LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FINALISED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN CONSULTATION – RURAL HOUSING MARKET AREA

There are no unresolved representations in relation to Issue 107- Ardallie /

Page 1 Issue 108 Settlement - Development Section 6, The Proposals Map (p 20) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 3 (p 26) plan Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement, (p 3 & 4) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

138 Mr Chris Richal 2055, 2077 Strutt & Parker LLP on behalf of Endowments Trust 2067 Baxter Design Ltd on behalf of Mr & Mrs G Gall

Provision of the development plan Allocations at M1 & H1. to which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site M1 Auchnagatt 138: Express concern that the development will devalue their property, cause drainage and traffic issues, and spoil the rural aspect of Auchnagatt. 2067: Support the proposal and are in the process of designing waste water proposals in conjunction with adjacent landowners on Main Issues Report site B32 [also site H1 in Auchnagatt] and Aberdeenshire Council. Site H1 Auchnagatt 2055: The respondent expresses support for the site. 2077: Supports site H1, but objects to Table 2 in Schedule 1 of the plan showing only 25 houses in the first phase of the plan, whereas 31 houses are proposed on the supplementary guidance (6 houses are being carried forward from the current plan). Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 138: Delete site M1. 2077: Amend Table 2 in Schedule 1 to show 31 houses in the first phase of the plan rather than 25. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Auchnagatt is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. Development has been proposed to sustain existing local services, meet local need for housing and provide opportunities for small scale employment land. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the 'Issues and Actions Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 4 and 5), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan Site M1 Auchnagatt The impact an allocation may have on the value of a property is not a material planning consideration and therefore, it is not sufficient to justify its deletion from the plan. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency notes that a minor watercourse runs through the site, but did not perceive the flood risk as significant enough to object to the site. Additional wording has been added to the supplementary guidance highlighting the flood risk and a need for a buffer strip adjacent to the watercourse. The Council’s Roads Authority did not raise traffic or access concerns as an issue for the site. They note that the main access point should be taken onto the A948 with a second vehicle access point onto the minor road to the south of the site. The also note that the speed limit will have to be extended.

Page 2 The scale and location of the site is unlikely to spoil the rural aspect of Auchnagatt. Its visual prominence is reduced in light of the hilly topography of Auchnagatt and the existing buildings on its eastern corner. Furthermore, development is also proposed opposite the site (EH1), which will reduce its visual and townscape impact on the setting of Auchnagatt. The support for the site is welcomed. Site H1 Auchnagatt The support for the site is welcomed. Schedule 1 of the plan is only intended to show new allocations, i.e. those required to meet the structure plan. The Council’s position in relation to including existing local plan allocations within Table 2 is addressed in Issue 25 Schedule 1 Housing Land. Conclusion The modification sought to delete site M1 is not supported. The development strategy and land allocation in Auchnagatt is 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 3 Issue 109 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p20) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) reference: Document 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statement (p 9 & 10) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

133 Mr Thomas Campbell 140 Mr James Kidd 351 Mr George Moir on behalf of AC Watson 487 Mrs Lesley Jones 555 Mr David Johnston 833 Mr John Moir 1148 Malcolm Campbell on behalf of George Smith & Sons 1590 Archial Planning 1920, 1921, 2118, 2119 Ryden LLP on behalf of W Nicol, A Butters and D Cooper

Provision of the development plan to M1, H1 & EH1 Allocations at Cruden Bay. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Cruden Bay 140, 351, 833: Express concern that development of the site will have a detrimental effect on the area, as it will remove the open view to the links and sea on approach to the settlement. 487, 555: Express concern with the loss of view from their home. 351: Expresses concern with invasion of privacy within the development as there is a steep dip to the south of the site. 140, 351, 833: Express concern that the housing density is too large and would result in over development of the site. 140, 351, 487, 555: Express concern that access onto the existing road will have to be outside the village boundary/site. 555: Express concern that the development would increase traffic on an already busy road. 140, 351, 487, 555, 833: The respondents suggest there is no requirement for the land to be developed, as sites EH1 and M1 will provide adequate housing for the foreseeable future, and it is reported that present houses are not selling (487). 140, 351, 487, 555, 833: Express concern that development of the site would infringe on wildlife habitat used by insects and animals including deer and birds of prey. 555: Suggests the development would put a strain on services, as the sewage pipe has already been increased and can be seen above ground. 833: The respondent does not support the site as there are inadequate facilities in the village (shops, school, etc). 1920, 1921, 2118, 2119: The respondent expresses support for the site as it will create a logical expansion of Cruden Bay, and is well placed to provide a number of benefits, including increasing the school roll, provision of a public footpath link to the golf club and town centre, and strategic landscaping to the south of the settlement. Site EH1 Cruden Bay 133: Expresses concern that the construction of the proposed houses will affect his sleep. 1148: Requests that site EH1 is allocated for 102 houses in the second phase of the plan. 1590: In light of the planning history and the size of the site, the respondent requests an increase in the allocation from 102 houses to 200 houses. Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Page 4 140, 351, 487, 555, 833: Delete site H1. 1148: Allocate site EH1 for 102 houses in the second phase of the plan. 1590: Increase the allocation of site EH1 from 102 houses to 200 houses. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Cruden Bay is located within the Local growth and Diversification Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. The settlement strategy within the local growth and diversification area focuses development on settlements that will allow the provision of important infrastructure, or have specific needs identified (see issue 66). Cruden Bay is located a few miles from the A90 and provides a number of services. The school is forecast to be at 62% of its capacity by 2016, but has limited opportunity to be extended in the future. In light of this capacity, but to avoid the need for a second primary school and over-development, two allocations of up to 240 houses in total are proposed to provide housing choice and an opportunity for employment land in the Energetica corridor, and to sustain existing local services. These allocations are proposed to the west of the village to improve the settlement boundary. The current plan identified the west side of Cruden Bay as an area of search for future housing (site fh3*) for this purpose. Two existing housing sites in the current plan are also carried forward for development for 116 houses. In total this represents an almost 50% increase in the size of the village, but Scottish Planning Policy (para 70) identifies that a planned level or direction of growth may not reflect past trends and that development should be located to make efficient use of infrastructure (para. 77). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. In light of this, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. A number 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 Volume 3, Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 14 to 17). Site H1 Cruden Bay The existing housing development east of the site already affects the views of the coastal landscape when approaching the settlement from the west. The site follows an existing field boundary, and provides an opportunity (along with site M1) to improve the western boundary of the settlement with strategic landscaping, which is currently lacking. Therefore, the small scale and location of the site is unlikely to have an adverse visual impact on the setting of the coast. Furthermore, a masterplan is proposed to co-ordinate the development of sites M1 and H1, which will also address concerns relating to privacy and will allow further opportunity for community engagement in relation to the detail of the site’s layout, siting and design. The density of the site is appropriate, as housing densities in Cruden Bay range from 12 to 31 houses per hectare. As the site is over 2 hectares, developing 40 houses in the site would not lead to over-development. The Roads Authority has not raised any access or traffic issues affecting the site. They note that a new roundabout will be required on the A975 providing access to sites M1 and H1. The roundabout will also perform a function as a traffic management tool, ensuring vehicles reduce their speed as they enter the settlement. The impact to wildlife as a result of the loss of the site to housing is likely to be low. The site has not been identified as having any particular biodiversity value and there are similar habitats for wildlife along the coast. Scottish Water has not raised any issues on the treatment of waste water for the additional sites. The school is currently operating at 57% capacity and there is sufficient capacity in the school to accommodate the proposed development. Further facilities will be provided on site M1, which will reduce pressure on existing facilities.

