in Westhill.

Main Issues Report Site G109

Page 35 Site H1, rather than G109, is a logical extension to the Broadshade development. The allocation of G109 would continue the westward spread of Westhill closer to Kirkton of Skene and create coalescence. The site is not required.

Main Issues Report Site G132 Site H1 is a sufficient extension to the current Broadshade development for the purposes of achieving the plan’s strategy for Westhill. The limitations of the pipeline constraint following upgrading and re-routing are recognised. The current site H1 represents a logical and appropriate development pattern and there is no need to increase the allocations on the basis of bridging perceived gaps in the physical pattern of development allocations. There may be available water treatment and sewage capacity, but the development of 400 units in this area could not be accommodated in terms of transport capacity.

Kirkton of Skene Alternative sites have also been proposed at Kirkton of Skene. These are considered under Issue 86 Other Sites Garioch Aberdeen Housing Market Area.

Main Issues Report Site G62 The merits of the site supported through the submission and the supporting documents are noted. Kirkton of Skene is not a settlement which requires development to support services. The local school is over capacity. The provision of a site for a school, rather than a new school, will not resolve the school capacity issue which would be exacerbated by the allocation, but it is accepted that arrangements could be made for schooling outside Kirkton of Skene, however unsustainable that is. The site is not required to help deliver a 5 year effective housing land supply (see Issue 12 Housing Land Supply). The plan does not make provision for fundamental changes in base assumptions such as the delivery of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (See Issue 29 Overall Spatial Strategy). Westhill’s employment centre function does not need to be reinforced and in any case this allocation would do little to aid that. If the allocation is considered in addition to the H1 site, then major new traffic infrastructure would be required. The site has been assessed throughout the Plan process to the same extent as other sites which were not favoured for development. Previous local plan inquiries were carried out under a completely different context. The relevance of the Westhill Capacity Study (2008) is discussed above under General. The site is located on the Capacity Study area identified as ‘area 10’. As discussed under General, development which addresses the issue of coalescence could be considered. The developer’s transport assessment does not address the wider implications of the site’s development, especially when it is considered in addition to the proposed allocations in Westhill. The work carried out on community consultation is commended, but there have been no responses from local people supporting the site or otherwise. This is likely to be because the site was not included in the Proposed Plan and was not subject to the plan’s public consultation. At the Main Issues Report stage there was strong opposition from the Community Council and other respondents (see Garioch Issues and Actions papers pages 113, 116). Allocations are made in Westhill on the basis of the provision of a high level of affordable housing. If the developer does not propose to deliver this then the allocation would be contrary to the key planning objectives for the settlement. The respondent proposes a lower proportional requirement but with a large increase in overall allocations delivering a similar number of affordable units. However, this is not possible due to infrastructure constraints in Westhill.

Main Issues Report Site G118 The attributes of the site, including the benefits of balancing school rolls in the settlement and the delivery of affordable housing, are noted. The development of 150 houses is not considered to be small scale and the implications on the road network would be as severe as for any other 150 unit allocation, given the importance of this issue in Westhill. The site would also be relatively physically detached from the rest of the settlement. There is a pipeline constraint which has not been addressed. Around 80% of the 9.5 hectare site is in a Health and Safety Executive pipeline middle consultation zone. Given that the site is for the development of more than 30 units, this makes for a category 3 development, which according to the Health and Safety Executive advice should be advised against. This plan would not recommend an allocation which contravened this advice. Any allocation would have to be made for 30 units or less.

Page 36 Main Issues Report Site G61 The attributes of the site, including the delivery of affordable housing, are noted. An allocation for 80 units would continue the expansion of Westhill in a relatively inaccessible area due to the topography rather than the distance which separates the site from the town centre. This would set an undesirable precedent for further expansion along the northern ridge above Westhill. For information on the need to supplement the housing land supply see Issue 12 Housing Land Supply.

Main Issues Report Site G39 Additional employment land allocations south of the B9119 would create major congestion at the Six Mile fork roundabout. This would require major investment to resolve. It is accepted that the detail of constraints posed by pipelines in the area will be analysed at the time of a planning application. The area of G39 which adjoins (E1) to the west was ruled out because it was in the inner consultation zone and therefore when a limited amount of employment land allocation is required, it scored less favourably than the areas in the other zones. The area of G39 south of the B9119 does not offer the opportunity for a gateway development which site E1 offers.

Conclusion The limited allocations proposed for Westhill are both appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. No alternative allocations are necessary. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 37 Issue 81 Newmachar Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p42) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

38 Mr Haresh Patel 364, 2297 Linden Partnership 400 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of Mr Ian Douglas 834 Mr Grant Conroy 1197, 1198, 1201, 1202 John Blanksby 1390, 1404 Wallace Planning Ltd on behalf of Barratt East Scotland and Dunecht Estates 1417, 1425, 1430, 1432, 1451, 1453, 1456 Bancon Developments 1810, 1811 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Mr Steven Whyte, Whyte's Coaches, Scotstown Road, Newmachar 1855, 1928 Ryden LLP on behalf of Mr A F Buchan 1902, 1903 Ryden LLP on behalf of Stewart Milne Homes 1975 Michael Gilmour Associates on behalf of John Barclay 2100 Mr & Mrs G Reid on behalf of Kirkton Development 2173 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Kirkwood Homes Ltd 2226 Miss Katie Cunningham 2342 Mr Ian Craik 2352 Prof Roy Bridges 2606 Mr Will Prince 2632 Montrgomery Forgan Associates on behalf of Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd

Land allocations in and around Newmachar

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

Scale of Development (Site M1 and Site H1) 1902, 1903, 1975, 2173: The scale of development is necessary to foster a sustainable community with an adequate range of services.

