Town and Country Planning () Act 1997

ANGUS COUNCIL

REPORT ON OBJECTIONS TO THE FINALISED ANGUS LOCAL PLAN REVIEW VOLUME 2

Reporters: Richard E Bowden BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI Richard G Dent BA(Hons) DipTP FRTPI

Dates of inquiry: 23 January – 25 April 2006

Finalised Angus Local Plan

VOLUME 2

CONTENTS

Introduction

page

Part 4, Town Directory – the larger settlements

Arbroath: Development Strategy 1 : Development Boundary 3 Arbroath: A1 Housing - Montrose Road and Omission: Crudie Farms 5 Arbroath: Policy A6 - Regenerate! North Arbroath 24 Arbroath: Policy A9 - Opportunity Site, Ernest Street/ Palmer Street 26 Arbroath: Policies A10 - Cairnie Street / Stobcross and A16 - Westway – 29 Road; Retail Arbroath Arbroath: A11 - Opportunity site, Wardmill /Dens Road 78 Arbroath: Policy A12 – Working, West of Elliot Industrial Estate 83 Arbroath: Policy A19 - Hospitalfield House 85 Arbroath: Omission - Land at Elliot 87 Arbroath: Omission - land north of Warddykes, 90

Brechin: Key Issues and Development Strategy & Town Centre and Retailing 93 : B1 – Housing, Dubton Farm and Omission – 96 Crookston East/Unthank Farm Brechin: B9 – Community Woodland, Cookston 102

Carnoustie and Barry: Key Issues – caravans and camping 104 and Barry: Development Strategy – Carnoustie seafront 106 Carnoustie and Barry: C6, Working – , Carnoustie (proposed amendment) 108 Omission - North/ Road, Carnoustie Carnoustie and Barry: C8 - Primary School Site, Thomas Street 121 Carnoustie and Barry: C9 - Primary School Site, Queen Street 123 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Carlogie 126 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land north of Newton Road playing fields, 129 west of Carlogie Road Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land at Clayholes (Newton Farm) 131 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Panbride/Westhaven 134 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – site for “superloo” 139 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - proposals map – road closures 140 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, south 142 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, north 145 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Greenlaw 148 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry Road west 151 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Waterybutts 155

Finalised Angus Local Plan

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - land north of Barry 158 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - land at Victoria Link, A92 163

Forfar: Residential Development - General background 168 : Site F4 – Wester Restenneth 172 Forfar: Site F5, Whitehills Nursery 176 Forfar: Site F7, New Neighbourhood, Westfield 178 Forfar: Omission – Land at Gowanbank 201 Forfar: Omission – Land at Suttieside 205 Forfar: Omission – Land at Slatefield 208 Forfar: Omission - Land at Turfbeg 212 Forfar, and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area 219 Forfar: Site F12 – Working, Orchardbank 223 Forfar: Site F14: Primary School, Whitehills Nursery 226 Paragraph 15, Primary Schools Forfar: F17 - Forfar Loch 229 Forfar: Omission – Land at North Mains 232 Forfar: Land at Orchardbank – conflict of land use 235

Kirriemuir: Paragraph 3 – Key Issues & Development Strategy 239 Kirriemuir: Residential Development - General background 242 Kirriemuir: Site K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street, 246 Kirriemuir: Site K1, Shielhill Road, 248 Kirriemuir: Site K2, Hillhead 250 Kirriemuir: Land to the south of Beechwood Place 262 Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Sunnyside 270 Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Herdhill/Martin Park 275 Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Pathhead, Forfar Road 277 Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Newton Park 279 Kirriemuir: Omission - land north of Road (two sites) 281 Kirriemuir: Residential Development – Conclusions 284 Kirriemuir: Site K4 – Working, East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road 308

Monifieth: Site Mf 4 - Budden Drive Cemetery Site 310 : Omission – Land at Ashludie Farm, Mains of Ardestie and 317 Ardownie Farm

Montrose: Settlement Statement – Paragraphs 1-5 325 Montrose: Site M1 - Brechin Road & Omission - Marykirk Rd Hillside 327 Montrose: M4 Opportunity Site – Sunnyside Hospital 330 Montrose: M9, Railway Sidings - Montrose Station 332 Montrose: Omission - Glaxo site 335

Finalised Angus Local Plan

INTRODUCTION

This report considers all objections lodged, and not subsequently unconditionally withdrawn, against the terms of the finalised Angus Local Plan Review including the first, second and third rounds of pre-inquiry changes.

The report is set out in 3 volumes:

• General and policy objections (Parts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) and appendices; • The larger settlements – Arbroath, Brechin, Carnoustie and Barry, Forfar, Kirriemuir, Monifieth and Montrose; • The remaining settlements in the Town and Village Directory along with all other settlements.

The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 implement European Union Council Directive 2001/42/EC (the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Under these Regulations, all new and replacement structure and local plans - and those started on or before 21 July 2004 but not adopted or submitted to the legislative procedure for adoption before 22 July 2006 - must be subject to SEA. Scottish Ministers, however, may direct that a particular plan or programme is exempt, if they decide that such an assessment is not feasible.

Initially it was anticipated that the Angus Local Plan Review would be capable of adoption prior to 22 July 2006. Accordingly, a strategic environmental assessment would not be required under the terms of the Directive. More recently it was recognised that adoption by 22 July 2006 had become unlikely and a written request for exemption was submitted to the Scottish Ministers on 16 February 2006. The Scottish Ministers granted the exemption, as requested, on 28 March 2006.

The inquiry took place between 23 January and 25 April 2006 in various locations in Angus. Where requested, the proceedings were conducted as a formal public local inquiry but, for the most part, the objections were discussed at informal hearings. The Reporters sat separately other than for the hearing of objections against Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply and Policy SC6, Affordable Housing.

In considering objections, account has been taken of the evidence presented at the inquiry, written material, supporting documents and site inspections. When requested, the Reporters visited objection sites on an accompanied basis.

Evidence submitted following the close of the inquiry was taken into account only if it was received before the particular matter to which it related had not been dealt with by the appropriate Reporter. Any late documents have simply been passed to the council to be considered as thought fit.

Finalised Angus Local Plan

Recommendations are made in respect of all objections heard at the inquiry and those where objectors elected to rest on written submissions. Objections deemed by the council as invalid (or not in conflict with the terms of the plan) have not been considered and are not the subject of recommendations.

Overall, it is believed that the recommendations would lead to the local plan conforming to the provisions of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan.

Richard E Bowden Richard Dent Reporter Reporter

Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Development Strategy

Objector Reference

Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC 913/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written Submission Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.1 Page 103 of the finalised local plan review at paragraph 7 provides an 8 bullet point development strategy for Arbroath. This makes reference to promoting regeneration, development opportunities and investment within the town, to strengthen the role of Arbroath as a retail and service centre and to develop its visitor potential based on its heritage features. Of particular concern to this objection, the fifth bullet point reads: “Encourage new development and investment where this will strengthen the role of the town as a retail and service centre.”

Basis of the objection

2.2 It is pointed out that the development strategy for Arbroath, whilst encouraging new development and investment does not distinguish between the town centre and locations outwith the town centre. On this basis it is argued that the Arbroath Strategy is not in conformity with the approved structure plan and conflicts with national planning policy, in particular NPPG8 Town Centres and Retailing. It is pointed out that the aims of the approved structure plan for town centres and retailing are set out in paragraph 5.7 of that document. It is noted that these include promoting town centres in their roles as important shopping destinations as the first choice for new retail development. It is also noted that NPPG8 supports this approach, for example by its policy objectives of sustaining and enhancing the vitality, viability and design quality of town centres as the most appropriate location for retailing and other related activities. Based on these considerations, the objector argues that the fifth bullet point of paragraph 7 on Page 103 of the FALPR should be amended to read as follows: “Encourage new development and investment where this will strengthen the town centre as a retail and service centre.”