Page 5 The support for the site is welcome. Site EH1 Cruden Bay The comment made by respondent 133 is noted, but would be more appropriately considered at the planning application stage. Allocate site EH1 in phase 2 Site EH1 is carried forward from the existing plan for 102 houses (sites ch1 and P1 (community park)). All existing allocations are to be delivered in the first phase of the plan. There now is developer interest in developing the site, despite it being identified as constrained in the Housing Land Audit, otherwise the site would have been removed and not carried forward for development. Increase allocation of EH1 Increasing the number of houses on the site was not proposed at any previous stage in the preparation of the local development plan, so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. Two planning applications have been submitted on this site. The first application, APP/2007/4365 was withdrawn and a second application, APP/2011/0360 for 216 houses is pending. Although Cruden Bay is within the Energetica corridor, it is not within a strategic growth area as identified by the Structure Plan. Housing development in Cruden Bay requires to be of a scale to support local needs only. Therefore, the level of growth proposed in Cruden Bay is appropriate, and there is no requirement to identify further development opportunities. There is also finite capacity in the school for further development. However, further development on this site could be considered when the plan is reviewed. Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Cruden Bay are already 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 6 Issue 110 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map (p 20) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) Development plan Document 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement (p 23 & 29)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

32, 125 Mr George W Smith 559, 560 Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society

Provision of the development plan to H1, H3 and EH3 Allocations at Mintlaw. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Sites H3 and EH3 Mintlaw 559, 560: The respondent suggests that land for allotments should be reserved in Mintlaw as there is demand for them. Suggests sites EH1 and H3 could be appropriate locations. Alternative sites Mintlaw 32, 125: Request extending the boundary of H1 to include the field to the west for housing. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 559, 560: Reserve land for allotments, possibly in EH1 and H3. 32, 125: Add the field west of site H1 within the allocation for housing. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Mintlaw is located within the Local growth and Diversification Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. The settlement strategy within the local growth and diversification area focuses development on settlements that will allow the provision of important infrastructure, or have specific needs identified (see issue 66). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. In light of this, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. Further information on the sites is contained in the 'Issues and Actions Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, page 37 to 42), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan. Sites H3 and EH3 Mintlaw The supplementary guidance settlement statement for Mintlaw proposes open space contributions from new development to include allotments. Where and how this is provided is a matter for local determination through consultation on the development framework. Alternative sites Mintlaw Extension of site H1 The allocations within Mintlaw are already sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement in the plan period. The alternative site has not been proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on this site. However, as the site is adjacent to Dunshillock, which could be considered as a cohesive group of dwellings separate from Mintlaw, limited new development could be permitted under Supplementary Guidance SG Rural Development 1: Housing and business development in the countryside criterion B3). Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Mintlaw are already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Page 7 Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 8 Issue 111 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map (p 20) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 3 (p26) reference: Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statement (p 30 and 31) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 134 Mrs Margaret Spence 529, 530 Ms Allison Brownlee 1010 Mrs Sue Foster 1256 Jacqueline Boswell 2169 Baxter Design Ltd on behalf of Mr Robertson 2245 Mrs V Poyser

Provision of the development plan to H1, H2 & H3 Allocations at New Deer. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site H1 New Deer 134: Development of the proposed site will impact on the safety of people using the play park as a result of increased traffic. It will result in the loss of view, light in their garden and privacy due to overlooking. 529: Expresses concern with the loss of their view as a result of the development. 530: Requests that access routes into the site are clarified to ensure no increase in traffic from the end of Fordyce Road and the play park area. 2245: Expresses support for the site as it seems very sensible and appropriate.

Site H3 New Deer 1010, 1256: Express concern with loss of light and privacy as their property is below the level edge of the field. 1010, 1256: Additional houses will exacerbate the flooding problem of the local drainage system and result in more frequent flooding along Auchreddie Road East. 1010, 1256: The development would have an impact on the environment and the loss of food producing land to housing (1256). 1256: Expresses concern with the impact heavy machinery would have on the mature trees and wall along the edge of the field. 1256: Given the small scale of the village and that most people will work outwith New Deer, the development will add to the congestion on local roads. Suggests the public transport network should be addressed before additional houses are built. 1256: Additional traffic on Auchreddie Road East, which has a 40mph speed limit will impact on pedestrian safety (children crossing the road to get to school). Suggests the speed limit is reduced from 40mph to 30mph. 1256: Queries the need for further developments in New Deer in view of the recent developments in neighbour settlements and the number of unsold properties in the area. 2245: Expresses support for the site as it seems very sensible and appropriate. Alternative site New Deer 2169: Suggests that under the 400m rule in the Supplementary Guidance Rural Development 1: Housing and business development in the countryside, frontage housing development should be permitted along land adjacent to Fordyce Terrace within protected site P2.

Page 9 Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 134, 529: Delete site H1. 530: Amend site H1 to show the access routes into the site that avoid an increase in traffic from the end of Fordyce Road to the play park area. 1010, 1256: Delete site H3. 1256: As an alternative to deleting site H3, reduce the scope of the development (e.g. restricting houses to single storey at the south end of the site). 2169: Allow for housing development on land adjacent to Fordyce Terrace within protected site P2. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview New Deer is located within the Local growth and Diversification Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. The settlement strategy within the local growth and diversification area focuses development on settlements that will allow the provision of important infrastructure, or have a specific needs identified (see issue 66). New Deer has a declining school roll (forecast to be at 49% of its capacity by 2016). In light of this, development has been proposed to sustain existing local services and meet local need for housing. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. A number 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 44 and 45). Site H1 New Deer The support for the site is welcomed. The site is identified in the existing plan as an area of search for future development given its near-centre location and close proximity to the school (site fh1*). A development brief is required for the site, which will address concerns relating to privacy, visual impact and residents’ amenity, and will allow further opportunity for engagement in relation to the detail of the site, its layout, siting and design. The Council’s Roads Authority does not raise any issues with access to the site, subject to satisfying required standards. They also state that traffic calming will be required on Fordyce Road, which will be addressed in the development brief that is required for the site. Site H3 New Deer The support for the site is welcomed. A development brief is required for the site, which will address concerns relating to privacy, visual impact, residents’ amenity, and impacts on mature trees, and will allow further opportunity for engagement in relation to the detail of the site, its layout, siting and design. The Roads Authority has not expressed any concern on road access, pedestrian safety or congestion. Site H2 is allocated in the proposed plan to improve road safety, and it is likely that it will lead to a reduction in the speed limit along Auchreddie Road East to 30mph. Furthermore, New Deer is already on a number of regional and local bus routes to Aberdeen, Ellon, , Mintlaw and . The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has not raised flooding as an issue on the site or on land adjacent to it. Flood water from the Burn of Auchreddie was highlighted as an issue after consultation on the Main Issues Report on site B49 (site H2 in the proposed plan), and it could be a contributing factor to flooding on Auchreddie Road East. Nonetheless, the site would require a sustainable drainage system, which would mitigate downstream impacts. The site is not within a nature conservation site. It is currently an agricultural field, and development on the site is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The site is not on prime agricultural land and given the small scale of the proposal, it is unlikely to adversely affect the amount of land used in food production in the area. The school roll in the area is falling, and the need for development in New Deer is discussed

Page 10 above. Alternative site New Deer Supplementary guidance SG Rural Development 1: Housing and business development in the countryside applies to land outwith a settlement, whereas site P2 lies within the settlement boundary. Furthermore, both parts of site P2 are protected in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan as open space in order to protect the setting of New Deer. Site P2, north of Fordyce Road, was identified as a possible site for development in the Main Issues Report as site B17. However, development on this site would erode the settlement boundary and affect the setting of the settlement, whereas more appropriate sites for housing are already proposed elsewhere (e.g. H1). Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocation in New Deer is already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy without additional housing allocation east of the settlement. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 11 Issue 112 Settlement – Section 6, The proposals map - Buchan Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) reference: Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statement (p 51 and 52) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

107 Mr Paul Francis 152, 153 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Oosterhof & co

Provision of the development plan to H1 Allocation at St Combs. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 St Combs 107: Expresses concern with the site, as it would be outwith the boundary of the settlement, it is prone to flooding, and it would result in the loss of light to residents in Tillyduff Gardens. Suggests adequate housing supply could come from sites EH1 and EH2 prior to the development of site H1. 152, 153: Supports the site, as it is the most logical location for the future expansion of St Combs and it will sustain the local community. 152, 153: Requests that the phase two allocation is brought forward into phase one of the plan, as there is sufficient need and demand for 40 houses in phase one, and the infrastructure costs and affordable housing requirement may not be sufficiently met by only 20 houses.