38, 834: There is insufficient demand for housing in the Newmachar area to justify the scale of allocations on M1 and H1.

834: There is insufficient infrastructure in Newmachar to accommodate the development.

1197, 1198, 1201, 1202: Allocations in Newmachar are excessive (see also Issue 66 Spatial Strategy-Local Growth and Diversification Areas). Newmachar is a settlement with a population of 2347. Recent housing development has suffered from low demand. There is no demand for anything other than small employment allocations. It is a commuter village and there is no evidence to suggest this would change with large employment allocations. The school is near capacity: this is set to tail off but not substantially. The village is not located on a main transport route and the level of public transport available reflects this.

1390, 1404: Objects to the scale of development proposed for Newmachar. There is no evidence to suggest that existing problems will be removed by development of this scale. The village has no track record as an attractive marketable location for new employment and, commuting will increase. There is no available primary school capacity and a new health centre may be required. Facilities are limited, and major improvements would be required to enable it to be a sustainable community.

1

Page 38 1417, 1425, 1430, 1432, 1451, 1453, 1456: Development at Newmachar is unsustainable, short sighted and potentially problematic in terms of both education and transport infrastructure. It is contrary to the Structure Plan and the spatial strategy of the Local Development Plan, by going beyond local needs and creating a requirement for a new primary school and bypass.

2342: Distributor road and all community facilities need to be in place before any development takes place.

2352: Contribution from sites M1 and H1 are required towards strategic transport improvement of A947

2606: No significant commuter housing should be built until commuter road capacity into Aberdeen is provided.

Site M1 General 1197, 1201: Representation has been made questioning why Newmachar should be receiving large scale allocations (see Issue 66). However, if large scale allocations are to take place, M1 should be the preferred site.

1810, 1811, 1855, 1928: Site M1 is the best direction for growth, including a bypass, and would be supported by additional land being identified (see below under Alternative Site).

1902, 1903: Welcome the allocation of site M1. Site M1 has been subject to community consultation. Respondent is ready to work with adjoining landowners, and the community to prepare a development framework and masterplan in order to deliver a cohesive, phased development with the necessary facilities and services.

2100, 2226: Development will have a negative impact on the village and community.

Employment Land 400: The need to balance Newmachar through additional employment allocations in order to create a more sustainable community is appreciated. However, in order to achieve a sustainable settlement, employment allocations should be front loaded in phase 1 with major housing allocations only following in phase 2. 1197, 1201: The southern section of site M1 provides ideal land for employment as it sits well within the landscape. The southern section of site M1 provides ideal land for employment and it is situated to the south of the settlement where heavy traffic would avoid the centre of Newmachar.

1902, 1903, 1975, 2173: Objection to the scale of employment land allocation in Newmachar. It is considered excessive in relation to the size of the settlement and the scale of housing allocation proposed. The Structure Plan requires an ''appropriate'' amount of business land in the Local Growth and Diversification Areas. It is left to the Council to determine, but the employment land allocation has increased considerably since the Main Issues Report without sufficient justification.

Landscape and Environment 1902, 1903: The site is well contained and there are no physical constraints.

1390, 1404: The Environment Report states that site M1 is at ''medium to high risk of flooding.''

2100: Drainage problems will worsen.

2226: Fields east of Hillbrae Way provide valuable green-space used for amenity and should not be developed.

2

Page 39 Accessibility 1197, 1201: The northern section of M1 abuts the Formartine and Buchan Way, providing non motorised commuting and recreation opportunities. There are good pedestrian connections to the existing settlement from M1 which could be reinforced. Developing school provision within M1 would mean that no children would have to cross the A947 unnecessarily.

Community Facilities 1197, 1201: If there is a requirement for a new football pitch, it could be developed on site M1. If a pitch with floodlighting is required, it would be best provided within an employment allocation.

Bypass 2342:Distributor road and all community facilities need to be in place before any development takes place.

1390, 1404: Development of the distributor road is constrained by ownership and funding according to the Action Program (on page 111).

1902, 1903: A Transport Assessment demonstrates that the site can be delivered utilising the existing road network. Nevertheless, the desire of the community to secure a bypass and the requirement for a feasibility study have been recognised by the respondent. The respondent contributed to this study and is supportive of its conclusions. If a bypass is preferable, the respondent will work with the adjoining developers and landowners to deliver it. However, this is predicated upon the allocation of site G128 Mameulah and the deletion of site H1 (see under Alternative Site and Site H1).

1975, 2173: In order to deliver the relief road in the easiest manner and remove ownership constraints, M1 should be extended northwards to include site G128 Mameulah.

2100: Improvements to roads are required due to the level of traffic passing through the village.

Deliverability 1902, 1903: Deliverability has been confirmed in a letter to Aberdeenshire Council.

Site H1 General 2632: Broadly welcome the allocation of site H1, but with changes required. The site's allocation is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 70), and page 18 and 21 of the Structure Plan (2009) in terms of housing land supply and achieving growth targets. The site's allocation is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 80) in terms of the identification of suitable sites for housing development.

1197, 1201: Representation has been made as to why Newmachar should not receive large scale allocations (see Issue 66). However, if development is to take place site H1 should be deleted and M1 decreased.

1810, 1811: Object to site H1.

834: Development of the site will have a negative impact on neighbouring properties during construction and once built.

Deliverability 364, 2297: There are no technical constraints to the site’s development. 364, 2297: The site is capable of delivering 165 units rather than 125. It is deliverable in the short term and should be released for 165 units in the first phase. It is not subject to major infrastructure requirements such as the eastern bypass. On the eastern side, sites are likely to take longer to deliver and non delivery will place pressure on the supply of housing. The allocation of the whole site in Phase 1 will ensure the timeous delivery of 3

Page 40 community/football facilities.