The council’s response

2.3 The council notes that Arbroath is the largest town in Angus and has a range of retail and other facilities, not necessarily in the town centre, such as the retail warehouse park at Westway and the West Port. This is recognised in the development strategy for Arbroath and

1 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

is in conformity with the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan TownCentres and Retailing Policy 1 : Town Centres which states: To promote the Angus towns and their centres, as defined in the Angus Local Plan, as key locations for new retail development and for complementary leisure, recreational and commercial uses.

2.4 It is also noted that paragraph 5.8 of the approved structure plan states that ‘there are instances where the historic core inhibits the scope for physical expansion and renewal of particular centres.

Conclusions

2.5 There is no dispute that the local plan on adoption must conform to the approved structure plan. It is evident that there is also no disagreement that there is no intention of the FALPR being other than in general accordance with national planning policies and associated guidance including NPPG8 - including with reference to the need to enhance the vitality and viability of town centres as the most appropriate location for retail development. I note that on page 37 of the FALPR there is a section devoted to Town Centres and Retailing. This sets out a policy basis for the local plan in this regard and makes specific reference to the aims of the structure plan and the relevant terms of NPPG8. Over five paragraphs under that heading, page 37 sets out details of the local plan policy approach to town centres and retailing and describes how this is in accordance with the policy objectives of the approved structure plan and NPPG8. Furthermore under the retail heading of that same section of the local plan review Policy SC23 states that town centres are the preferred location for major retail developments in Angus.

2.6 In the above context I am satisfied that the finalised local plan review has satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised by the objector in this case, including elsewhere in the FALPR under the heading of ‘Town centres and retailing’. I am concerned that the proposed amendment to the development strategy for Arbroath on page 103 put forward by the objector would be inappropriate as, by focusing wholly on the town centre, it would exclude encouragement of new development and investment outwith the town centre. Such an approach is not what the approved structure plan or NPPG8 advocate. Whilst the approved structure plan and NPPG8 state a clear presumption in favour of central locations as a first choice and most appropriate location for new retail developments, they do not seek to exclude the possibility of consideration of other locations, on the basis of the sequential approach. I am satisfied, therefore, that when read alongside the other relevant sections of the finalised local plan (including page 37 under the heading of ‘Town centres and retailing’), the wording of the development strategy for Arbroath as set out on page 103, in dealing with the town as a whole is more appropriate than the proposed amendment put forward by the objector. I conclude that there is no justification to amend the local plan in the manner suggested by the objector.

Recommendation

2.7 I recommend that the local plan review should not be modified in this case.

2 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Development Boundary

Objector Reference

Mr Andrew Hurst 826/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.8 The objection concerns the delineation of the Development Boundary around Arbroath shown in the finalised local plan review, in particular the boundary around which excludes part of the garden ground of the objector’s residential property known as the School House.

Basis of the objection

2.9 It is argued by the objector that the Development Boundary around Arbroath should incorporate all of the garden ground around the former School House property, now a private dwelling, which is situated at St Vigeans on the north side of Arbroath.

The council’s response

2.10 Development Boundaries around settlements are designed to protect the landscape setting of towns and villages and to prevent uncontrolled growth. The council states that the garden ground land excluded from the Development Boundary around Arbroath, which extends to 0.3ha, is intended by the objector for development of a single house. In the council’s view the site concerned sits on higher ground, above a slope, and forms an integral part of the landscape setting of St Vigeans which is a conservation area village. In this context, the council considers that development of the site concerned for a house would be unacceptable taking into to consideration the likely impact on the attractive local landscape character as well as traffic safety and local drainage concerns

Conclusions

2.11 I find that the objector has not sought to justify his proposal to adjust the Development Boundary at St Vigeans, beyond stating that this would enclose the garden ground he purchased from the council. In my view this in itself is not sufficient to merit a change in the Development Boundary, particularly in the context of the local topography and the council’s desire to safeguard the setting of the conservation area which I would support. I endorse the concerns outlined by the council in respect of any new house on the garden

3 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review ground concerned. Based on these considerations, I concur with the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that the Development Boundary in the vicinity of the former School House at St Vigeans should not be amended.

Recommendation

2.12 I recommend that the local plan review should be not be modified in this case.

4 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: A1 Housing - Montrose Road and Omission: Crudie Farms

Objector Reference

A1 Housing- Montrose Road Arbroath

Crudie Farms 20/1/1 E & A Spence (support) 894/1/1 A & L King (support) 912/1/1

Omission Arbroath – Crudie Farms

Crudie Farms 20/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Formal Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.13 The adopted Angus Local Plan allocates land at Montrose Road for housing in the period to 2006, and identifies the adjoining land parcel to the north for longer term housing development. The allocated site was granted outline planning permission at the Development Control Committee of 21 October 2004. In accordance with the adopted Angus Local Plan and the conditions attached to the outline planning consent, the developers are preparing a site brief for the whole area identified as site A1 at Montrose Road in the finalised local plan review.

Basis of the objections

On behalf of Crudie Farms

2.14 The objector seeks the deletion of the proposed allocation shown as site A1: Housing Montrose Rd, Arbroath on the Inset Map 1 and described as proposal A1 in the FALPR at p.103. By way of replacement, the objector in a separate objection seeks to have the site at Crudie Farm identified in the finalised local plan review as a site capable of accommodating around 120 housing units, with the potential for further housing post 2011. It is also submitted that the land adjacent to Arbroath Railway Station owned by Crudie Farms should be referred to in the FALP Review as an opportunity of providing additional station parking, as part of the housing proposal for Crudie Farm.

5 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The Montrose Road site

Policy context

2.15 It is acknowledged that the Montrose Rd site was reserved for future housing purposes in the adopted local plan of 2000. An initial phase of 80 dwellings was to be released in the period 2001-6 (the Phase 1 site). Contrary to what is said on behalf of A & L King and E & A Spence (‘the supporters’), it is argued that no allocation was made in respect of the remainder of that site which is shown on the Inset Map 1 of the adopted local plan as longer term housing (see also para. 16 of text, p.132). It is suggested that this is also made clear in the text relating to Arbroath (para. 11) in the FALPR. As it was not an allocated site in the adopted local plan, that particular site would be subject to Policy ENV5. It is noted that when outline planning permission was granted in 2004 for housing on the Phase 1 site, this was subject to a condition requiring submission and approval of a development brief covering the application site and the land to the north covering site layout, access roads and landscaping. None has yet been submitted. The permission was subject to a suspensive condition requiring a new roundabout in the vicinity of Montrose Road/Tarry Road. It now appears that the developers do not wish to proceed with that arrangement but with a roundabout access at the Montrose Road/Bearfauld road junction. That permission has not been implemented.

2.16 It is noted that the council refers to the whole Montrose Rd site being, in principle, committed for development having been included within the development boundary in the adopted local plan. It is argued that the supporters are wrong to suggest that deletion of the Montrose Rd site from the finalised plan review would seriously conflict with paragraph 5 of PAN49. The requirement for the local plan requires to be kept under review is emphasised in national planning guidance such as PAN49, para 5. This is what is happening in the objectors’ view. On this basis it is contended that the fact that a part of the Montrose Rd site was allocated in the adopted local plan or identified for longer term development within the settlement boundary does not mean that it must remain allocated or must remain within the settlement boundary under any review. Furthermore, it is argued that the longer term part of the Montrose Rd site shown in the adopted local plan is not an existing commitment under that plan.

2.17 Para 34 of SPP17 provides that existing allocations and far less long term sites, or sites with unimplemented planning permissions, are not precedents for future development plans. Such allocations, if in unsustainable locations, require to be re-assessed against the policy in SPP17 and can be deleted. Accordingly, it is argued that the site at Montrose Road identified for longer term housing in the adopted local plan, to the extent that it was not even allocated in that existing plan, enjoys no special protection and should be assessed against national planning policy, any new structure plan and other policies in the FALP review. If it is found wanting in those respects and a better site is identified, it should not be allocated. Furthermore, it is contended that if, as a result of such a review, a longer term site in an existing local plan is not allocated, it would not be contrary to the advice in PAN49 which requires amendment in line with current conditions.