Alternative site St Combs 152, 153: Proposes site B46, as identified in the Main Issues Report, as alternative sites to EH1 and EH2 for up to 40 houses in the second phase of the plan, to provide a long-term sustainable expansion to St Combs; provide an attractive entrance to the village; and help to maintain the school roll over the lifetime of the plan. The Housing Land Audit shows the existing sites have not come forward for development, which has exacerbated the under- supply of houses, particularly affordable houses. There was unanimous public support for new housing south of the village at a public exhibition in 2009. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 107: Delete site H1. 152, 153: Bring forward the phase 2 allocation into phase 1 of the plan in site H1. 152, 153: Delete sites EH1 and EH2 and redistribute units to site B46, as identified in the Main Issue Report, for up to 40 houses in the second phase of the plan.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview St Combs is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and Regeneration Priority Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. St Combs has a sharply declining school roll (forecast to be at 23% of its capacity by 2016). In light of this, an allocation of up to 40 houses and the continuation of two housing sites within the current plan have been proposed to sustain local services and provide a choice of housing locally. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. The majority 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 59 and 60). Site H1 St Combs

Page 12 The support for the site is welcomed. The boundary of the settlement is amended to reflect new allocations and the site would therefore not be outwith the settlement. The flooding issue appears to be from poor drainage, and given the scale of the site an appropriately designed sustainable drainage system would take account of surface water. The generally flat nature of the site is unlikely to reduce light into adjacent properties. The school roll in the area is falling, and the need for development in St Combs is discussed above. Furthermore, site H1 does not share the same physical or ownership issues that have prevented the development of sites EH1 and EH2 in the current plan. It has not been demonstrated what infrastructure costs are required that justify bringing forward the phase two allocation into phase one. There is sufficient capacity in the school and Fraserburgh Waste Water Treatment Works, and the road works should only be at a scale necessary for the development that is allocated. There is still developer interest in developing sites EH1 and EH2, which will contribute to the affordable housing requirement for the settlement. Alternative site St Combs The lack of significant development in St Combs has likely contributed to the falling school roll. However, given the landscape sensitivity of St Combs and the prominent location of site B46, it is preferred that site H1 and the remainder of B46 are developed gradually. Developing the whole of B46 would also double the size of the settlement and result in over- development. There is developer interest in sites EH1 and EH2 and the constraints affecting the site can be overcome, as planning permission has already been approved on two housing plots within EH1. Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocation in St Combs is already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy without identifying an alternative or additional housing allocation south of the settlement.

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

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 13 Issue 113 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map (p20) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) reference: Document 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statement (p 57 & 58) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

241 Taylor Design Services on behalf of Burnshangie Developments Ltd 844, 845 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Mssrs WA Mackie & MW Merchant 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2112, 2761 Mr Andrew Sturdy 2214, 2743 Mr Andrew Roberts 2764 Burnshangie Developments Ltd

Provision of the development plan to Housing Allocations at Strichen. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Strichen 844, 845: Suggest reducing the number houses and size of site H1 as the site is particularly steep. 241, 844, 845, 2743: Express concern that the site floods in the field to the west, which also acts as a natural soakaway, suggesting the number of houses allocated should be reduced or the western field removed from the allocation. 1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency note there is the possibility of flooding on the site as a watercourse runs through the site. Although they do not object to the allocation, they state that the flood risk should be highlighted in the text [supplementary guidance]. 2743: The site is not suitable for 50 houses as flooding from the culvert affects properties in Mormond Place and developing the site will increase surface water runoff. 844, 845, 2743: The site is not suitable for 50 houses as it has access issues. 2743: Expresses concern that the site is not suitable for 50 houses as it will adversely affecting the skyline of the village. 2112, 2761: Expresses concern that increasing the density of the site would be detrimental to the character and setting of the settlement. Suggest a planning brief should be required limiting development above a certain contour. 2112, 2761: Supports development in EH2 rather than in H1 as it is a brownfield site, whereas H1 is on prime agricultural land, has better road access, does not affect valued views, is close to amenities, and is the original location of Strichen before it developed north across the river. 2214: Development should only be required to meet local demand and given the predicted low population growth, the additional 30 houses for site H1 are unjustified. 2214: It is unclear what the community benefit is, as the site does not include land for employment. Alternative sites Strichen 844, 845: Allocate land at Hospital Brae (site B35, as identified in the Main Issues Report) for up to 32 houses, as site H1 is undesirable for development due to flood and access issues. 2112, 2761: Express concern with the failure to allocate employment land in Strichen in order to maintain local services. 2764: Site EH1 can accommodate a higher density of development on the site and requests it is increased from 15 to 33 houses (a planning application is pending for 18 houses on the north of the site). Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Page 14 241, 2112, 2761, 2743: Reduce the allocation of houses on site H1. 1979: Add the following words to the supplementary guidance text for Strichen “A small watercourse runs through the site and flood risk has not been adequately quantified. A flood risk assessment may be required in support of any planning application and an appropriate buffer strip will be required adjacent to the existing watercourse.” 2214: Reduce the allocation of houses on site H1 from 50 to 20 units. 844, 845: Reduce the allocation of houses on site H1 from 50 to 28 units. 241, 2112, 2761: Remove the western field from the allocation. 844, 845: Remove the northern part of site H1 not allocated in the current local plan. 2214: Allocate land for employment (e.g. site H1). 844, 845: Allocate land at Hospital Brae for 32 houses (site B35, as identified in the Main Issues Report). 2112, 2761: Allocate land for employment in Strichen. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Strichen is located within the Local growth and Diversification Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. The settlement strategy within the local growth and diversification area focuses development on settlements that will allow the provision of important infrastructure, or have specific needs identified (see issue 66). Strichen has a declining school roll (forecast to be at 58% of its capacity by 2016). In light of this, development has been proposed to sustain existing local services, provide housing choice and meet local need for housing. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the 'Issues and Actions Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 63 and 64), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan Site H1 Strichen The majority of the allocation is carried forward from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan (as eh2), thus the principle of development on site H1 was considered at a previous examination (see attached extract of Local Plan Inquiry Report, Volume 3 Buchan, pages 24 and 25). The northern section was identified as a preferred site for housing in the Main Issues Report (site B25) to allow the access needed to develop the site, given ownership and flooding issues to the west of the site. The density of site H1 has been increased given the context of Strichen’s built form, and to use the land more efficiently and sustainably. A planning application is pending for the part of the site (APP/2009/2495), in which a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted. The Flood Risk Assessment has been accepted by the Council’s Flood Prevention Team and SEPA, who agree that the proposed development will not exacerbate the current situation on Mormond Place. In light of this, flood risk is unlikely to be a significant issue for the site. However, as only part of the site is subject to a current planning application, text has been added to the Strichen Settlement Statement that a Flood Risk Assessment will be required. A watercourse/drain runs through the site, but the site is of sufficient size to accommodate development while leaving areas of flood risk as open space. The Roads Authority has not raised any access issues when commenting on site B25 in the Main Issues Report. They state that access requires to be taken from Mormond Place. The site is more than 25m below the brow of the nearest hill and therefore is unlikely to breach the skyline. Scottish Natural Heritage has not raised any issues on landscape or visual impacts. A masterplan is required for the site, which will address concerns relating to topography and landscape/townscape setting, and will allow further opportunity for engagement in relation to the detail of the site, its layout, siting and design. The support for EH2 is welcomed. However, site H1 is not on prime agricultural land and