2632: Site H1 can deliver a higher density development within a sustainable location: an additional 40 units should be allocated. In order to meet the housing land requirement, the site should be brought forward within phase 1. A masterplan has been produced which details how the density could be increased. The masterplan also deals with the issue of the need for boundary adjustments to the east and west of the site. The early delivery of the required football pitches would be supported by the allocation of 165 units in phase1.

Employment Land 1197, 1201: Site H1 would not provide employment land. It would not contribute to creating a more sustainable settlement.

1810, 1811: H1 does not provide the same opportunities as the land at Mameulah (G128), because it does not contain any employment/business allocation. The site is not suitable for the allocation of land for a bus/coach depot (proposed by developer on alternative site at Mameulah).

Accessibility 2632: The site's allocation is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy (paragraphs 165 and 168) in terms of the identification of sites which promote a shift away from private transport. Site H1 is located closer to the village centre than M1.

1902, 1903: Pedestrians, particularly children, will have to cross the A947 to access the majority of services in the village.

1197, 1201: Site H1 is remote from the Formartine and Buchan Way; it does not provide non- motorised commuting and recreation opportunities. This is a key planning objective according to the Plan's supplementary guidance. Site H1 access would be reliant upon totally inadequate country lanes. Site H1 residents would have to cross the A947 to access village services.

Community Facilities 1197, 1201, 1855, 1902, 1903, 1928,1975, 2173: The supposed rationale of developing site H1 to deliver new football pitch provision is incorrect as such development could just as easily be provided on site M1.

Bypass

2632: Transport Statement by AECOM (accompanies the submission) demonstrates that the site is not reliant on the bypass to the east. The Council's viability study has already ruled out a western bypass. Site H1 should be released for full development in phase 1 and could provide an early contribution towards the development of the bypass.

1855, 1928, 1975, 2173: Site M1 is the best direction for growth, including a bypass, and would be supported by additional land being identified to the north (see under Alternative Site). H1 cannot deliver the land required for the bypass. H1 could provide contributions towards the bypass but cannot influence the delivery of the preferred route.

1855, 1928: The Bypass Feasibility Study identified a preferred route to the east of Newmachar. Site H1 cannot deliver the land required for that route and its continued allocation will increase traffic through the village centre.

1902, 1903: If a bypass is preferable, the respondent will work with adjoining developers and landowners to deliver it. However, this is predicated upon the allocation of site G128 Mameulah and the deletion of H1 (see under Alternative Site).

1390, 1404: Development of the distributor road is constrained by ownership and funding, according to the Action Programme (on page 111).

1197, 1201: Site H1 provides no contribution towards a distributor road, the feasibility of 4

Page 41 which is still doubtful.

Alternative Site General 1810, 1811: Site M1 should be extended northwards to the site at Mameulah as was the case in the Main Issues Report as G128, within which the site had 'preferred' status.

1855, 1928: The Community Council has stated its preference for the development of site G128 along with site M1.

Landscape, environment and design 1855, 1928: The deletion of site G128 in the period from the Main Issues Report stage to the Proposed Plan stage seems to have been made upon a misinterpretation of Scottish Natural Heritage advice. Scottish Natural Heritage stated that there was the possibility of ribbon development through site G128. However, this was based on a cursory consideration of the development bid site boundary. The development bid particularly addressed ribbon development, and the solution involves a Community Woodland to the north of the site, but the Main Issues Report failed to distinguish between the community woodland and the development site and erroneously portrayed ribbon development. Site G128 is not prime agricultural land. A phase 1 habitat survey has found no protected species. Biodiversity will be increased by the provision of a Community Woodland. A footpath network will improve amenity.

Employment 1810, 1811: The Mameulah G128 site could deliver the best site for a bus/coach depot (proposed by client). The site provides ideal access onto the A947. 1855, 1928: Employment land can be included on the site. However, the scale proposed by the Proposed Plan is excessive.

Deliverability 1855, 1928: Site G128 can be developed in conjunction with site M1. M1 is a marketable site, already under option to a housebuilder. The sites could deliver the required community facilities for Newmachar. Deliverability has been confirmed in a letter to Aberdeenshire Council.

Bypass 1810, 1811: Mameulah G128 provides land for the completion of the eastern distributor road. The probable route of the bypass will require land at Mameulah. There is little point in collecting contributions from sites allocated elsewhere in Newmachar towards the project, when the land for the project is not available.

1855, 1928: A Transport Assessment demonstrates that the site can be delivered utilising the existing road network. However, the desire of the community to secure a bypass and the requirement for a feasibility study is recognised. The respondent contributed to this study and is supportive of its conclusions. If a bypass is preferable, the respondent will work with adjoining developers and landowners to deliver it. However, this is predicated upon the allocation of site G128 Mameulah and the deletion of H1. The preferred route for the bypass requires site G128 and also an area which is in third party ownership, but the client has an agreement in place to purchase this. All owners and developers with interests to the north, east, and south east have an agreed approach to delivering the development and the bypass.

1902, 1903: If a bypass is preferable, the respondent will work with the ajoining developer and landowners to deliver it. However, this is predicated upon the allocation of site G128 Mameulah and the deletion of H1 (see under Site H1).

1975, 2173:In order to deliver the relief road in the easiest manner and remove ownership constraints, M1 should be extended northwards to include site G128 Mameulah.

Site R2 364, 2297: The allocation of the whole H1 site in Phase 1 will ensure the timeous delivery of 5

Page 42 community/football facilities on R2.

2632: The early delivery of the required football pitches would be supported by the allocation of 165 units in phase1 on site H1.