6 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.18 Since the adopted local plan of 2000 a new structure plan has been approved. It is acknowledged by the council that the policies of the recently approved structure plan have to be taken into account in allocating land in the FALPR. It is noted that the structure plan places particular emphasis on sustainability and integration of land use and transport to improve accessibility. Upgrading of the A92 is supported as is enhancement of local rail services. These concerns are mirrored in Part 2 of the FALPR dealing with sustainable communities. These issues are also highlighted as important in national guidance such as SPP3 and SPP17. The upgrade of the A92 has since been completed.

2.19 Structure plan Housing Policy 1 requires local plans to allocate land to meet the additional allowances in Schedule 1 up to 2011. The FALPR seeks to implement this in terms of Policy SC1 and Table 2.1. Housing Policy 4 of the Structure Plan refers again to the need to allocate land to meet allowances and states that a range and choice of sites should be provided within a housing market area. It also seeks in Para. 4.14 improvement to locational choice of housing development sites and Para. 4.15 refers to the distribution of housing land allowing for a range and choice of sites in terms of, inter alia, location.

Access and location issues

2.20 It is submitted on behalf of Crudie Farms that, in significant respects, the Montrose Rd allocation is not compatible with these priorities. Firstly, it is pointed out that both proposed greenfield allocations for Arbroath in the FALPR, including the Montrose Rd site, are located in the same north eastern part of the town relatively close to one another. It is argued that this does not provide a range and choice of sites in respect of location. Secondly, compared with the Crudie Farms site, the Montrose Rd site is geographically remote from the upgraded section of the A92 with its dual-carriageway links to Dundee and elsewhere, for a variety of purposes, principally employment. Accordingly, for commuting and other purposes, journeys from the Montrose Rd site to Dundee and beyond would necessitate through town journeys across Arbroath to reach the upgraded section of the A92. It is also argued that the Montrose Rd site is relatively remote from other major employment areas. In particular, it is not conveniently located for Kirkton Industrial Estate where cross town journeys are required, particularly for public transport. Similarly, it is remote from Elliot Industrial estate, which the council proposes to expand westwards (proposal A12,) and from the proposed retail and leisure developments at Westway (A16). It is pointed out that through town trips from the Montrose Rd site would pass through the Guthrie Port roundabout which may suffer from localised congestion at peak times. It is also noted that insufficiency of parking at the railway station is such that a desirable modal shift from car to rail is unlikely to be encouraged.

Education

2.21 The Montrose Rd site is within the catchment of Warddykes Primary School, which is approximately 800m away and so the Montrose Rd site could be regarded as a form of “bolt on” to the catchment. The walking route to the school involves crossing the busy A92 Montrose road, which has an accident history. Whist an alternative off road path is available and this might be promoted as a safer route to school with a controlled crossing, there would

7 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review inevitably be a perception of safety concerns in the objectors’ view. The site at Crudie Farm is adjacent to the local primary school and presents no such concerns. It is argued that this is a far stronger advantage than the shorter distance for secondary pupils at Montrose Road. The Crudie Farm proposal if implemented would boost pupil numbers at Arbroath High School and this could assist the council in making a case for increased funding for improvements there.

Landscape and visual aspects

2.22 In landscape and visual terms the Montrose Rd site rises steadily from west to east particularly to the north east. Housing in that part of the site would be the highest in Arbroath and development would be visible from the busy A92 and from housing at Warddykes to the west and Seaton to the east. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the site can be described by the council as continuing the urban edge without detriment to the landscape. Furthermore it is argued that in the absence of a development brief or master plan, it is impossible to say how it would integrate existing commercial developments, develop an attractive gateway and improve the entrance to the town thus enhancing the urban edge as suggested by the council. It is argued that in landscape terms the Montrose Rd site is a more challenging one than Crudie Farm given its topography. By extending the built development northwards to a new ‘gateway’ roundabout at the edge of the town, the Montrose Rd development would bring about significant alterations to the setting of Arbroath in a highly visible location, according to the objectors.

2.23 Finally, it is contended that the Montrose Rd development would bring no benefits to the wider community, noting that the site is not part of the Regenerate North Arbroath area in the FALPR. The council states that it is not seeking to justify its allocation of the site on grounds of regeneration. The expert witness on education explained that the increased pupil numbers at the Academy from the Montrose Rd site would have a minimal effect on regeneration of the school, particularly in the context of placing requests.

2.24 In these circumstances, and, in particular, in the context of the structure plan’s focus on sustainability, accessibility and integration and the upgrading of the A92, it is submitted that the Montrose Road site is not in as sustainable a location as the Crudie Farm site proposed as an alternative. Accordingly it is submitted that the Montrose Rd allocation should be deleted.

The Crudie Farm site

2.25 It is noted that the Crudie Farm site was one of a number considered by Angus Council in an Assessment of Possible Development Areas, as part of the preparation for an earlier draft Local Plan. The assessment at that time was positive in respect of landscape and visual impact, accessibility and availability of services and no planning objections to the site were recorded. Whilst in that evaluation reference was made to limited capacity at Arbroath High School, this was not identified as an adverse factor in the overall evaluation by the council. It is pointed out by the Education advisor to Crudie Farms that placing requests from elsewhere have boosted numbers at this school. In any event, it is argued that there would not

8 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

be any school capacity issue as pupils from the Crudie Farms development, being within the catchment, would take priority.

2.26 It is contended that the absence of any specific planning objection to the Crudie Farms site in the council’s Statement of Evidence is highly significant. There is no educational, transportation, landscape or visual impact issue in relation to an allocation of this site for housing. The council confirmed that it is not suggesting that the Crudie Farms site is, in any way, unsuitable for housing. Only two points are raised against its allocation in the council’s Statement of Evidence. The first is that since the FALP review has identified two greenfield sites in Arbroath, there is no need for any further allocation which could put the FALP Review into conflict with the Structure Plan. In response, it is pointed out that the Crudie Farms site is not put forward as a further site but as an alternative to the Montrose Rd site. It is pointed out, however, that there is nothing in the structure plan which prevents an additional allocation if it is considered that both the Crudie Farms site and the Montrose Rd site have merit. On this basis it is argued that there is no question of possible conflict with the structure plan.

2.27 The other point raised by the council is that the allocation of a major new site at Crudie Farm could be detrimental to bringing forward the sites already allocated. It is clear from the council’s own evidence that this approach seems to proceed upon the same mistaken hypothesis as the first point. For the reasons stated earlier, it is argued on behalf of the objectors that the entire Montrose Rd site is not ‘already allocated’. It is the case that the council promotes its allocation but the inquiry process has to be gone through before it could be described as allocated. In any event, it appears to raise issues as to the marketability of those sites. Whilst the council witness referred to a possible slowing down of development on sites such as Montrose Rd, it is argued that this is not a proper planning reason for not allocating another site, particularly where it is submitted that Crudie Farm is a more sustainable site.

Policy context

2.28 The policy background in terms of the structure plan, particularly in relation to sustainability, integration of land uses and accessibility, and how that is followed through in the FALP review, reflecting national guidance, has already been discussed. In that policy context it is submitted that the Crudie Farm site is in a very accessible location, being well located to take advantage of the A92 upgrade for travel to Dundee and further afield, without requiring residents to travel through Arbroath. It is also extremely well located in respect of the Elliot Industrial Estate nearby, the extension of which is being promoted by the council and also to the Westway retail and leisure development also being promoted by the Council. It is pointed out that once again no through town journeys would be involved. Kirkton Industrial Estate is further away although there is informal footpath access from Forfar. It is submitted that in seeking to defend the Montrose Rd allocation the council has ‘downplayed’ the very considerable accessibility benefits of Crudie Farm. Sustainability and accessibility are pivotal features of the structure plan and national guidance and, indeed, the FALPR. It has not been disputed that in implementing these principles it is sensible to have housing as

9 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

close as possible to major travel generating uses. In that regard, it is contended that Crudie Farm is as good a greenfield site as it is possible to get in Arbroath.

