153 Muchalls

153 Muchalls Response Number Name 9 Mr Scott Muir 40 Dr. and Mrs J and S Petty 64 Mr and Mrs Hugh & Kathleen Roche 67 Mr W.J. & S.J. McCafferty 445 Mr and Mrs James and Patricia Burns 454 Ms Christine 552 Mr John Ord 589 Mrs June Rattray 627 Mr John Ord 825 Archial Norr on behalf of W.D. Robertson 860 Newtonhill, Muchalls & Cammachmore Community Council 1580 SEPA 1656 Strutt & Parker on behalf of The Aberdeen Endowments Trust 1809 Scottish Water 1824 Dee District Salmon Fishery Board 1. Issues Objectives Support was voiced for the LNCS designation around the settlement (860) and for the settlements conservation status (64). However, three respondents raised concern over coalescence with surrounding settlements (9, 445,454,860). Infrastructure: Concern was raised regarding access for pedestrians crossing the A90 (589) and for vehicular access to the A90 (860). Scottish Water notes that there is both water and waste water treatment capacity (1809). The Salmon Fishery Board also raise concern that KM103 will have a medium level of impact on salmon fisheries whilst KM018 will have a low impact on the fisheries (1824). KM103 Several respondents opposed this bid on various issues, namely: road safety and traffic congestion (9, 40, 64, 552, 589, 627, 860), lack of amenities (9, 64, 67, 454, 552, 627), lack of sewage infrastructure (40, 67, 552, 627), impact on the setting (9, 445, 552, 627) and concern over coalescence (9, 860). SEPA indicated that there is a small water course on the site which goes under the road further down stream, investigation required (1580). There has also been support received for this bid identifying that this bid will help to maintain a minimum 5 year supply as it is in an effective and deliverable location (1656). It is also thought that Portlethen Academy being over capacity in 2016 is not a reason to stop this development as it could be dealt with through developer contributions (1656). KM018 Several respondents opposed this bid on various issues, namely: road safety and traffic congestion (9, 40, 64, 589, 860); lack of amenities (9, 64, 67, 454); lack of sewage infrastructure (40, 67); impact on the setting (9, 445) and concern over coalescence (9, 860). However, there was support for KM018 on the basis of local need, access to public transport, support for schools, because the site is located in the SGA, and because of a lack of small sites (825). Page 1 of 3 SEPA has provided factual information indicating that while capacity may be available in isolation for this development in combination with other developments there is concern about extraction capacity from the Dee (1580). 2. Actions The support for an LNCS designation has been noted and is being evaluated in the context of issue 22. Community representatives opposed all the new development bids proposed. The technical matters raised by Scottish Water and the Salmon Fishery Board are noted and will be assessed through the planning application process. The concerns re access to and across the A90 has been noted. The scope for Aberdeenshire Council or the Development Plan to address this directly is limited as the A90 falls under the control of Transport Scotland. However, where new development of a sufficient scale comes forward it is the aim of Aberdeenshire Council to see upgrades to improve access and road safety along the A90 corridor. It would be unlikely that development in Muchalls would be of a scale that could justify the road improvements that would be required by Transport Scotland. Issues associated with lack of facilities are noted. Likewise we would agree that site KM018 could have an impact on the setting of the village and lead to a perception of coalescence. We are not convinced that there is a demonstrable need for new development in the village. Following the publication of the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan there is no requirement to provide additional housing land allocations unless a specific local need is identified. In light of this, it is not proposed to allocate any additional sites in this settlement at this time. Concern was raised by SEPA in relation to services capacity for these development however as there is no identified need to allocate sites this will not be an issue at this time. 3. Committee Recommendations 1. As no additional needs have been identified we are not proposing any new allocations of development land in Muchalls. Page 2 of 3 4. Committee Decisions 1. Kincardine and Mearns 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 the recommendation of the Area Committee and agreed that no further action was required. Page 3 of 3 .

Load more