1197, 1198, 1201, 1202: If there is a requirement for a new football pitch, it could be developed on site M1. If a pitch with floodlighting is required, it would be best provided within an employment allocation.

1855, 1902, 1903, 1928: The community/football facilities can be provided on site M1 or elsewhere in Newmachar, H1/R2 are not the only sites which can deliver this.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scale of Development (Site M1 and Site H1) 38: Site M1 should be reduced to the northern half with the southern half deleted (site plan provided). Site H1 should be deleted.

834: Delete site H1, If allocations must take place, allocate to Oldmeldrum instead.

1197, 1198, 1201, 1202: Delete site H1 and the great majority of site M1 at Newmachar (as defined by the settlement statement) from the Plan to achieve a scale of new housing and employment land that is genuinely proportionate to local needs.

1390, 1404: Sites M1 and H1 should be deleted. Allocations should be moved to Westhill.

1417, 1425, 1430, 1432, 1451, 1453, 1456: Proposals for Newmachar should be deleted.

2342: No development until community facilities and infrastructure are in place.

2352: M1 and H1 to contribute to strategic A947 improvements.

2606: No new development on M1 and H1 should be allowed to take place until the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route is complete and a direct junction has been provided from the A947 onto the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route avoiding Goval Bridge.

Site M1 400: Newmachar housing allocations should be reduced to 90 in Phase 1 of the Plan and 275 in Phase 2. The balance of the allocations should be provided in Oldmeldrum.

1197, 1198, 1201, 1202: Delete site H1 and the great majority of site M1 at Newmachar.

1902, 1903 Employment allocation should be reduced to better reflect demand in that area. Table 5 of Schedule 2 should be amended to reduce the employment land allocation in Site M1 from 16 hectares to 5 hectares. To enable provision of the proffered bypass route identified by the feasibility study, site H1 should be omitted and the 125 houses reallocated to site G128 Mameulah, forming part of an expanded M1 site.

1975, 2173: Site M1 to be allocated 6 hectares of employment land (reduced from 16). Site M1 to be extended to include site G128 Mameulah. Allocations from H1 to be transferred to M1, new allocation to comprise 190 houses in Phase 1 and 375 houses in phase 2.

Requirement for a relief distributor road to the east of Newmachar. 2100: Reduce or remove the allocations on all sites in Newmachar.

2226: M1 to be reduced to only include land behind Mameulah.

6

Page 43 1390, 1404: Sites M1 and H1 should be deleted. Allocations should be moved to Westhill.

1810, 1811: Site M1 should be extended northwards to the site at Mameulah (G128). At the very least the site at Mameulah (G128) should be allocated as strategic reserve for mixed use development.

1855, 1928: Site G128 Mameulah should be allocated for 125 houses. Site G128 Mameulah should be developed alongside site M1.

Site H1 364, 2297: Increase H1 allocation to 165 units and identify release of the housing and community facilities in phase 1.

2632: All units should be allocated in phase 1.Unit numbers should be increased from 125 to 165.

1810, 1811: Delete site H1 and replace with land at Mameulah (G128).

1855, 1928, 1975, 2173: Delete site H1 and replace with land at Mameulah (G128).

834: Delete site H1.

1197, 1198, 1201, 1202: Delete site H1 and the great majority of site M1.

1902, 1903: Delete site H1 and replace with land at Mameulah (G128).

1390, 1404: Sites M1 and H1 should be deleted. Allocations should be moved to Westhill.

Site R2 364, 2297, 2632: All H1 units should be allocated in phase 1. H1 unit numbers should be increased from 125 to 165.

1197, 1198, 1201, 1202: If a pitch is required it should be allocated on site M1 not R2.

1855, 1928: If a pitch is required it should be allocated on extended site M1 not R2.

1855, 1928, 1902, 1903: The community/football facilities can be provided on site M1 or elsewhere in Newmachar.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview The allocations made in Newmachar are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of Structure Plan by allowing local growth and diversification in the Aberdeen housing market area. Newmachar is identified for a substantial allocation of 565 units, employment land and community facilities. This will provide the critical mass required to allow Newmachar to develop into a sustainable settlement with an appropriate provision of infrastructure and scale of services.

Many of the issues raised in relation this settlement were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in the ‘Issues and Actions’ paper (May 2010).

Scale of development (Site M1 and Site H1) The support for the strategy in Newmachar is noted. The scale of the allocations will enable infrastructure issues to be overcome. The allocations are proportionately large, but given the strategy, are not considered to be excessive or contrary to the Structure Plan or Local Development Plan spatial strategy. For further information see Issue 66 Spatial Strategy- Local Growth and Diversification Areas.

The employment allocations could be reduced to a more proportionate level, but given the

7

Page 44 location in close proximity to Aberdeen and Dyce it is not accepted that there will be no demand. There is expected to be a high demand for housing in Newmachar, given its proximity to Aberdeen and the improvement in its connectivity through the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. The strategy plans up to 2023 with a view to also contributing to meeting the 3rd phase of the structure plan allocations up to 2030. A lack of demand for recent housing development is likely to be indicative of the product on offer, or possibly a site specific issue rather than reflective of Newmachar as a settlement. Development of family homes at Kingseat has continued.

The scale of development requires that a new primary school is provided, and contributions towards a new health facility. These facilities are the type found in a sustainable settlement. The development provides an opportunity to plan, in the long term, for a new by-pass route to overcome issues of separation of the community created by the existing road. Newmachar, in a regional context, is well connected in public transport terms; there is a half hourly bus service to Aberdeen and a less frequent service to Inverurie. It would be undeliverable and unnecessary to require all community facilities and the bypass prior to development taking place. It is recognised that allocations in Newmachar will add to congestion on the A947 but with direct access to the Parkhill junction of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral route and no major additional feeder roads in between, this is not expected to be significant/excessive.