2.29 In summary, it is submitted that the Crudie Farm site complies with the strategy and policies of the structure plan and FALPR and national guidance, in particular SPP17 and to SPP3. Furthermore, Crudie Farms own ground adjacent to Arbroath Railway Station which is offered as a source of needed additional station parking in association with residential development at Crudie Farm. This would offer considerable benefits in relation to meeting sustainable transport objectives of the structure plan and FALPR and addressing modal shift objectives of national guidance. It would assist significantly in implementing Proposal SC39 of the local plan. It would also benefit users of the bus station. The suggestion by the council that this is simply an inducement to allow development at Crudie Farm is refuted and the suggestion that this improved parking opportunity is not important because of low rail usage in Angus is wholly inappropriate.

2.30 It is submitted that for the reasons outlined above, the Crudie Farm site is to be preferred to the proposed allocation at Montrose Rd which, in the respects previously outlined, is not compatible with relevant strategy and policy at national, strategic and local levels. In contrast, it is contended that the Crudie Farms proposal is compatible and offers very significant planning benefits. In addition, in landscape and visual terms it is less sensitive with fewer constraints and would provide a choice of locations within Arbroath. It is stated that the council opposes Crudie Farm on two misguided grounds, discussed above, and promotes Montrose Road on the basis that it is somehow committed to development there by reason of the previous local plan. In the objector’s view, such an approach is incorrect and fails to address the comparative merits of the sites in the context of the new structure plan.

On behalf of A & L King/ E & A Spence (in support of Angus Council)

2.31 These objectors have made submissions and representations in support of continuing the allocation of housing development site A1: Montrose Road, Arbroath (the ‘Montrose Rd site’) in the finalised local plan review in the face of objections to that allocation by Crudie Farms’ representatives who favour the Crudie Farm site as an alternative.

2.32 It is argued that the entire 15.06ha Montrose Rd site allocation (A1) is fully effective, in the terms set out in PAN38, and forms part of the established housing land supply for Arbroath, in compliance with the approved structure plan and SPP1. This will achieve a phased housing development of around 400 units, including the provision of affordable housing and associated open space and landscaping. It is stated that the whole Montrose Rod site was allocated for housing in the adopted local plan 2000, with part being described as an allocated housing site and the remainder identified as ‘longer term housing’. Furthermore, the whole 15ha site is identified in that document for housing development under Policy A/H4. It is also identified in the Housing Land Audit. It is noted that the allocation is supported by the approved structure plan’s settlement strategy which confirms that new development will be accommodated within existing settlements, including planned extensions. It is pointed out that unlike the Crudie Farm site the entire Montrose Rd site is

10 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review already included within the settlement boundary of Arbroath and is an existing commitment within the adopted local plan. It is contended that deletion of all or part of the Montrose Rd site, as proposed by the objectors, would be wholly against the objectives and policies of SPP1, SPP3 and PAN49.

2.33 It is noted that PAN38 advises that a long-term view should be adopted in determining the scale and location of future housing development and planning authorities are required to formulate a long-term settlement strategy, with large planned releases of housing land being developed in phases. It is argued that the council has complied fully with these requirements through its identification of the entire Montrose Rd site in the adopted local plan, providing a long term settlement strategy for Arbroath which has allowed major investment decisions to be taken in confidence that such development is supported by the statutory development plan. It is contended, therefore, that continued allocation of this site is in full compliance with PAN38.

2.34 It is pointed out that outline planning permission was granted for Phase 1 of the Montrose Rd site and the suspensive conditions of that permission are currently being discharged. It is noted that the outline planning permission required the presentation of a development brief for the whole 15ha site to ensure a co-ordinated and integrated development in accordance with the requirements of the adopted local plan. That brief is being progressed in consultation with the council with a view to being finalised and submitted for approval shortly, in compliance with Condition 6 of the outline planning permission. Furthermore, in compliance with Condition 5 of that permission, a full transportation assessment of the new development has been submitted. Furthermore, a full site investigation report has also been completed, which confirms that the site is free of any physical constraints or contamination. On this basis a detailed planning application for the development of the site is currently being completed for submission in early 2006, setting out layout and design details reflecting good practice principles set out in SPP3, SPP17, PAN44, PAN65, PAN67, PAN74, PAN75 and PAN76. It is stated that this will achieve a high quality housing development with excellent residential amenity, good accessibility as well as quality open space and landscaping.

Landscape

2.35 It was accepted on behalf of Crudie Farms’ Landscape consultant that there is very little difference between the Montrose Rd site and the Crudie Farm sites in a landscape context, with the Montrose Rd site benefiting from existing landscape features and a varied topography whilst the Crudie Farm site is relatively flat, open and expansive. The same witness acknowledged in this context that the Montrose Rd site has a higher capacity to absorb development in the landscape than the Crudie Farm site which has little existing vegetation or landscape features. It is argued, therefore, that in landscape terms the Montrose Rd site should be preferred to the Crudie Farm site.

11 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Education

2.36 It was accepted by Crudie Farms’ Education specialist that there is nothing to suggest that the Montrose Rd site is unacceptable in education terms. Whilst the Crudie Farm site is closer to a primary school, it is noted that the Montrose Rd site is significantly closer to its local secondary school than the Crudie Farm site, and the secondary school nearest to Montrose Rd would benefit from a major new development in its catchment area. It is argued that, on balance, in education terms the Montrose Rd site is preferable to an allocation at the Crudie Farm site.

Transportation

2.37 It was accepted by Crudie Farms’ Transportation specialist that the Montrose Rd site is significantly more accessible to existing public transport services than the Crudie Farms site and has good links to existing pedestrian and cycle ways. It is noted that there is an existing Safe Routes to School arrangement in place on Montrose Rd. The same witness also accepted the general findings of the Montrose Rd Transport Assessment and confirmed that no such assessment has been prepared for the Crudie Farm site. It is contended therefore that in transportation terms the Montrose Rd site should be preferred to the Crudie Farm site.

Planning policy and development context

2.38 It was accepted by Crudie Farms’ Planning specialist that the entire Montrose Rd site was identified in the existing settlement boundary of the adopted local plan 2000 and could be considered as an existing local plan commitment. On this basis it was accepted that the Montrose Rd site meets the criteria listed in paragraph 2.22 of the approved structure plan’s settlement strategy, whilst the Crudie Farm site does not meet any of these structure plan requirements. The same Crudie Farms’ witness acknowledged that the Montrose Rd site could deliver a significant package of benefits to the local community including:

• A range and mix of house types • 20% provision of affordable housing across the site • A significant financial contribution to upgrading local sports pitches • A new children’s play area • A new roundabout on the A92 which would have traffic calming and road safety benefits • A new bus link throughout the site to enhance local service provision • Enhancement of existing cycle and footpath networks • Enhancement of existing tree-belt to the north and other landscape improvements.

2.39 Based on all of these planning considerations, it is argued that the continued allocation of the Montrose Rd site is preferable to an allocation of the Crudie Farm site. It is noted that the council confirmed that the precedent for releasing the entire Montrose Rd site was firmly established in the adopted local plan 2000 and this gave a clear commitment to the whole site coming forward in a planned and integrated manner, with significant benefits in terms of landscaping, accessibility, education and regeneration. The council also

12 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review confirmed that a comparative analysis of a number of possible development sites around Arbroath, including the Crudie Farm site were considered at the draft stage of the local plan review and the Montrose Rd site was considered to be the most appropriate location for new housing development, in compliance with the approved structure plan and the objectives of sustainable and accessible development. The council also confirmed that over the periods of public consultation in the preparation of two local plans for this area, other than the competing commercial interest of Crudie Farms, no public objections have been lodged against the Montrose Rd site. It is pointed out that the Crudie Farm site has not been subject to any formal public consultation to date.