Page 15 issues of access and visual impact are discussed above. There is a local need for housing to sustain the school roll for Strichen Primary School, which is declining. Employment land does not form part of the developer’s aspiration but sustaining the school retains this important local facility. Alternative sites Strichen Site B35 Site B35 was fully considered in the assessment of response to the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it in preference for concentrating development primarily on existing sites. The site is on the periphery of the settlement and on a prominent hill. The proposed allocations are already sufficient and appropriate and there is no need to consider alternatives. Employment land No employment land was proposed for development in Strichen, but local services include the school, which the proposed allocation of housing will help to maintain. Furthermore, Strichen is on the regional and local bus routes to Aberdeen, Fraserburgh, Ellon and Mintlaw, which all include employment land. In light of this, allocating housing in Strichen still improves the range and choice for housing within easy range of employment sites elsewhere. Site EH1 Increasing the number of housing units on the site was not proposed at any previous stage, so there has been no site assessment (e.g. access) or public debate on the site. The proposed allocations are already sufficient and appropriate and there is no need to consider alternatives. Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Strichen are already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended but the following change has been made to Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance: Settlement statements Buchan:

In the supplementary guidance for Buchan, under the settlement statement for Strichen, add under section 'Proposed sites' for site H1, “A small watercourse runs through the site and flood risk has not been adequately quantified. A flood risk assessment may be required in support of any planning application and an appropriate buffer strip will be required adjacent to the existing watercourse.” Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 16 Issue 114 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map (p20) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) reference: Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statement (p 59 to 60) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

190 G S Burnett 1991 Baxter Design Ltd on behalf of Mr A Shand 2217 Mrs Susan Kindness 2348 Mr and Mrs J Baird 2358 Mr Charles Dickie

Provision of the development plan to H1 Allocation at Stuartfield. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Stuartfield 190, 1991, 2358: Express concern that site B42, as identified in the Main Issues Report [site H1 and R2] does not represent a balanced and planned extension of Stuartfield, and would result in over-development. 190: Suggests the justification to enlarge site B42 [H1 and R2] and exclude B7 [by the Buchan Area Committee in March 2010] is inadequate. 2217: Little consideration has been given to the privacy of houses in Burnside Crescent compared with houses in Knock View, which were built later. 2348: Requests the reduction in overall growth in Stuartfield. Alternative site Stuartfield 190, 1991, 2358: The respondents suggest an alternative site to H1, and propose site B7, as identified in the Main Issues Report instead of site B42 [H1]. The respondents support site B7 as it is closer to existing services and the village centre, it would be a more balanced and planned extension to the settlement, and it would not result in over-development (190, 1991). Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 190, 1991, 2358: Delete site H1 (and R2) and allocate site B7, as identified in the Main Issues Report, for a mixed use development, including houses, retail/office accommodation and a health centre (1991). 2348: Reduce the number of houses proposed in site H1. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Stuartfield is located within the Local growth and Diversification Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. The settlement strategy within the local growth and diversification area focuses development on settlements that will allow the provision of important infrastructure, or have specific needs identified (see Issue 66). Stuartfield has a declining school roll (forecast to be at 78% of its capacity by 2016) and Grampian Health Board have identified the need for a new health centre in the settlement. In light of this, development has been proposed to sustain existing local services and meet local needs. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Therefore, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. The majority 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 65 to 67). Site H1 Stuartfield Development east and west of the settlement was initially put forward for development (sites B7 and EH1), but in the final analysis the Council chose site H1 as the preferred site for

Page 17 development in two phases. Members debated this issue in full at the meeting of the Buchan Area Committee held on 23 March 2010, in an open and transparent manner. They expressed concern that road access to site EH1, which is allocated in the current plan as sites A and fh1, has to go through site H1, and this would create an adverse visual impact unless site H1 is also developed. Allocation EH1 is carried forward from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan (as sites A and fh1) thus the principle of development on this site was considered at a previous examination (see attached extract of Local Plan Inquiry Report, Volume 3 Buchan, pages 26 and 27). It is acknowledged that allocating site H1 for development would affect the overall balance of development in Stuartfield, but the Roads Authority requires two road accesses from both the north and south of the site. Developing only site B7 and removing sites EH1 and H1 would not be sufficient to fulfil the settlements key objectives. Therefore the whole of site H1 is allocated along with site EH1, and the new health centre is proposed on site H1. A masterplan is required for site H1, which will address concerns relating to privacy, and will allow further opportunity for engagement in relation to the detail of the site, its layout, siting and design. Alternative site Stuartfield As the proposed site is sufficient and appropriate there is no need to consider alternatives. Additional development in Stuartfield would exceed the capacity of existing infrastructure and would result in over-development. Site B7 can be considered for development when the plan is reviewed. Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Stuartfield are already 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 18 Issue 115 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map (p20) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) Development plan Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement (p 7 to 8)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

947 Tor Ecosse Limited 1543, 1545 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Ms G Mitchell 1546 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Ms. G Mitchell

Provision of the development plan to H1 & E1 Allocations at Crimond. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Crimond 947: Expresses concern with the deliverability of the site (e.g. sewers and services) as a result of its location. Alternative sites Crimond 947: Suggests an alternative to site H1. The respondent proposes site B53, as identified in the Main Issue Report, for housing. The respondent states the site has no flooding issues and sits opposite a housing development and not an industrial site (the respondent claims these were concerns expressed by the Council). In support of the site, the respondent says it is 150m from sewers and services, on a bus route, and sits well within the landscape. The respondent adds they would support village facilities on the site, such as a medical centre incorporating a dentist and chemist. 1543, 1545, 1546: Suggest in addition to sites H1 and E1, sites B44 and B45, as identified in the Main Issues Report, for housing, employment land, the required distributor road, open space and footpath linkages. The respondents support the identification of these sites as they can address the deficiency in the housing allocations in the Local Growth and Diversification Area and present an opportunity to deliver development on a derelict, previously used site that lies within a Regeneration Priority Area. They question the archaeological value of the World War Two camp site, especially as Historic has made no reference to the site in their ongoing research in militaria across Scotland. The sites would provide an alternative route for the distributor road, rather than through site E1, avoiding the destruction of the Crimond tree belt, and would improve linkages from what is currently the southern edge of the village to site EH1 and site B45. Allocating further development land allows infrastructure requirements, including the distributor road to be shared between developments and increases the deliverability of these requirements. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 947: Delete site H1. 947: Allocate site B53, as identified in the Main Issues Report for housing. 1543, 1545, 1546: Allocate site B45, as identified in the Main Issues Report for up to 70 houses and up to 2ha of employment land in the plan. Suggests the following text to be included in the settlement statement for Crimond: Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 70 houses, 50 houses in the first phase and 20 houses in the second. 2ha of employment land require to be incorporated into the site. A distributor road to the south of the settlement with the potential for a bus route will be required through the site. The site will require a masterplan. 1543, 1545, 1546: Allocate site B44, as identified in the Main Issues Report for up to 20 houses in the first phase of the plan. Suggests the following text to be included in the settlement statement for Crimond: Site H2 is allocated for up to 20 houses [in the first phase of the plan]. Open space and footpath links will be required. A distributor road to the south of the settlement with the potential for a bus route will be required through the site. The site will

Page 19 require a masterplan in conjunction with site M1. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Crimond is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and Regeneration Priority Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. The A90 trunk road runs through Crimond, which makes it undesirable to increase local traffic crossing this road. This favours development to the south side of the A90, where the majority of the existing services (e.g. school) are located. A generous amount of land was proposed for development at the Main Issues Report stage, although each site had its own issues to overcome (e.g. visual impact, access or within a designation). Although there is limited need for development in Crimond, it is located within the Regeneration Priority Area, and two allocations amounting to up to 90 houses and employment land are proposed to provide housing choice, opportunity for development of business land, and to sustain existing local services. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. In light of this, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. Some 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 10 to 13).