Site M1 General The positive comments on the suitability and deliverability of the site are noted. It is accepted that development will have an impact on the community but much of this will include positive impacts.

Employment Land The housing allocations will help deliver the employment land and there are no infrastructure constraints which inhibit the concurrent delivery of the two uses. It is agreed that there are factors which favour development of employment land to the south of the M1 site. The scale of employment allocations may be excessive; the suggestion has been made that of 5ha of employment land would be more appropriate to the scale of development.

Landscape, Design, Environment The positive aspects of the site are noted. A section of this large site is at risk of flooding but development will avoid this and the section could form part of the open space requirement. A flood risk assessment will be required. There are not known to be any significant drainage problems, but a drainage impact assessment will be required. The amenity the site provides as agricultural land will be altered, but pedestrian connectivity throughout the site and green space provision will still allow and possibly improve this.

Accessibility It is agreed that there are strong recreational and pedestrian connectivity attributes to the site’s location which can be improved. The school is likely to be located on the site, but the bypass will mean that crossing the A947 will be significantly safer and represent far less of a barrier to east-west movement in the village.

Community Facilities Site H1 is seen as a better location for football pitches. This is discussed below under site H1.

Bypass The bypass will provide a major improvement to the settlement and the majority of the route is, subject to the detailed feasibility study, to be provided on site M1. For information on the implications of this for site H1 and the alternative site, see below.

Deliverability It is agreed that the site is deliverable.

Site H1 General 8

Page 45 The attributes of the site are noted. There are two deliverable locations for development in Newmachar, and a choice of sites is a positive thing (see Scottish Planning Policy. As settlements grow, development is likely to have positive and negative impacts for those neighbouring. Negative impacts will be mitigated through adherence to the Plan’s policies such as Policy 8 ‘Layout, siting and design of new development’.

Deliverability The football pitch provision will form the largest part of the open space requirement on the site. The respondent is correct that the portion available for development does leave enough land for around 165 units at a higher density. Increasing the allocations does not aid deliverability and would require to be accommodated by a proportionate reduction elsewhere in the Local Needs Aberdeen Housing Market Area. There is a need to provide significant allocations to M1 in order to ensure the viability of the eastern expansion. If further allocations are desired on site H1, the developer could choose to develop 125 units on a portion of the site over the course of the plan, and retaining part of the site for further development in a future phase. The masterplan could be developed to detail how this would be achieved. The site should not be allocated purely in phase 1. There is a need for a balance of allocations across H1 and M1 in order to achieve the settlement strategy. The football pitches are expected to be deliverable from the 50 units first phase allocation without frontloading the allocation. There are other streams of funding available to aid this, including a proportional contribution from site M1.

Employment The site will not deliver employment land as the best location for this is to the south of the M1 site. Business traffic would have to pass through the town to access the site.

Access The comments in favour are noted. The transport authority is satisfied that access onto Corsduick Road can be provided. The requirement for an eastern bypass means that the A947 route could be diverted improving safety in the village centre and improving east-west pedestrian connectivity.

Community facilities The rationale is not only based on the opening up of development land for such pitch provision. Aside from being the logical location for football pitches, the site is well located in the context of the strategy for Newmachar and contributes to providing a deliverable range of sites for development.

Bypass The transport statement does not acknowledge the fact that the site has been selected for development in the context of a new development strategy for Newmachar which will reduce the danger and impermiability of the current A947. The eastern bypass will benefit all sites. Having the two sites contributing towards it through concurrently phased development will increase its deliverability. The ownership and funding constraint does not mean that development cannot be delivered.

Site R2 For comments on favouring the front loading of phasing of site H1 to aid football pitch provision see under site H1 Deliverability. The site is the best location for football pitches as it will provide a logical extension to the existing area. There is a clear need for the pitches to be provided as early as possible and site H1 is best placed to deliver this, rather than M1. Floodlighting may be required on the pitch on occasions, but employment sites are not the best location for recreation facilities.

Alternative Site Main Issues Report Site G128

General The attributes of the site are recognised. Development at G128 was not favoured due to a preference for development to the south and east of Newmachar. Scottish Natural Heritage caution against the development of the northern leg of the site and it was known that the 9

Page 46 developer had planned to provide community woodland on that section. Site G128 is entirely prime agricultural land of 3.1 grade, although technically this would not rule out an allocation.

Employment The southern section of site M1 is generally a better location for employment than site G128. For response on the scale of employment land, see under Site M1.

Deliverability It is agreed that the site would be a deliverable allocation, but there are other factors which rule out its allocation in this plan including: the scale of allocations required in Newmachar, and the attributes of development on site H1 and the south of M1 rather than to the north of M1.

Bypass The strongest attribute of the site is its provision of land for the eastern bypass. The project is likely to take a long time to deliver, most likely over all three phases of the Structure Plan. The site could be identified by the developer of the M1 site as a future phase (phase 3) of development and incorporated into their masterplan to complete an extension to the bypass.

Conclusion The development strategy and land allocations in Newmachar are sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: It is suggested that the employment land allocation should be reduced from 16ha to 5ha. As a local growth and diversification area settlement, this change will not affect the structure plan spatial strategy. A minor modification to Schedule 2 of the Plan will be required.

This change will require incorporation into the site masterplan and a change to the supplementary guidance. Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

10

Page 47 Issue 82 Hatton of Fintray Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p11) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

124 Fintray & Kinellar Community Council 127 Mr Brian Taylor 398, 404 William Lippe Architects Ltd (on behalf of) MTM Holdings Ltd 2053 Smiths Gore (on behalf of) Miss Charlotte Teresa Lane

Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in and around Hatton of which the issue relates: Fintray

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

Site H1 Hatton of Fintray 124: Agree with all of the proposals for Hatton of Fintray, regarding it as the maximum acceptable development for the village.