2.40 In summary, it is stated that considerable progress has been made towards implementing the Montrose Rd site allocation, which remains effective and in compliance with both the approved structure plan and national planning policy and advice. On this basis, it is argued that there is no sound reason to remove the Montrose Rd site, either in whole or part, from the local plan review in favour of the Crudie Farm site.

The council’s response

2.41 As the formal inquiry into the objections was conjoined, the council’s summary of its case is similarly structured.

Background

2.42 As part of the work associated with the Consultative Draft Local Plan, an assessment of a wide range of potential development sites (11 in all) around Arbroath was undertaken by the council, and published as a separate background paper. The sites considered had included sites being promoted for development by landowner and developer interests as well as other parcels of land identified by the council. For each site a description was given of the location, area of land, agricultural land quality and potential uses. This was followed by an appraisal of key planning considerations including:

Landscape and Visual Quality Accessibility Proximity to Facilities Drainage, Water and Availability of Services Archaeological Interests Other Policy Matters

2.43 A summary assessment was then presented of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities arising for each site. Finally conclusions were drawn on the preferred direction and location for major development in each of the main settlements. The objection site at Crudie Farm was one of the sites in this assessment and was referred to as Site C. The broad assessment of Site C concluded that:

'There are no known servicing constraints on this site. Development would be bound by housing on two sides forming an extension to the built up area. The site is well

13 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

located to the local road network and has potential to develop good bus, cycle and pedestrian links. Although links to the existing schools could be easily achieved, there is limited capacity at Arbroath High School. The site has the capacity to meet the structure plan housing requirements to 2011 and beyond, and provide an opportunity to incorporate structural landscaping to enhance the urban edge.'

2.44 Following assessment of the range of possible sites, the overall evaluation for Arbroath recognised that while there were strengths in each site, in considering the best way to accommodate the scale of development for Arbroath to 2011 and beyond, as set out in the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan, a variety of factors required to be weighed against each other. It should be noted that in most circumstances the resolution of technical and other matters would be expected to be funded primarily by developers. In relation to the site at Crudie the text noted that that this 'would extend rather than introduce a new urban edge'.

2.45 The preferred areas for housing development emerging from the overall assessment were:

• Montrose Road (site I) where 'the proposed extension to the site identified in the first Angus Local Plan, at Montrose Road, continues the direction of growth established for the period 2001-2006. This site provides an attractive location, good access and the potential to create an excellent residential amenity. It will reinforce the first Angus Local Plan allocation, improve this entrance to the town and link various pockets of development, thus enhancing the urban edge'; and • A small site at Cliffburn - Seaton Road (site J1) where the land would round off the development boundary at this part of Arbroath and support the renewal of a significant area of Arbroath. There have been no objections to this particular site.

2.46 These two sites - Montrose Road and Cliffburn - were included in the Finalised Local Plan Review published in February 2005. In the council’s view, these two allocated sites together with a range of brownfield and opportunity sites in Arbroath contribute to providing choice and meet the housing requirements established by the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan.

Landscape

2.47 The council has presented evidence to demonstrate the suitability of the Montrose Road site for residential development in landscape terms. Broadly speaking there is consensus on the evidence of the council and the objectors Crudie Farms on the similarities between the Montrose Road and Crudie Farm sites. The divergence in the landscape evidence relates to the sensitivities of the two sites with the Crudie Farms’ specialist advisor contending that the Montrose Road site is more sensitive than Crudie Farm due to its relationship to the and the slope of the north-eastern section of the site. In response, it is argued that whilst views of the Montrose Road site will be gained from the A92, most receptors will be car borne and travelling North/South. As the A92 is at right angles to the sloping north-eastern part of the site, most of the views from the road will be glimpsed or oblique. It is pointed out that when travelling south clear views of the site are

14 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

not available until Bearfaulds Road and at that point the site is seen against a backcloth of Arbroath itself. Travelling north, views of the site are restricted by the petrol filling station and commercial developments which front onto the A92. It has been agreed that as part of the development brief for the site, additional tree planting could be required along the boundary to Seaton Road, reinforcing the existing tree belt and ensuring a backdrop of trees. The existing tree belt along Bearfaulds Road would also be augmented to further enhance the strong visual edge.

2.48 Through the development brief and planning conditions the council is in a position control the numbers, species and timing of tree planting within the site. If appropriate, tree planting could precede housing development on the sloping part of the site, thereby minimising the period between the erection of housing and the full contribution made by planting. In addition to tree planting, the council confirmed its wish to see other measures taken to ensure that housing within the Montrose Rd site is properly assimilated into the landscape, for example by reducing the density of new housing within the sloping part of the site. It is argued that this would aid the transition from the urban built form to the open countryside toward the north and north east of the site. It is argued that the development at Montrose Road will continue the pattern of growth established for the period 2001-2006 and can strengthen the urban edge. It can incorporate the isolated commercial developments which currently contribute to a staggered urban edge to the north of Arbroath and somewhat uncertain transition from the open countryside to the town itself. It is acknowledged by all that the A92 is an extremely important traffic route and as such there is a heightened need and desirability to create an attractive and consolidated gateway to the north of Arbroath.

2.49 In the council’s view, development at Crudie Farm would extend rather than strengthen the urban edge. The strong countryside character west of East Muirlands Road means that development adjacent to it could also have a damaging effect on rural character.

2.50 In addition, the council is concerned that phased development of the Crudie Farm site could create real difficulties of integration. The objectors have confirmed that if that part of the objection site to be released in the local plan period was developed, tree planting to its western boundary would be necessary. Such tree planting would necessarily create something of a barrier, both visually and physically, with the balance of the objection site identified for longer term housing.

Education

2.51 There is no dispute between the council and the objectors regarding the availability of capacity at primary and secondary level in relation to the Montrose Rd and the Crudie Farm sites. Nevertheless, Arbroath High School, which is within the catchment area for Crudie Farm, is operating at or very close to its capacity. There is no dispute that a challenge facing the council is to address the imbalance between the Academy and the High School. It is submitted that developing Crudie Farm would only reinforce the imbalance, making the challenge even more difficult. It is agreed by all parties that from an educational point of view, the overriding educational objective for the council must be to maximise the number of pupils benefiting from increased investment at Arbroath Academy. This investment includes

15 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review a recent £2 million upgrading of the school's fabric and funding of a minimum of £100,000 pounds per year through the award of Schools of Ambition funding to the Academy in June 2005.

2.52 Development at Crudie Farm would direct additional pupils to the High School, which for all practical purposes is at capacity, and it would indirectly reduce the number of placing requests from the Academy, which is around half full and where class sizes are somewhat smaller. It is argued by the council that this would be at the expense of parental choice and is likely to be seen as a crude and inappropriate method of trying to increase the roll at the Academy. The objectors’ education specialist questioned whether the additional housing at Montrose Rd would in itself have any material effect on the roll at the Academy. He acknowledged, however, that in reaching this conclusion he had taken no account of any developments within the Cliffburn Regeneration area or any effect which the Schools of Ambition funding and status may have as a catalyst in attracting pupils to the Academy. The same witness agreed that the Schools of Ambition Programme should have a “significant positive effect” on the school.

2.53 Against a backdrop of increased investment and the recent award of Schools of Ambition status to the Academy, the council argues that selecting the Crudie Farm site would seem irrational as it would only serve to direct additional pupils to the High School. Any decision not to develop the Crudie Farm site will not, as indicated by the objectors, result in the council losing an opportunity to seek capital funding associated with beneficial educational works. The council would wish to see the efforts at improving Arbroath Academy capitalised on by as many pupils as possible and considers that development at Montrose Rd would help to achieve this objective.