Site H1 Crimond Scottish Water has not raised any issues regarding water supply, and there is sufficient capacity in the waste water treatment works for the proposed allocation. Alternative sites Crimond Site B53 Site B53 was fully considered in the assessment of response to the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it in preference to concentrating development to the south side of the A90, as noted above. The site is divorced from the settlement, is within an area of landscape significance and undeveloped coast designations, and there are more appropriate sites for housing in the village. The provision of land for a medical centre etc is welcomed, but land is already reserved for community facilities, including a health centre on site R1. The site could be considered for development when the plan is reviewed.

Sites B44 and B45 Sites B44 and B45 were fully considered in the assessment of response to the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude them in preference to developing on land that is easily accessible, adjacent to the settlement and not on a site of locally important heritage value . Issues relating to the general sufficiency of housing land supply are dealt with in Issue 12 Housing land supply. The sites are isolated from Crimond and the Crimond tree belt cuts off the sites from the settlement. The Council as Road Authority states that access to these sites would be required via sites H1 and E1 with a distributor road linking all development sites. If sites B44 and B45 were developed before a new link road is built (i.e. before sites H1 and E1), separate access would be required, as there is no appropriate access road from the settlement, increasing the isolation of these sites. Developing site B45 would involve the demolition of a World War 2 camp site which is of at least local significance. The camp site is linked to Rattray Airfield, another archaeological site, which is less than 1km north of Crimond. There are more appropriate sites for development in Crimond and site B44 could be considered for development when the plan is reviewed.

Conclusion

Page 20 None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Crimond are already 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 21 Issue 116 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1 – Table 3 reference: Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (page 12 & 13) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

3, 116 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Charles Gall 1967 Baxter Design Ltd on behalf of Mr D Jones

Provision of the development plan to Housing Land Allocations in Fetterangus at which the issue relates: H1 & H2.

Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H2 Fetterangus 3, 116: Express concern that development on the site would be contrary to both Scottish Planning Policy and Aberdeenshire City and Shire Structure Plan, as it is likely to have a negative impact on the setting of Fetterangus Church, which is a Schedule Ancient Monument. Notes that when responding to the Main Issues Report, Historic Scotland had strongly objected to development on the west side of Fetterangus, as it may adversely impact on the setting of Fetterangus Church. 1967: The respondent supports the site and is in negotiations with adjacent landowners of site H1 with a view to providing an overall masterplan and access to serve site H2. Alternative site Fetterangus 3, 116: The respondent suggests site B75, as identified in the Main Issues Report, as an alternative site to H2. Site B75 is adjacent to site fh2* [correct reference is fh1] in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan, which has recently been granted planning permission, and it would round off the east side of the settlement. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 3, 116: Delete site H2. 3, 116: Allocate site B75, as identified in the Main Issues Report for around 30 houses. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Fetterangus is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area within the Rural Housing Market Area. The settlement strategy within the local growth and diversification area focuses development on settlements that will allow the provision of important infrastructure, or have a specific need identified (see Issue 66). Fetterangus has a declining school roll (forecast to be at 45% of its capacity by 2016). In light of this, development has been proposed to sustain existing local services, provide a choice of housing and meet local need for housing. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. In light of this, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 18 and 19).

Site H2 Fetterangus In the light of Historic Scotland’s concerns regarding developing westwards, towards Fetterangus Church, development was initially proposed east of the settlement (i.e. site B75). However, the Council were of the opinion that site H2 would be the most natural progression for development in the village. A field and playing field separates site H2 from Fetterangus Church, and the masterplan required for the site will address concerns relating to the setting of Fetterangus Church, and will allow further opportunity for engagement in relation to the

Page 22 detail of the site, its layout, siting and design. Support for the site is welcomed. Alternative site Fetterangus Site B75 was fully considered in the assessment of response to the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it in preference to developing to the west of the village, on sites H1 and H2, as discussed above. Sites H1 and H2 are much closer (within 100m) to the primary school than is site B75. The site could be considered for development when the plan is reviewed.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Fetterangus are already 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 23 Issue 117 Schedule 1, Table 1 (p25) Reporter: Development plan Document 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement (p34 to 36)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2170 Baxter Design Ltd on behalf of Mr Catto 2896 Dr John Ollason 2926 Alexander and Kathleen Thom 2933 Rev Sheila Kirk on behalf of Congregational Board of Deer Parish Church Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations at Old Deer. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): 1979: The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency requests that the allocation of a cemetery is shown on the proposals map, as development contributions to provide a new cemetery extension in Old Deer is mentioned in the settlement statement text for Mintlaw and Stuartfield. However, no specific site appears in the supplementary guidance or on the Plan for Old Deer. Site EH1 Old Deer 2896, 2926, 2933: Do not support the allocation of EH1 for housing. Respondents 2896 and 2926 express concern that the allocation, which surrounds The Manse will reduce daylight and privacy into the manse, and spoil the quality and character of the area, which is a Conservation Area. Respondent 2926 adds time should be allowed for the most recent housing development to be assimilated into the village and questions the need for further building given the number of new properties still for sale. Respondent 2933 expresses concern that no notification to allocate the site was served on the manse property. Alterative site Old Deer 2170: Expresses concern that site H1 [EH1] may not come forward for development and suggests an additional provision of land for housing in Old Deer to the southwest of the settlement. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 1979: Allocate land for a new cemetery extension on the Proposals Map and Supplementary guidance in Old Deer.

2896, 2926, 2933: delete site EH1 for housing.

2170: Allocate land west of Old Deer for housing (e.g. 18 units) Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Old Deer is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area within the Rural Housing Market Area. There is limited need for development in Old Deer as there is no school. It is located between Mintlaw and Stuartfield and it does not have the same level of facilities that would justify a new allocation for housing. In light of this, only the remaining allocation from the current plan is carried forward for development to meet local need for housing. The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. In light of this, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. Some 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 47 and 48). Cemetery extension It is accepted that the settlement statement should identify the location of the proposed extension to Old Deer Cemetery.

Page 24 Site EH1 Old Deer The site is identified in the existing plan as site fh1. A single dwelling house (the Manse) has been built on the allocation. The generally flat nature of the site is unlikely to reduce light into the Manse or affect its privacy. The impact on the quality and character of the area is not likely to be significant given the small scale and peripheral location of the site. However, its location within Old Deer Conservation Area and its close proximity to the Manse will be a constraint on the design and layout of the allocation. The Manse and six other properties were notified about the proposed plan when it was published in July 2010.

Alterative site Old Deer The site was not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. There are insufficient facilities and limited need for development in Old Deer, as discussed above, which would justify a new allocation for housing in the settlement. Conclusion With exception of the minor modification below, it is not necessary to modify the plan. The development strategy and land allocations in Old Deer are already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: It is suggested that the following change is made to the plan:

Add an “R1” designation to the Proposals Map.