127: Content with the proposal for 8 houses, as it will have a minimal negative impact on the surrounding countryside. But no more than the allocated 8 houses should be accommodated due to the village’s ill-served public services.

398: Hatton of Fintray has a very high primary school pupil to household ratio of 0.4 which, given the current capacity of the school, allows for 10 houses to be accommodated at 0.35 or at 0.30 it would allow 13 houses. It is suggested that a proposal for 11 houses is a reasonable compromise. Road access, surface and foul water drainage can both accommodate the development of 11 houses. 404: The site can easily accommodate 11 houses which does not affect overall housing allowances. Only 40% of the original site is allocated and it does not include a connection or link to the existing road or housing.

Alternative Site Hatton of Fintray 2053: There is scope in the village for further long term expansion through a small housing development, which will help support existing services such as the primary school. It would consolidate development opposite the primary school and would create a stronger village entrance. The site has no risk of flooding and no other known designations apart from being within the green belt boundary. A separate submission has been made in reference to amending the green belt boundary around Hatton of Fintray to allow the settlement greater room to expand in the future. Extensive landscaping is proposed to create a new settlement edge and contain the proposed development.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

398, 404: Increase the allocation of site H1 to 11 houses and change the boundary of the site to accommodate the additional units and increased Sustainable Urban Drainage System to reflect the original G70 Development Bid site.

2053: Allocate the piece of land to the South of Hatton of Fintray opposite the primary school. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Page 48 Overview

The allocation made in Hatton of Fintray is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and Structure Plan by allowing local growth and diversification in the Aberdeen housing market area. A site for 8 units has been proposed. This balances support for local services without breaching the capacity at the local school.

Most 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 the ‘Issues and Actions’ paper ‘Issues and Actions’, Vol 5, Garioch, page 32, (May 2010)

Site H1 The support for the allocation and strategy at Hatton of Fintray is noted. 8 houses is an appropriate level of growth in the village, as it allows for growth within the confines of: the limited school capacity, the level of infrastructure in the village, and the role of the village within the Plan’s Spatial Strategy.

The respondent requests 11 houses and for the ratio of pupils to households to be lowered in the village from 0.4 to 0.35. It would be ill-advised for the Plan to ignore the advice of other Council services and not use the best available evidence on the pupils to households ratio at Hatton of Fintray. The school role forecasts used at the time predicted that the school roll will increase to 92% capacity in 2016. This allows for 4 pupils which, as the respondent states, at a ratio of 0.4 would allow for 10 houses. The school roll forecasts available at the time of preparing the Proposed Plan had predicted that only 8 houses could be accommodated by 2016. School roles for small rural schools are difficult to predict, however, it is clear that Hatton of Fintray Primary has fluctuated above and below capacity for the last 10 years. It would not be advisable for additional houses to be allocated to reach (and possibly breach) 100%, capacity unless there is an extremely good reason for doing so. Allowing for some, albeit very limited, extra capacity is a better option in terms of education provision.

Although other external and internal services have indicated that the site could accommodate 11 units, it is not concluded that there is good reason for doing so. However, the points regarding the need to modify the boundaries of the site to allow for access to Hatton Court Road and for additional flexibility for the Sustainable Urban Drainage System are accepted and should be addressed through the Settlement Statement for the village.

Alternative Site The allocated site is the best site in the village, providing the best possible location in design and deliverability terms. There is no need for additional allocations to support existing services, given the limitations to growth outlined above. The landscape and design attributes are not sufficient reasons to allocate the alternative site. In terms of allocating the site for further long term expansion, an allocation should be approached as a developer bid through the next development plan.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Hatton of Fintray 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:

Page 49

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 50 Issue 83 Other Sites Garioch Aberdeen Housing Market Area Section 6 Proposals maps Garioch (p22) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) reference: Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

846, 851 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Tor Ecosse Ltd 1187, 1188 DDP LLP (Planning Consultants) on behalf of Church of Scotland General Treasurer 1387,1393 1397, 1403, 1388, 1406, 1407, 2854 Wallace Planning Ltd on behalf of Barratt East Scotland and Dunecht Estates 1527, 1530, 1535 1540, 1542 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Mr and Mrs Dow 1640, 1642, 1644, 1649 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Messrs McIntosh 1870 Ryden LLP on behalf of Cabardunn Development Company Ltd & Dunecht Estates 1961, 2076, 2859 Strutt & Parker LLP on behalf of The Millbank Regeneration Joint Venture 2246 Mr Nick Pilbeam

Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in and around other which the issue relates: settlements in the Garioch

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

Lyne of Skene 846, 851: Tor Ecosse objects to the failure to allocate Main Issues Report site G59. It presents an ideal opportunity for small scale growth in Lyne of Skene . Development would enhance the role of the settlement as a rural service centre and maintain the village character There is capacity in the local school; the allocation would support the local school. The allocation would help overcome the sewage problem which has constrained development in the village in the past. Site EH1 and H1 in Dunecht should be removed to allow the development of site in Lyne of Skene.

2246: The respondent agrees with the non-allocation of sites in Lyne of Skene.

Kirkton of Skene 1187, 1188 : Object to the failure to allocate site to the north of Kirkton of Skene for housing development. The site is bounded by the settlement; it would be a logical extension to the settlement. It is of a suitable size to meet the needs of the village while respecting its setting. The site is accessible with good existing pedestrian and vehicular access. It is not visually prominent and would not detract from the amenity of the area. The site is available and deliverable.