Transport and Accessibility

2.54 In the council’s view, the Montrose Rd site offers high levels of accessibility and integration with walking and cycle routes (particularly to the nearby Warddykes Primary School, Arbroath Academy, local shops and the Saltire Leisure Centre. In addition it affords excellent accessibility to bus services through the town centre and to the North. It is pointed out that whilst the walking route from the Montrose Rd site for pupils heading to Warddykes Primary School involves crossing the A92 road, it complies with the "Safe Routes to School" initiative.

2.55 It is noted that the objectors’ traffic witness expressed a preference for the Crudie Farm site based initially on what he described as its superior local accessibility to Muirfield Primary School and to employment opportunities by alternative modes of travel and equivalent accessibility to other facilities. He conceded later that Crudie Farm did not have equivalent accessibility to other facilities when compared to Montrose Road but that its accessibility was merely acceptable.

2.56 It is pointed out that the Montrose Rd site, when compared to the Crudie Farm location, is:

16 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• 600 metres closer to the town centre; • 100 metres closer to a Post Office and local shops (Mayfield Terrace); • Approx 1km closer to Arbroath Academy than Crudie Farm is to the High School; • Accessed directly from the A92. Crudie Farm is approx 1km from the A92; • Adjacent to the National Cycle Network; • Equally close to the Kirkton Industrial Estate; • Only 350m (equating to a 5 minute walk) further from Warddykes PS than Crudie Farm is from Muirfield PS.

2.57 The council refutes the objectors’ contention that development of the Montrose Rd site would exacerbate town centre congestion by increasing through traffic. It is pointed out that most small towns such as Arbroath have some congestion at peak times. The council argues that any congestion problem in Arbroath is certainly not of a scale to warrant discouraging people from travelling through the town centre. The council also points out that there is a more comprehensive range of bus services serving Montrose Road than Crudie Farm.

Planning

The Montrose Road site:

2.58 The council notes that the adopted Angus Local Plan of 2000 allocates land at Montrose Rd for housing within the plan period to 2006. The allocated site in that document is shown brown on the Arbroath Inset Map 1 with land to the north, the current objection site, shown as ‘Longer Term Housing’. The allocation is detailed within Proposal A/H4 on page 132 of the Angus Local Plan. The proposal refers to "an initial phase of approximately 80 dwellings". The supporting text on page 132 refers to the site being part of a much larger area bounded by Montrose Rd and Seaton Road sufficient to meet future needs in the period post 2006. Reference is also made to ensuring that the Phase 1 housing is integrated into the remainder of the site. It is pointed out that the entire Montrose Road site is within the development boundary set out within the Angus Local Plan. In this context, the council argues that it acted entirely appropriately in indicating its intentions towards the objection site at Montrose Rd as early as possible. In particular, the council looked beyond the plan period associated with the Angus Local Plan but within the context of the then housing land requirements. The Angus Local Plan Review Finalised Plan (FALPR), which addresses housing land requirements in the period 2006 – 2011, extends the allocation to include the entire Montrose Rd site.

2.59 The council points out that its intentions towards the Montrose Rd site have therefore been clear for a number of years. It considers that its actions in this regard have been consistent with the advice within:

• Para 64 of SPP3, in particular with regard to the identification of further housing sites to meet requirements in the medium term; • Para 5 of PAN49 which indicates that local plans should provide a stable and consistent framework within which investment decisions can be made with confidence.

17 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.60 It points out that A & L King have proceeded in reliance on the council's longer-term aspirations for the site and so have prepared a Transport Assessment and an initial development framework based upon the development of the whole of the Montrose Road site. In the council’s view the objectors’ contention that the site at Montrose Road should be removed from the Finalised Plan on the basis that it has failed to deliver within the period until 2006 is entirely erroneous. The council points out that the objection site was only allocated during the current replacement local plan process and only the southern part of the Montrose Road site was actually allocated in the Angus Local Plan of 2000. Crudie Farms cannot and have not objected to the continued allocation of the southern part of the site. Accordingly, in the council’s view there is no question of the objection site at Montrose Road having failed to deliver or not being effective. On the contrary, the council can confirm that the Montrose Rd site is fully effective and free from ownership, physical or infrastructure constraints. The Montrose Rd site is also included within the Draft Angus & Dundee Housing Land Audit (June 2006) and there has been no objection to its inclusion there.

2.61 The council is concerned that if the site at Montrose Rd was "de-allocated", as the objector is proposing, this would have damaging consequences. In particular, the council contends that such a decision would be at odds with:

• the advice in SPP3 and PAN49, as indicated above; • Para 9 of PAN38 which confirms that planning authorities should indicate clearly how the settlement pattern is expected to develop over the longer term, which is exactly what the council has done; • the guidance within SPP3 regarding creating sustainable settlements. The resulting uncertainty would make it increasingly difficult to co-ordinate housing land with improvements in infrastructure, transport and education and would result in a considerable amount of abortive time and expense for all.

2.62 In addition the council argues that de-allocation of the Montrose Rd site would undermine confidence in looking beyond the plan period and undermine the confidence of investors as well as those members of the public involved in the local plan process. In its view, the approach being suggested by the objectors is quite unsupported by any Scottish Executive guidance and advice. In summary, it considers that de-allocating the Montrose Rd site would be a damaging and retrograde step.

2.63 On the issue of planning gain, the development of the Montrose Rd site will be addressed with the developer in terms of the development brief and the application for detailed planning permission. Only those elements of planning gain related to the development will be sought. It will be related in scale and in kind to the development proposed.

The Crudie Farm site:

2.64 The objectors are seeking an allocation of land at Crudie Farm and an indication that housing is acceptable in the longer term on the balance of that site to the west. Using the

18 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review logic which the objectors have applied to the Montrose Rd site, if the longer-term housing proposed at Crudie Farm did not come forward in the plan period to 2011, that site would be at risk of being removed from any subsequent local plan. Against the fluid policy context, which the objectors are proposing, the council points out that any benefit served by identifying longer-term housing land must be doubtful.

2.65 In respect of planning gain related to the Crudie Farms development, the objectors take a very different approach to that outlined above in respect of the Montrose Rd site. The council notes that one of the inducements being offered for the development of Crudie Farm is that land adjacent to Arbroath Railway Station is made available for additional car parking. The council does not wish to have the acquisition of that land in the vicinity of the railway station tied to the development at Crudie Farm. It considers that these matters are distinct and should remain so, in line with the guidance within Paragraph 56 of SPP1 regarding the use of planning gain. The extension of the station car park, while welcome in the context of Arbroath, is plainly not a requirement flowing from any development at Crudie Farm and so the offer must properly be rejected. The council began negotiations with Crudie Farms to purchase the land for a station car park but the objectors broke off these discussions when it became clear that the council wished only to make an outright purchase of the land concerned.

2.66 Similarly, the council is concerned that the "support" now being offered by the objectors for certain projects - including a new play park at Abbotsford Road and a new Urban Village Hall within the Cliffburn/Hayshead area - is entirely unrelated to the proposed development at Crudie Farm. Once again, it would not be legitimate of the council to take into account any offers of inducements particularly those which the objectors have freely acknowledged are completely unrelated to the proposals at Crudie Farm and would not be used by any of the residents of the Crudie Farms development. Whilst it appears that the objectors have undertaken consultations with the Arbroath Community Council and Cliffburn Residents Association, they do not appear to have carried out any consultation with those living next to the Crudie Farm site. By contrast, those living adjacent to Montrose Rd would have been aware of the council's longer term aspirations prior to the adoption of the Angus Local Plan in 2000 and would also have been aware of the formal allocation of that site in terms of the replacement local plan process. The council contends that it would be inappropriate if those living adjacent to the Crudie Farm site were denied the opportunity to influence the local plan process and instead had a housing site imposed upon them.

