154

Response ID Respondent 9 Mr Scott Muir 18 Newtonhill Boys Club 22 Mr Alan Jones 40 Dr. and Mrs J and S Petty 43 Mr Rob Peaker 61 Mr Robert Peaker 64 Mr and Mrs Hugh & Kathleen Roche 67 Mr W.J. & S.J. McCafferty 78 Mr Graham Skinner 122 Ms Myra Stewart 445 Mr and Mrs James and Patricia Burns 552 Mr John Ord 748 Mr and Mrs Graham & Elisabeth Brown 768 Mr and Mrs George & Liz Keith 860 Newtonhill, & Cammachmore Community Council 1106 Ms Cara Campbell 1107 Ms Sarah Campbell 1108 Ms Helen Campbell 1109 Mr Ian Campbell 1258 Ms Beatriz Miguez 1259 Mr Mark Bragg 1358 Bancon Developments 1549 Burness Paull LLP on behalf of Elsick Development Company Limited 1580 SEPA 1611 Bancon Developments on behalf of DLD Associates 1623 Ms Dorothy Hogg 1624 Mr and Mrs Frank & Gwen Caie 1725 Emac Planning on behalf of Polmuir Properties (Newtonhill) Limited & Apex trust company 1809 Scottish Water 1824 Dee District Salmon Fishery Board

1. Issues Settlement Objectives: Several respondents supported the officer’s comments that there is no need for more allocations (67, 445, 552, 860). Specific objections to further allocations included concern regarding coalescence with Muchalls (078, 122, 1623), lack of services, transport congestion (122, 1623, 1624) and drainage (1624). One respondent raised concern over the quality of design in housing (64). Another respondent highlighted the need for additional sports and leisure facilities in the settlement and called for any development to contribute to leisure facilities (22). Finally concern was also raised about access onto the A90 (122,768). Existing Sites

Page 1 of 5 Two respondents made an objection to site H1 on the grounds of environmental impact and loss of habitat for animals and insects (43, 61). There was a proposal from the developer of Elsick to bring forward the E1 and SR1 employment sites in this phase of the plan. This was based on infrastructure being provided to this site as part of the Elsick development. The SR1 site would then be replaced in the second phase of the plan with employment land from the Elsick allocation (1549). KM025 An objection was made on the grounds of setting and access (860). KM027 An objection was made regarding traffic and landscape impact (860). KM045: Support was offered for the bid on the grounds of limited landscape impact, a new link bridge over the Elsick Burn and the need to allocate more housing land (1611). KM047 Two respondents objected to the development, citing: coalescence with Cammachmore; the size of the development; the impact on traffic; setting; drainage; its location in the green belt; and because of flood risk (1623, 860). Support was offered on the grounds of limited landscape impact, provision of a new link bridge over the Elsick Burn and the need to allocate more housing land in the settlement (1611). KM097 An objection was made to the bid site on the grounds of coalescence with Cammachmore, the size of the development (748, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1258, 1623), impact on traffic, setting, drainage and flooding (1258, 1259, 1623). However, support was offered on the grounds of proximity to employment land and the need to allocate more housing land in the village (1358). KM111 There was opposition to this bid on the grounds of its link to KM067, as it is felt that having playing fields located above cliffs may be unsuitable (22). However, support was given to the bid site as there is a need for sports facilities (18). There was also support for this development if it was considered in isolation, excluding the housing on KM067 (860). KM067 Several respondents objected to this development on the grounds of coalescence with Muchalls, and also on the scale of the development (9, 40, 67, 64, 552, 860, 1358, 1611). A further objection was made basis of access (18). However, support was also forthcoming on the grounds that community benefit would accrue from the playing fields that would be delivered (18, 1725). The developer also argued that there is a need to allocate additional housing land in the settlement and on this specific site to aid deliverability and access (1725). Flooding and Environment: Two respondents provided factual information relating to waste water treatment capacity and flood risk issues in respect of the existing allocations and the bid sites KM045, KM047 KM067 and KM097 (1580, 1809). Medium and low risks of impact were identified on salmon fishing interests from all sites (1824).

Page 2 of 5

2. Actions There was general support from the community for not allocating any additional housing land. Concern over congestion on the A90 has been noted and any new allocations made would have to be supported by a Strategic Trunk Roads Appraisal to the satisfaction of Transport prior to their inclusion in the plan. The concern raised over the quality of housing developments in the area is noted. Many of the existing developments were brought forward under the previous development plan ALP 2006. The current plan ALDP 2012 has significantly increased the requirements for high quality design through specific policies such as Policy 8: Layout, sitting and design and the relevant supplementary guidance. The requirement for Masterplans and Development Frameworks has also been introduced, as have two specific teams within the council to manage the delivery of this process. The combination of the policy changes and the management of the process is expected to increase the quality of design of all new development which comes forward under ALDP 2012. Care must be taken that new development is not justified only by the provision of new facilities. In this case the scale of this development (200 new houses) does not adequately justify the provision of playing fields. While concern over the environmental impact on the H1 site has been noted, these issues will be assessed through the planning application process. H1 has not been assessed as being an important local habitat for insects and is not proposed as a site of Local Nature Conservation Interest The developers of Chapelton (of Elsick) have proposed to take forward both the E1 and the SR1 employment land allocations as part of developing the new infrastructure serving the new town of Chapelton (of Elsick). As the SR1 is identified as Strategic Reserve the developer is proposing to replace this land with part of their employment land allocation within Chapelton (of Elsick). Due to the location of the employment land near the existing settlement of Newtonhill and its access to the A90, it would be appropriate to recommend this change. Playing fields would be an acceptable use for site KM111 but we are advised that this proposal is linked to site KM067 and one will not be forthcoming without the other. It would be misleading to suggest in the Development Plan that the Playing fields were a viable option on their own. Following to the publication of the City and Shire Strategic Development Plan it has been determined that there is no requirement to provide additional housing land allocations unless a specific local need is identified . As no specific need has been identified it is not proposed to allocate any additional sites in this settlement at this time.

3. Recommendations to Committee 1. As no additional needs have been identified in Newtonhill we have no reason to allocate additional development land in the settlement. 2. If an equivalent amount of employment land can be identified in the Chapelton (of Elsick) allocation then the SR1 employment land at Newtonhill should be brought forward for development in the period 2017-2016.

Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5 4. Committee Decisions 1. Area Committee agreed the above recommendations at their meeting on 6 May 2014. 2. Infrastructure Services Committee at their meeting of the 3 July 2014 noted and agreed the recommendation of the Area Committee and agreed that no further action was required.

Page 5 of 5