1388, 1406: Object to failure to allocate site fh1 from the current Aberdeenshire Local Plan in the Proposed Plan. The site has capacity for 20 dwellings and there are currently two planning applications under consideration for the site.

2854: Kirkton of Skene's current H1 housing allocation should be carried forward for an enhanced allocation of 20 units. A site layout accompanies the submission. It details how the site can accommodate 20 units rather than the indicative 10 units allocated in the previous Aberdeenshire Local Plan (2006). Planning applications for the site are currently under consideration.

1387, 1393, 1397, 1403, 1407, 2854: Object to the failure to allocate land (Main Issues Report site G62) for 250 units, community facilities and new village centre. A new site ‘H2’ (Main Issues Report site G62) at Kirkton of Skene should be allocated for 250 units,

Page 51 community facilities and new village centre. The site is supported by a transport assessment (Colin Buchanan), the Westhill Capacity Study (2008), an indicative masterplan (HFM), an infrastructure statement (Cameron and Ross), a landscape assessment (EDAW), an ecological survey, a report on community engagement (HFM) and discussions with Council services on education and planning gain (all supporting documents attached).

The site is in a sustainable location, adjacent Westhill with scope for increased connectivity. Development would deliver affordable housing. The site would reduce the reliance on a 25% windfall contribution in the local growth and diversification areas and assist in relieving the shortfall in the housing land supply. The site is deliverable and will contribute 50 units per year to the housing land supply, and is a first phase site which is not reliant on the delivery of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. Development would reinforce the settlement function of Westhill as well as an employment centre. Development is of a size which can be accommodated without major new infrastructure requirements. Development would fit with thelandscape and character of Kirkton of Skene and ensure the avoidance of coalescence with Westhill. The site was incorrectly categorised as technically unsuitable for development in the Council's Main Issues Report, which has led to it being unfairly excluded from proving exercises and appropriate assessments since 2008. The Council has admitted that this was incorrect (related correspondence attached to submission), but this has unduly hindered the site's analysis in the Local Development Plan process (1397).

Upper Sauchen 1527, 1530, 1535, 1540, 1542: Upper Sauchen is located west of Sauchen. As the site is on the A944 it complies with Scottish Planning Policy, The Stucture Plan and The Aberdeenshire Local Development plan, all of which aim to locate development on public transport routes. Sauchen H1 is allocated for 50 units, but through a single developer which will result in a delay in its development. The Upper Sauchen site can contribute to the housing land supply because it is easy to deliver. Upper Sauchen will support Cluny primary school. The Development in the Countryside policy is restrictive in the Aberdeen Housing Market area and small scale allocations such as Upper Sauchen are required in order to allow sustainable development in small settlements. The site has been subject to a misinterpretation over the course of the Local Development Plan period (see Issue 1 Process).

Parkhill Goval 1640, 1642, 1644, 1649: Land at Goval/Parkhill should be reserved for a park and ride associated with the north leg of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route at the only grade separated junction between the A96 to the west and the A90 to the east. The site has been incorrectly assessed as a large scale retail/commercial proposal of strategic significance, not a park and ride in the Main Issues Report, and no attempt was made to redress this since. This has hindered the allocation of the site. Aberdeenshire’s Local Development Plan process has considered the development of a park and ride facility at Goval/Parkhill to be a strategic issue outwith the remit of the Local Development Plan. However, Aberdeen City has not determined a park and ride facility to be a strategic issue and has allocated land for such purposes. The Aberdeenshire Council approach is not considered appropriate in this instance. There is a requirement for a park and ride facility on this junction; it would support the Structure Plan's aims. The site is technically feasible; other sites have been discounted through the Jacobs appraisal study.

Garlogie 1870: Object to the failure to allocate the land lying to the north of Roadside of Garlogie for residential development (site G37). It should be allocated for 16 houses, open space and play area. The village of Garlogie should be identified as a Rural Service Centre with provision for further development. Strategic landscaping would reinforce the village setting. The site setting already lends itself to a compact development which would fit with the landscape. A technical assessment shows the site is capable of development.

Millbank 1961, 2076: Object to the non-identification of land at Millbank being carried forward to the new plan. Millbank requires a settlement statement showing the existing allocation.

2859 : 5 houses have been granted permission recently on the site; another 35 are subject to

Page 52 positive pre-application discussions. The allocation should be made for 40 units on site M1. Object to the non-identification of future housing land in addition to the carried forward allocation. Site layout attached.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Lyne of Skene 846, 851: Land to the west of the B977 at Lyne of Skene (illustrated in attachment) should be identified for 20 units in phase 1 and 20 units in phase 2. Site EH1 and H1 in Dunecht should be removed to allow the development of site in Lyne of Skene

2246: Support the removal of development areas on Lyne of Skene.

Dunecht 847, 850: The allocations for H1 and EH1 at Dunecht should be significantly reduced and the remaining units allocated to Lyne of Skene.

Kirkton of Skene 1187, 1188: Allocate site to the north of Kirkton of Skene for up to 20 units in phase 1 of the plan

1388, 1406, 2854: Kirkton of Skene's current H1 housing allocation should be carried forward for an enhanced allocation of 20 units.

1387, 1407, 2854: Allocate Main Issues Report site G62) for 250 units, community facilities and new village centre.

Upper Sauchen 1527, 1530, 1535, 1540, 1542: Upper Sauchen (G113) should be added to the Sauchen and Cluny settlement statement and the Proposed Plan. It should be allocated for 10 units, with 2 sites: 1 in phase 1 for 3 houses; 2 in phase 2 for 7 houses (map attached to submission).

Parkhill Goval 1642, 1644, 1649: Land at Goval/Parkhill should be reserved for a park and ride associated with the north leg of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route at the only grade separated junction between the A96 to the west and the A90 to the east.