Housing land allocations

2.67 The Dundee and Angus Structure Plan allows for 850 new houses in the Arbroath Housing Market Area (HMA) in the period 2001 to 2011. At June 2004, after taking account of completions and existing sites, the Local Plan requires to identify sites to accommodate 318 houses in the Arbroath HMA. Two greenfield allocations in Arbroath at Montrose Road, (as identified in the Adopted local Plan, and at Cliffburn, in support of the Regenerate North Arbroath project, provide for greenfield development in Arbroath. There is no requirement to allocate further housing land in the Arbroath HMA, and to do so could bring the Angus Local Plan Review into conflict with the Approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan.

19 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.68 The council refutes the contention made by the objectors that there is nothing to prevent it over-allocating housing land. It is pointed out that to do so could lead to objections from the council's structure plan partner, Dundee City Council, on the basis that the structure plan follows a clear strategy in attempting to address out-migration from Dundee. It is noted that whilst the objectors are suggesting that over allocation is possible, they do not wish to rely on such a position and instead are seeking the deletion of the Montrose Rd site and its substitution with the Crudie Farm site. It is submitted that this approach reflects the objectors’ true position, namely that it is entirely wrong to consider over-allocating beyond what is required to provide a degree of flexibility. The council states that it has already provided such flexibility contending that the extended allocation of land at Montrose Road is entirely appropriate, for the reasons outlined above.

2.69 Angus Council remains of the opinion that sufficient housing land has been allocated through the Finalised Local Plan Review (FALPR) to meet the requirements of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan for the period to 2011 and that there is no justification for allocating additional land at this juncture. In the council’s view, the allocation of a major new site at Crudie Farm could be detrimental to bringing forward the housing sites already allocated. The performance of existing sites would continue to be monitored through the annual housing land audit. The requirement for the release of additional housing land in Arbroath should be considered in a future review of the Angus Local Plan. The suitability of the site at Crudie Farm and other sites in and around Arbroath should be considered at that time.

Conclusions

2.70 There is no disagreement that the Crudie Farm site, like the Montrose Rd site, was one of the 11 potential development sites assessed in detail by the council at the consultative draft stage of the local plan review preparation. I also note that the appraisal of these site options included detail consideration of a wide range of planning criteria relating to site selection, including: landscape and visual quality; accessibility; proximity to facilities; drainage, water and availability of services; archaeological interests; and other policy matters. Whilst I note that these investigations raised no overriding constraints or other insurmountable problems concerning the Crudie Farm site, I also note that the council concluded that the preferred areas for housing development, emerging from the overall assessments, should be the Montrose Rd site together with a small site at Clffburn, and so these were included in the FALPR in February 2005. It was noted in the assessment of the Montrose Rd site that it would represent an extension to the site allocated in the adopted local plan of 2000, and hence continue the direction of growth established for the period 2001-2006. Furthermore, that assessment concluded that the Montrose Rd site ‘provides an attractive location, good access and the potential to create an excellent residential amenity. It will reinforce the first Angus Local Plan allocation, improve the entrance to the town and like various pockets of development, thus enhancing the urban edge’.

2.71 No evidence presented has led me to conclude that the above assessments were not carried out properly or that their findings were unsound. I have paid close attention to the detailed evidence presented on behalf of the objectors to the Montrose Rd site who are

20 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

seeking to have that site ‘de-allocated’ in favour of the Crudie Farm site. I have also taken account of the evidence presented by the council and by the developers of the Montrose Rd site, in support of retention of the Montrose Rd allocation. These competing cases have explored a wide number of issues, many of which relate to topics dealt with in the assessments undertaken earlier, at the consultative draft plan stage, as outlined above. My key findings are summarised below:

Landscape

2.72 Whilst the Montrose Rd site has a varied topography and the Crudie Farm site is relatively flat and open, there is little substantive difference between the sites in landscape terms and in principle both sites would be suitable for residential development. Nevertheless, on balance, I consider that the Montrose Rd site is to be preferred in landscape terms as it has a higher capacity to absorb development in the landscape; it provides an opportunity to enhance the urban edge by linking various pockets of development and reinforcing existing tree belts with new landscape planting; and providing a better gateway to Arbroath from the north. I am not persuaded by the arguments presented by the objectors that the views from the A92 road would be detrimental to any significant extent.

Education

2.73 I note that whilst the Crudie Farm site is adjacent to a primary school, the Montrose Rd site is some 350m further from its nearest primary school and the route involves crossing the A92 road - which I consider is a disadvantage of that site. I also note, however, that the extra 5 minutes walk involved is within acceptable norms for primary school catchments and that the route complies with the “Safe Routes to Schools” initiative. There is no dispute that there is adequate capacity at local primary and secondary schools to serve either of these two sites. I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the Montrose Rd site would have the advantage of being close to Arbroath Academy and so children from houses on that site would provide a much needed boost to its roll at a time when there are capital funding initiatives underway as part of various efforts designed to improve this school and to reduce the imbalances between it and the High School. The Crudie Farm proposal would be closer to the High School which has a fuller school roll and is already very popular, attracting pupils from across Arbroath.

Transport and Accessibility

2.74 In my view the two sites have differing attractions and drawbacks in transport and accessibility terms. The Crudie Farms site is clearly closer to the newly dualled section of the A92 leading to Dundee and is also closer to Elliot Industrial Estate and Kingsway retail park. From the Montrose Rd site access to these would require passing through the town centre, but this is not a major obstacle in my experience, even at peak times. Conversely, the Montrose Rd site directly linked to the A92 and is significantly closer to the town centre and local shops than the Crudie Farm site. It is also better served by public transport and has access to the national cycle network nearby. I note that both sites are broadly equidistant from the Kirkton Industrial estate.

21 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Drainage and Service Infrastructure

2.75 No evidence has been drawn to my attention to suggest that there are any service constraints affecting either of these sites. Accordingly, I am unaware of any overriding service infrastructure problems or associated costs affecting one site that would indirectly favour the other in terms of suitability for major housing development.

Other local and strategic planning considerations

2.76 There has been considerable debate as to whether or not the Montrose Rd site was allocated in full or part in the adopted local plan of 2000. In this regard I am satisfied by the council’s statement that the only local plan ‘allocation’ made at that time was Proposal A/H4 for ‘an initial phase of approximately 80 dwellings’. I also note that the Inset Map in that adopted local plan describes the larger site, now the subject of the objection by Crudie Farms, as being ‘longer term housing’ and this is also within the development boundary of Arbroath defined on the Inset Map. Furthermore, the supporting text refers to the allocated site being part of a much larger area bounded by Montrose Rd and Seaton Rd sufficient to meet future needs in the period post 2006, and referring to the need to ensure that the Phase 1 housing is integrated into the remainder of the site. In this context it is evident that the council’s intentions for this whole site have been made clear for a number of years. I accept the council’s interpretation that the finalised local plan review, addressing housing land requirements for the period 2006-2011, seeks to extend the original allocation of the adopted local plan to include the entire Montrose Rd site, and that this approach would be consistent with paragraph 64 of SPP3 and paragraph 5 of PAN49. There is no evidence to suggest that the whole Montrose Rd site is not effective in terms of the criteria set out in SPP3 and PAN38. Similarly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am persuaded that sufficient housing land has been allocated through the finalised local plan review to meet the requirements of the approved structure plan for the period 2011 with regard to Arbroath and so there would be no justification for allocating additional housing land in Arbroath at this time.

2.77 In this context, for the reasons stated by the council I reject the objectors’ contention that there is nothing to prevent the council from ‘over-allocating’ housing land. Accordingly, the case for the Crudie Farm site would have to be justified as a replacement for the Montrose Rd site allocation not in addition to it. For the reasons outlined above, the case made by the objectors for de-allocating the Montrose Rd site is not persuasive in my view and I endorse the arguments put forward by the council that to do so would be contrary to national planning policy and guidance. Furthermore, in my view it would be damaging by undermining confidence in the local plan process, not only for the public but also for those investors who have proceeded to prepare a transport assessment and a development framework for the whole Montrose Rd site, based on their understanding of the council’s plans and aspirations for the site.