The following change has been made to Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance: Settlement statements Buchan:

In the supplementary guidance for Buchan, under the settlement statement for Old Deer, add under section 'Proposed sites' “Site R1 is reserved for an extension to Old Deer cemetery.” and add an “R1” designation to the settlement statement map on page 35.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 25 Issue 118 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map (P20) Reporter: Schedule 1 – Table 3 (p26) Development plan Document 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement (page 18 to 20)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

598 Alastair Scott 614 William & Patricia Buchan 1632, 1635 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of CHAP Homes Ltd 2528 Mr and Mrs Gary and Morag Urquhart

Provision of the development plan to M1 Land Allocations in Longside. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site M1 Longside 1632, 1635: The respondent supports the allocation of the site, which will assist in delivering a new western route, reducing traffic through the centre of Longside. 598, 2528: The respondent says they were informed that the site was allocated as green belt/greenfield and there were no plans to develop the area. 598, 614: Express concern with privacy for existing properties on Church Lane should the site be developed in close proximity to Church Lane. 598: Express concern with the potential design of the houses being double storey and overlooking and over-shadowing existing dwellings should the houses be built in close proximity to Church Lane. 614: Water drainage coming off the hill from the development site is currently a problem. 614: Church Lane is not suitable for additional traffic, which has been demonstrated with the recent closure of Main Street in Longside. 2528: The scale of the development would destroy the ethos of the village and village life.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 614, 2528: Delete site M1. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Longside is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area within the Rural Housing Market Area. The settlement strategy within the local growth and diversification area focuses development on settlements that will allow the provision of important infrastructure, or have a specific needs identified (see issue 66). Longside has a declining school roll (forecast to be at 88% of its capacity by 2016) and development provides the opportunity to provide for a distributor road to the south of the settlement. In light of this, development has been proposed to sustain existing local services and to meet local need for housing, The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. A few 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 30 to 32). Site M1 Longside The support for the site is welcomed. Allocation M1 is carried forward from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan (as sites fh1, P4, fh3* and EmpA): thus the principle of development on this site was considered at a previous examination (see attached extract of Local Plan Inquiry Report, Volume 3 Buchan, pages 8 to

Page 26 12). It has not been proposed to allocate the east side of Longside as green space or green belt, as the Local Plan Inquiry recommended the identification of site fh3* to secure the construction of part of the by-pass (paragraph 91.14). It is unlikely that development on site M1 would over-look onto properties on Church Lane as there are houses only along the one side of the road (south-side). However, there is an opportunity to influence the layout and design of the houses through the masterplan, which is required for the site, to ensure there is sufficient distance between the existing and proposed housing. Furthermore, it is likely that part of the design would look for street frontage, although this is a matter for detailed design. The surface water issue is likely to be from poor drainage, given that there are no watercourses within the site and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has not raised any issues relating to flooding or drainage. Given the scale of the site an appropriately designed sustainable drainage system would take account of surface water runoff. Regarding road access and traffic, the Council’s Roads Authority require access to be taken from the existing development to the north and connect through to Inverquhomery Road, avoiding Church Lane. The Roads Authority also requires a roundabout on Inverquhomery Road to access site M1 and existing houses to the south of the site. Some development may be accessed from Church Lane, to ensure good street frontage, as discussed above, but most of the south-bound traffic would be directed to Inverquhomery Road and not Church Lane. The scale of development proposed to the west of the settlement, and its likely impact on the settlement was discussed at the previous Local Plan Inquiry. The Reporter did not consider that the village atmosphere would be threatened, or that the growth of the development proposed would be so great that it would be unable to absorb the changes. Given that the same area of land is being proposed for development, it is not envisaged that site M1 will adversely impact on residents’ quality of life. Conclusion The modification sought is not supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Longside 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 27 Issue 119 Settlement – Maud Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p20) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) reference: Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statement (p21 & 22) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

25 Mr & Mrs James & Kathleen Brown 52 Mr & Mrs Brian and Glenda McEwan 154, 155 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of J&B Muir 161 Mrs Margaret Simpson 2268 Mrs Dorothy Chapman 2269 Mr Brian Chapman

Provision of the development plan to Housing Land Allocations in Maud – H1. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Sites H1 and EH1 Maud 154, 155: Support the allocation of site H1 as it is a logical location for the future expansion of Maud; is within walking distance of local services; can be independently accessed via Castle Road and Victoria Road; can provide two points of access into site EH1; and would sustain the local community. 161: Suggests the site should not be allocated given the strength of objection from previous consultation events. 25: Objects to site EH1 as there is low demand for houses in Maud and other brownfield sites should be developed first. 161, 2269: Express concern with the need for the proposed site as newly built houses remain unsold. 52: Express concern with development of the site as it would spoil the character of the village, affect peoples’ privacy as houses would be too close to existing properties, the school is almost at maximum capacity and cannot cope with a significant increase of pupils, and there is not enough employment in Maud to support an increased population. 2269: Suggests site B84, as identified in the Main Issues Report [EH1] should be developed before any other site is developed. Alternative sites Maud 25, 161, 2268, 2269: Suggest alternative sites to H1 and/or EH1 and EH2. Existing housing sites, gap sites, brownfield land and smaller plots within Maud should be developed before larger sites on the periphery of the village. It is suggested by one respondent that developing brownfield sites would improve the appearance of the village (25). 154, 155: Suggests an alternative to site EH1. Proposes site B71, as identified in the Main Issues Report, since site EH1 is identified in the Housing Land Audit as constrained and therefore unlikely to come forward during the lifetime of the plan. Thus it would not support the local school, which has a declining school roll. Site B71 is adjacent to an existing allocation under development in the current plan and it would 'round off' the settlement on the main gateway into Maud from Aberdeen, and provide an attractive entrance into the village. It was a popular location with local residents at a public exhibition in 2009. It is within walking distance of local amenities. Site EH2 already benefits from planning permission. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 52, 161: Delete site H1. 25, 161, 2268, 2269: Phase allocations to allow brownfield land (e.g. Sellars yard, Sherran’s coal yard and the railway station yard), smaller undeveloped areas of land in Maud and EH1

Page 28 (2269) to be developed before larger peripheral sites (e.g. site H1). 154, 155: Delete site EH1 and replace with site B71 as identified in the Main Issues Report for up to 50 houses. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Maud is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area within the Rural Housing Market Area. Development in Maud would support a number of services and shops. Its school roll is slowly falling (forecast to be at 83% of its capacity by 2016). In light of this, an allocation of up to 75 houses and the continuation of two housing sites within the current plan have been proposed to sustain local services and provide opportunity to meet local need for housing. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. In light of this, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. The majority 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 Volume 3 Buchan Paper' (May 2010, pages 33 to 35). Site H1 Maud The support for the site is welcomed. Site B10, as identified in the Main Issues Report (page B20) was initially put forward for development, as it has the greatest connectivity with the existing housing estates compared with the other proposed sites, and sites B71 and B72 (site H1) were considered as possible future housing sites. However, the Council took a view, which placed greater weight on the community’s preference for site H1 and its good linkages with site EH1, and site H1 is now the settled view of the Council as to where development should take place (see Issues and Actions Volume 3 Buchan p33). The generally flat nature of the site means that development is unlikely to affect the character of the settlement. A masterplan is required for the site, which will allow an opportunity to influence the layout and design of the site, and address concerns relating to privacy. There is sufficient capacity in the school to accommodate the development proposed. No employment land has been proposed by developers. Within the village the redevelopment of the former mart site provides opportunities for small-medium size businesses. Furthermore Maud is on a number of regional and local bus routes to Aberdeen, Ellon, Fraserburgh, Mintlaw and Turriff. The school roll in the area is falling, and the need for development in Maud is discussed above. Site EH1 is allocated in the current plan and can come forward for development at any time. However, the local development plan has little influence over when a developer may market a site. Alternative sites Maud Brownfield and gaps sites Remaining allocations and gap sites are unlikely to meet need for development in Maud to sustain local services, and the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan during the lifetime of the local development plan (i.e. up to 2021). Furthermore, brownfield or gap sites can be developed as in fill development in accordance with Policy 8 Layout, siting and design of new development and supplementary guidance SG LSD4: Infill development, without the need to be allocated in the plan. Site B71 Site B71 was fully considered in the assessment of response to the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, in preference to developing site B72 (site H1), and to consider site B71 for development in

Page 29 future years. There is still interest from the Council to develop site EH1 for housing, and an additional site was put forward for development by the Council in the Main Issues Report (site B84). The masterplan, which is required for sites H1 and EH1, will ensure good linkages and design between the two sites. Site H1 is proposed for 75 houses, and a further allocation on top of the existing housing sites would result in over-development. In light of this, it would not be appropriate to allocate site B71 for development. However, it could be considered for development when the plan is reviewed. Only half of site EH2 benefits from planning permission. Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Maud are already 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 30 Issue 120 Settlement – Rora Section 6, The Proposals Map, (P20) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 3, (p26) Development plan Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement (page 49 & 50)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

633 William Burnett 1065 Rora Community Association on behalf of Rora Village Community Association 1067 Rora Village Community Association on behalf of Rora Village Community Association 1070 Mr Steven Abrams 1105 Mr & Mrs Robert & Mary Anderson 1113 Mr & Mrs William & Dorothy Burnett 1134 Michael Robertson 1136 Colin Scott 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2050 Mr Douglas Grant 2195 Mrs Lorna Clure 2322 Mr George Evans 2326 Mrs Catherine Voar 2334 Mrs Lynne Marshall 2485 Mrs Jane Mackie

Provision of the development plan to Housing Land Allocations in Rora – H1. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Sites H1 and P1 Rora 1065, 1067, 1070, 1105: Express support for Main Issue Report site B38 [H1] for up to 6 houses and the community park (P1) opposite the village hall, as it is in the heart of the village and links the areas together (1065). 1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency recommends that due to the presence of the watercourse adjacent to the site, a development brief should highlight the flood risk of the site. 2322: The site has poor drainage conditions due to the soil’s high clay content, and the new development would disrupt the water table. 2326: The site will flood. 2322: Expresses concern that the site will not add to the well being of residents, no street lighting is proposed and there will be no gain to the village from the addition of a public transport route. 2322, 2334: The site is proposed in a village with no amenities. 2326: The site does not make an aesthetic flow into the village and the character of the village would be spoiled by the development. Suggests it is more appropriate that individual houses are built, which is what has happened in the past. 2334: Expresses concern that a play area in a village with no pavements and little street lighting would affect pedestrian safety. 2322, 2326: The park proposed by the developer is not supported by residents, it would not be adequately maintained, and there is no guarantee it will not be developed on in the future (2322). 2485: Reports that the community fund from the proposed Middleton of Rora [wind] turbine would support the maintenance of the park that is proposed on site H1. Alternative sites Rora

Page 31 Site B89 633, 2195: Proposes site B89, as identified in the Main Issues Report, as an alternative to site H1, as it would address road safety issues approved by the Council and contribute to the traffic calming measures for Rora. It is not on prime agricultural land and has no drainage issues. A smaller scale of development would integrate well within the small community, be more appropriate, and link Smithy Croft with The Greens and The Street (2195). 1134: Gives support to development on site B89, as a five a-side football playing field is proposed, which would result in children not having to cross the road, and street lighting would be contributed to. 2050: Proposes an alternative to site H1, site B89, as the community park would be on the same side of the road as the public hall, and development on the site would start to create a better laid out village. 1113: Supports a five a-side football park on site B89. 1065: The respondent has no objection to 2 houses on site B89, but objects to a park on the site, as no-one will see it. 1067, 1136: Do not support development on site B89. One respondent expresses concerns with developing on site B89 as it has poor drainage, views would be spoiled and it would increase the number of houses in the countryside (1136). Site at The Spittal 2326: Suggests an alternative to site H1. Proposes land to the south of site H1, for up to 4 houses, as it would be accessed from The Spittal and fill the space between the main road and the first house on The Spittal. The respondent notes, that this area has better drainage, would be aesthetically better and would continue the flow of houses. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 1979: Add to the supplementary guidance text for Rora “A small watercourse is adjacent to the site and flood risk has not been adequately quantified. A development brief should note that a flood risk assessment may be required in support of any application.” 2322, 2334: Delete sites H1 and P1. 633, 2050, 2195: Delete sites H1 and P1 and replace with site B89, as identified in the Main Issues Report for up to 4 houses and a public park to the east of site B89. 1065: Allocate site B89 for up to 2 houses. 1113: Allocate a five a-side football park on site B89. 1134: Allocate site B89 for housing and a five aside football playing field. 2326: Delete sites H1 and P1 and replace with a site south of H1 for up to 4 houses on The Spittal. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Rora is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area within the Rural Housing Market Area. Rora is only served by a community hall, but it does have a reduced speed limit of 30mph where most communities of this scale do not. Settlements of this scale would not normally receive an allocation and would have to satisfy the policy and Supplementary Guidance on Rural Development. However, a planning application for a community picnic/play area received planning consent in 2005 (APP/2004/4377) close to the village hall. The development of site H1 would enable the development of a park, which would provide a community benefit and join two areas of Rora together – The Greens and Spittal Road. The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. In light of this, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. The majority 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 Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 56 to 58).

Page 32 Sites H1 and P1 Rora The support for the site is welcomed. Drainage appears to be an issue for the whole area and not just for site H1, as there are several drains that run parallel to field boundaries. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency note the presence of the drain (watercourse) adjacent to the site, but do not raise any flooding concerns, only requiring that the flood risk is highlighted in a development brief. Regarding Scottish Environment Protection Agency's proposed modification, the development management process is the appropriate stage to identify which assessments will be required. The small-scale of development proposed in site H1 does not allow for substantial community benefit in terms of off-site developer contributions and bus services. However, the development of H1 will provide community benefit in the form of a park, which the area does not have. Currently there is one local amenity within Rora, the village hall, which lies adjacent to site H1. The allocation is unlikely to adversely affect the character of Rora as the shape of site H1 reflects the linear layout of existing streets/dwellings. Individual houses previously built have not always respected the linear characteristic of the area and allocating land for housing would help to sustain this characteristic. The Council’s Roads Authority raises no perceived issues with road safety (i.e. no traffic calming measures are required) or access to the site, subject to the road satisfying required standards. They require the proposed point of access to be linked with roads to adoptable standards. The development management process is the appropriate stage to identify the need for street lighting. No objections were received to the picnic area that was approved in 2005. Planning conditions would ensure that plants within the park are replaced as necessary for up to five years after its completion. The possible additional proposed funding source to assist in maintaining the park is welcomed. Alternative sites Rora Site B89 Site B89, as identified in the Main Issues Report (page B21), which proposed only housing, was fully considered in assessment of responses to the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, giving preference to developing site H1 to secure the provision of the play area/park. The proposed alternative site now includes the addition of a large play area and offers similar advantages to site H1 in terms of linking parts of Rora together (The Greens, The Street and The Spittal (at North Lochead)) and a play area. It also proposes a much larger park and traffic calming measures, including street lighting along the main road. There is strong local opinion on both sites H1 and B89, but the allocation within Rora is already sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement in the plan period. The B89 site could be considered for development when the plan is reviewed. Site at The Spittal Land south of The Spittal is within site B38, which was identified as a preferred site for development in the Main Issues Report. However, site H1, which is also within site B38, was considered the most appropriate site for housing, as it would provide more community benefit in terms of the provision of a park. The allocation within Rora is already sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement in the plan period. However, the additional site could also be considered for development when the plan is reviewed. Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Rora are already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Page 33

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 34 Issue 121 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p20) Reporter: Development plan Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement (page 55 to 56)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

96 A.R.D. Properties Ltd 505 Mr David Buchan 506 Mr & Mrs Kenneth Fowlie 507 R Leslie 508 E Buchan 586 Stuart Leslie 917, 1695 Alexander Duthie & Sons Ltd 1163, 1164 DDP LLP (Planning Consultants) on behalf of Church of Scotland General Treasurer

Provision of the development plan to Housing Land Allocations in St Fergus at which the issue relates: H1 & H2.

Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 St Fergus 1163, 1164: Express support for the site, as it is appropriate and would create a logical extension to the settlement. 586: Expresses concern that the scale of the development would affect the dynamics and tranquillity of the village. 505, 506, 507, 508: Accept the requirement to provide 55 houses on the site, but do not want the tranquillity of the area spoilt by an ever-expanding housing estate. Alternative site St Fergus 96, 917, 1695: Request land south of H1 is allocated in the plan for housing. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 586: Reduce number of houses on site H1. 96, 917, 1695: Allocate land south west of site H1 for housing. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview St Fergus is located within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and Regeneration Priority Area, within the Rural Housing Market Area. St Fergus has a steadily declining school roll (forecast to be at 76% of its capacity by 2016). It is also located in close proximity to St Fergus, a significant employer in the area. In light of this, and the declining school roll, an allocation of up to 55 houses has been proposed to sustain local services, provide a choice of housing locally, and meet local need for housing. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites/policies is contained in the 'Issues and Actions Volume 3 Buchan’ paper (May 2010, pages 61 and 62), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan. Site H1 St Fergus The support for the site is welcomed. The school roll in the area is falling, and the need for development in St Fergus is discussed above. Half of site H1 is carried forward from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan as allocation fh1, and the

Page 35 remainder was identified in that plan as an area of search for future housing (fh2*). The site is a logical extension of St Fergus as it is enclosed by houses to the west, protected land (site P2) to the east, Newton Road to the north and a minor road to the south. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to influence the layout and design of the houses through the masterplan, which is required for the site. Alternative site St Fergus The site was not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. The scale of proposed site, if combined with site H1, is likely to result in over-development and exceed school roll capacity (there is limited land available to extend the school). The proposed allocations are already sufficient and appropriate and there is no need to consider additional or alternative sites. However, the site can be considered when the plan is reviewed. Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocation in St Fergus is already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy without identifying an additional housing allocation south of the settlement. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 36 Issue 122 Settlement – Section 6, The Proposals Map (p20) Reporter: Development plan Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statement (p53 to 54) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Provision of the development plan to Allocations at St Fergus Terminal. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site R1 St Fergus Gas Terminal 1979: Areas of the site have fluvial flood risk, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency objects to the site unless the issue of flood risk is highlighted in the Plan or Supplementary Guidance, as required by Scottish Planning Policy, to inform the development area and layout. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 1979: Delete site R1 unless the following wording is included in the supplementary guidance for St Fergus Gas Terminal “Part of this site lies within SEPA’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. A detailed flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site and adequate buffer strips will be required adjacent to existing watercourses.” Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Site R1 St Fergus Gas Terminal In light the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s concerns of potential flood risk on the site, text has been added to the supplementary guidance for St Fergus Gas Terminal to clarify that a flood risk assessment and buffer strips will be required.

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

The following change has been made to Volume 3E Supplementary Guidance: Settlement statements Buchan:

In the supplementary guidance for Buchan, under the settlement statement for St Fergus Gas Terminal, add under section ‘Proposed sites’ for site R1, “Part of this site lies within SEPA’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. A detailed flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site and adequate buffer strips will be required adjacent to existing watercourses.”

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 37 Issue 123 Other sites in Buchan Rural Housing Market Section 6, The Proposals Map, (P20) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 3 (page 26) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 3 (p31) reference: Schedule 3 (38) Volume 3E, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Buchan Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

1213, 1823, 1826, 2148 Ryden LLP on behalf of McIntosh Plant Hire 1968 Baxter Design Ltd on behalf of Mr J Macintosh

Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in other settlements within which the issue relates: Buchan.

Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Kininmonth, Leys Quarry 1213, 1823, 1826, 2148: Request that site B39, as identified in the Main Issues Report in Kininmonth (Leys Quarry) be allocated for 1.85 ha of employment land and 45 houses. The site is in close proximity to the local primary school, houses and employment uses. It is a brownfield site. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s flood map does not identify any flooding on the site. It has good transport links. It would help meet the Structure Plan’s requirements for houses in the local growth and diversification areas of the Rural Housing Market Area. Bridge of Faichfield 1968: Request that site B63, as identified in the Main Issues Report in Bridge of Faichfield (between Longside and ) is allocated for development, as the flooding and gas pipeline issues can be resolved, and due to the amount of mature landscaping, it would fit within the landscape. Suggests, as an alternative, listing the site in Appendix 1 of defined settlements in the SG Rural Development 1: Housing and business development in the countryside. Suggests Bridge of Faichfield should at least be recognised as a cohesive group in the wording of the supplementary guidance. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 1213, 1823, 1826, 2148: Allocate site B39, as identified in the Main Issues Report, as a mixed use site for 1.85 ha of employment land and up to 45 houses in the plan. 1968: Allocate site B63, as identified in the Main Issues Report, for development (e.g. 9 houses and 4 business units) in the plan; or list Bridge of Faichfield as a settlement in Appendix 1 of the SG Rural Development 1: Housing and business development in the countryside. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview All these sites are within the Rural Housing Market Area and 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, including providing opportunities to increase numbers going to primary schools where the roll is dropping.

Alternative Sites The allocations made within the Rural Housing Market Area are already appropriate and sufficient and there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Kininmonth, Leys Quarry The site at Leys Quarry, site B39 in the Main Issues Report, was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as the development form in this area is organic and it would result in over-development. Although sustaining the school is important, it cannot be

Page 38 the determining factor if sustainable development is to be promoted. When commenting on the Main issues Report, Scottish Natural Heritage advised against development on the site as they considered the development would be unsustainable. There are no other facilities in the area and Mintlaw is only 5km away. It would be more appropriate for proposals for housing and employment land in this area to be considered under Policy 3 and supplementary guidance on development in the countryside. When commenting on the Main Issue Report, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency registered concern about whether the potential flood risk has been adequately quantified, as the site is adjacent to a minor watercourse and much of the site is made up of large ponds. They suggest a flood risk assessment is required. See 'Issues and Actions Volume 3 Buchan’ paper, page 26, Leys Quarry.

Bridge of Faichfield The site at Bridge of Faichfield, site B63 in the Main Issues Report, was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as part of the site is at medium to high risk of flooding. Furthermore, there are no services or facilities that would justify an allocation. See 'Issues and Actions Volume 3 Buchan’ paper page 9, Bridge of Faichfield. However, development in this area could be considered under Part B.3) (cohesive groups) of supplementary guidance SG Rural Development1: Housing and business development in the countryside.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in the Rural Housing Market Area 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 39