Garlogie 1870: Allocate the land lying to the north of Roadside of Garlogie for residential development (site G37). It should be allocated for 16 houses, open space and play area.

Millbank 1961, 2076: Identify Millbank sites being carried forward within the Plan

2859: Allocate the existing site for 40 houses, employment and community facilities. Allocate ''Reserve housing land after to 2016''.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview This response is in respect of sites in the Aberdeen Housing Market Area that fall within the “local growth and diversification area”. The strategy within this area is for growth in communities to meet local needs. Allocations are made where there is a specific need identified (see issue 66 Spatial Strategy, Local growth and diversification area).

Lyne of Skene Site G59 was considered in the consultation on the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site, as Lyne

Page 53 of Skene has no facilities to support development and has relatively poor transport infrastructure. To upgrade the waste water treatment works would require large scale development and this would have unacceptable impacts on the character of this settlement. The development would support Dunecht primary school, but it is preferred that the focus of growth is in Dunecht itself, ensuring development is well related to services and promoting opportunities for walking to school. The allocation made in Dunecht is appropriate and sufficient and there is no requirement to consider alternatives at Lyne of Skene (See issue 79 Dunecht).

Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010 Volume 5 Page17 Dunecht and Lyne of Skene), which prepared following consultation on the main issues report and was produced to inform the allocations in the proposed plan.

Kirkton of Skene Kirkton of Skene is not a settlement which requires development to support services. Kirkton of Skene primary school is over capacity and is forecast to be operating at 141% in 2016. There is no need identified to justify allocation of the site to the north of Kirkton of Skene.

The existing site, fh1, has been carried forward for development. It was subject to the later ‘’addendum settlements’’ consultation under the settlement of Kirkton of Skene, which is why the site appeared to lose its allocation. These sites were dealt with separately, because in affect they were all already well established. The allocation has not been increased to twenty dwellings as there is no need to support local infrastructure. There is no local need in the settlement to justify additional development. There are also design and setting issues, including the need to preserve views of the church. There is a current application for 20 units on the site.

The scale of development proposed on site G62 does not relate to the needs of Kirkton of Skene and is therefore considered to be expansion of Westhill; and under Westhill an alternative site has been preferred (see issue 80, Westhill).

Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010 Volume 5 Page113 Westhill and Kirkton of Skene).

Upper Sauchen This site (site G113) was considered in the consultation on the main issues report, but following wide spread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site. Whilst Sauchen is on a public transport route the area has no services. Whilst there are small groups of houses within the area identified, none of these would be considered a settlement. Scottish Planning Policy states in paragraph 95 that in more accessible and densely populated rural areas most new development should be in or adjacent to settlements. Upper Sauchen is accessible to Aberdeen and is in an area of high demand for housing. It lies within the Aberdeen Housing Market Area. In line with Scottish Planning Policy, the approach taken within the plan for this area is to focus development on settlements, with development in the countryside restricted to avoid sporadic and intrusive development impacting on the character of the landscape. An allocation has been made at Sauchen and alternatives or additional sites do not require to be considered (See issue 77).

Parkhill Goval In September 2010 the Council, within the Corporate Asset Management Plan and Capital Plan 2010-2025 confirmed that there would be no funding provided for the potential park and ride at Parkhill/Goval. This ruled out the need to allocate a site for a park and ride with associated small scale retail services. The park and ride facility has not been confirmed at any point and the NESTRANS Park and Ride Operations Study 2008 study stated that the AWPR would possibly reduce the need for a park and ride at Parkhill and favoured other locations on the A96 closer to Dyce. The structure plan advocates a network of park and ride facilities but does not identify the need for one at this location. The original bid for the site proposed an extensive retail/commercial development. The addition of the park and ride facility was made in a submission to the MIR consultation in July 2009. A more refined site boundary was added in February 2010.

Page 54 The site was described as a large scale retail/commercial development in the main issues report (page G23). It was described as a strategic issue. The respondent states that ‘’no attempt has been made to correct inaccuracies’’. However, within the context of evolving proposals and locations for the bid, the committee paper presented to Garioch members in March 2010 clearly stated ‘’ Site G57 consists of a variety of different options centred around the Goval junction for development of commercial/retail services based on Park and Ride at Goval…it is acknowledged that the actual scale of the bid for commercial and/or retail development is relatively small in relation to the various land parcels put forward.” Despite this there was still no reason to allocate land in the Proposed Plan. The rationale for a park and ride allocation with small scale retail uses at the future AWPR Goval junction has never been certain and this stance has been borne out by recent decisions. The need for retail facilities in this location could be considered under the plan’s Policy 2 Town centres and retailing and SG Retail 2 Retail Development in the Countryside.

Garlogie This site (site G113) was considered in the consultation on the main issues report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site, as the settlement does not have many amenities, and those which do exist do not require support. It is also recognised the site scored poorly in the Westhill Capacity Study and that there are some relative constraints due to archaeological sites in the vicinity of the development. Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010 Volume 5 Page 30 Garlogie). Millbank The existing site at Millbank, sites EmpA/fe1/fh1 and site fh2, have been carried forward for development. It was subject to the later ‘’addendum settlements’’ consultation under the settlement of Millbank, which is why the site appeared to lose its allocation. These sites were dealt with separately, because in affect they were all already well established. The allocations have been carried forward as a mixed use development for up to 35 houses, employment land and community facilities. It is premature to consider any further development until the initial phases of development come forward and additional facilities are provided.

Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010 Volume 5 Page 88 Millbank).

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development and land allocations in the Aberdeen Housing Market Area are already appropriate and sufficient.

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

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 55