2.78 Finally, I note the contention by the objectors that the Montrose Rd site would bring no community benefits whilst the Crudie Farms proposal offers the opportunity to transfer land to the council adjacent to the railway station and to support financial support for a new

22 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

play park and a new Urban Village Hall in the Cliffburn/Hayshead area. I endorse the council’s view that, whilst such initiatives may be welcomed and are worthwhile in their own right, they are not in geographical proximity - and in all other ways totally unrelated - to the proposals at the Crudie Farm site. Accordingly, I conclude that they cannot be regarded as legitimate or acceptable forms of planning gain and so must be discounted as potential advantages of the Crudie Farms proposals over the Montrose Rd allocation.

2.79 I have taken into consideration all of the other matters raised by the objectors, both in criticising the Montrose Rd site and in support of the Crudie Farms site. I conclude, however, that individually and cumulatively the objections do not outweigh the arguments presented in support of the housing allocation at Montrose Rd put forward by the council in the FALPR. Accordingly, I conclude that there is no justification for modifying the finalised local plan review in the manner suggested by the objectors.

Recommendation

2.80 For the reasons set out in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review should not be modified in this case.

23 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Policy A6 - Regenerate! North Arbroath

Objector Reference

Linlathen Developments Ltd (per Donald Coutts) 918/2/3

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.81 The Cliffburn, Strathairlie and Demondale areas of Arbroath are the subject of a major economic and social regeneration initiative entitled “Regenerate! North Arbroath,” which includes some housing renewal, new housing and a range of community and environmental projects. This is a partnership scheme involving Angus Council together with the local community, Communities Scotland, Angus Housing Association, Scottish Enterprise Scotland, Angus College, Tayside Police and Angus Healthcare with financial support from the European Regional Development Fund.

Basis of the objection

2.82 It is argued on behalf of the objector that the wording of Policy A6: Regenerated! North Arbroath should be altered to include opportunities fro the provision of local services to support the communities of the Cliffburn, Strathairlie and Demondale areas of Arbroath.

The council’s response

2.83 The wording of Policy A6 is based on the terms of the partnership initiative as outlined above. The local plan policy reflects the programme of these partners in the regeneration initiative and there is no remit for the local plan to alter agreed commitments made by or conjunction with other agencies within that partnership. In summary, the council is of the view that there is no justification to alter the wording of this particular policy of the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review.

Conclusions

2.84 It may well be beneficial to support new opportunities for the provision of local services to support the communities of the Cliffburn, Strathairlie and Demondale areas of Arbroath. Nevertheless, the terms of Policy A6: Regenerate! North Arbroath clearly relate to the partnership initiative of the same name which is described in the paragraphs of the finalised local plan review which precede the policy concerned. Based on these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that

24 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review the terms of Policy A6 should not be amended to include reference to opportunities beyond those agreed by the agencies involved in the partnership concerned.

Recommendation

2.85 I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

25 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

A9: Opportunity Site – Ernest Street/ Palmer Street, Arbroath

Objector Reference

Transco (per Hargest & Wallace) (a) 820/1/1 (b) 820/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.86 The objections concern the former gasworks site at Ponderlaw St (Ernest St/ Palmer St) Arbroath. This is a 1.5ha site of disused land and buildings which the finalised plan identifies in Policy A9 as an opportunity site “for redevelopment to provide around 50 houses and flats”. The policy specifies that 20% of the capacity of the site is to be used for the provision of LCHO affordable housing. It also states that, in advance of redevelopment of the site, ground contamination issues and any necessary remediation would need to be investigated.

Basis of the objections

2.87 Objection (a) welcomes Policy A9 but argues that the boundary of site concerned should be amended to reflect all of Transco’s land holding here.

2.88 Objection (b) It is argued on behalf of the objector that, given the known history of the site concerned and the level of associated abnormal costs of development here, Policy A9 should not include a requirement for 20% of the proposed new housing to be affordable housing for low cost home ownership.

The council’s response

Objection (a):

2.89 The council agrees to amend the site boundary of A9 as requested to reflect the Transco landholding boundary at this location, reflected in the Proposed First Round Modifications, which has led to this part of the objection being CONDITIONALLY WITHDRAWN

Objection (b):

2.90 The council notes that the provision of affordable housing through the planning system is now a well established process which is supported by PAN 74 (Affordable

26 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Housing), expanding on the provisions of SPP3 (Planning for Housing). It points out that the local plan takes account of local conditions, as identified in the Local Housing Need Assessment and Local Housing Strategy and in the Arbroath Housing Market Area. This requires 20% of new housing on sites in this particular HMA to be in the form of Low Cost Home Ownership housing. It acknowledges, however, that PAN 74 (para 46) recognises that some sites will have exceptional costs because of the need to address contamination or poor ground conditions. Where this has been demonstrated there may be a reduction in the requirement for affordable housing. Accordingly, the local plan establishes the principle of affordable housing and any variation from this will require the landowner or developer to establish exceptional costs and to agree an appropriate level of affordable housing with the council.

2.91 It points out that no evidence has been submitted in this case to demonstrate the level of exceptional costs or to seek to agree an appropriate affordable housing contribution in that context. It is possible for such negotiations to be entered into in due course, including after the local plan is adopted, if and when further information is submitted. Meanwhile, in the council’s view, there is no justification to alter the wording of this particular policy of the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review.

Conclusions

2.92 I note that Objection (a) has been conditionally withdrawn on the basis of the proposed modification by the council to incorporate the whole of the site owned by Transco at this location within the terms of Policy A9. Based on these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that the site boundary of Policy A9 should be amended as proposed.

2.93 In respect of Objection (b), I note that the council has set out the background and basis for its stipulation of a 20% affordable housing provision which is standard for new housing sites in the Arbroath Housing Market Area. I also note, however, that the council recognises that national planning guidance provides for a reduction in the requirement for affordable housing where it can be demonstrated that sites have exceptional costs because of the need to address contamination or poor ground conditions.

2.94 Whilst no details have been submitted to define the nature or extent of exceptional costs likely to be associated with redevelopment of this particular site, there is no dispute that it is former gasworks site. Accordingly, whilst I am not persuaded by the objector’s argument that the reference to a 20% affordable housing component should be deleted from the policy, I conclude that the policy should be amended to better reflect the history of the site and the basis for agreeing a possible reduction in the 20% figure, in line with the guidance of PAN74 (para 46).

27 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Recommendation

2.95 I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case, as follows:

Firstly, the boundary of the site relating to Policy A9 should be adjusted to reflect the ownership of Transco at this location, as set out in the proposed First Round Modification put forward by the council.

Secondly, the following words (or something broadly equivalent) should be added before the semi-colon at the end of the first bullet point of Policy A9: “unless a reduction in this requirement for affordable housing can be agreed in writing with the planning authority, based on the nature and extent of exceptional development costs resulting from site contamination problems or poor ground conditions.”

28 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Policies A10 - Cairnie Street / Stobcross and A16 - Westway – Dundee Road; Retail Arbroath

Objectors Reference

Policy A10 Opportunity Site Cairnie St/Stobcross and Policy A16 Westway - Dundee Road, Arbroath

Policy A10 Opportunity Site Cairnie St/Stobcross

William Morrison Supermarkets Plc 913/2/1 Macdonald Estates / ASDA Stores Ltd 694/1/2 & 694/2/1 Bett Properties / Tesco Stores Ltd 949/1/1 & 949/2/2

Arbroath Area Partnership (Written Submission) 819/1/1

Policy A16 Westway – Dundee Rd

William Morrison Supermarkets Plc 913/2/2 & 913/1/3 Bett Properties / