096 Rashierieve, Foveran

Response ID Respondent 1580 SEPA 1633 Emac Planning LLP on behalf of D. Fairlie partnership 1809 Scottish Water

1. Issues Existing Allocations Two respondents provided factual information regarding water infrastructure, flood risk and wider environmental issues, for both existing allocations and development bid sites (1580, 1809). In particular, it was noted that a Flood Risk Assessment is required for site SR1 (1580). The site promoter for FM082 argued for the allocation of this proposal as it is within the - SGA, would allow sustainable growth of the settlement and balance the allocation of land uses, particularly the large allocation for employment land in the village, E1 (1633).

2. Actions Existing Allocations The technical matters raised by respondents are noted. These issues will be taken into account through the development management process when planning applications are submitted. No further action is required in response to these detailed comments at this stage. The information provided in support of FM082 was previously submitted with the development bid and considered in the Main Issues Report. There has been no material change to warrant reconsideration of the officer’s decision not to prefer the site. In addition, subsequent to the approval of the City and Shire Strategic Development Plan, it has been determined that there is no requirement for additional development land allocations in , unless a local need is identified. A clear local need has not been demonstrated by the respondent.

3. Committee Recommendations 1. The existing E1 and SR1 allocations should be retained in the Proposed Plan. 2. As no additional needs have been identified in Rashierieve, there is reason to allocate further development land in the settlement.

Page 1 of 2

4. Committee Recommendations 1. The Area Committee agreed recommendation 1 at their meeting on 17 June 2014. The committee also agreed that recommendation 2 should be amended to read: 2. As no additional needs have been identified in Rashierieve, there is no reason to allocate further development land in the settlement. 2. Infrastructure Services Committee noted the recommendation of the Area Committee and agreed that no further action was required.

Page 2 of 2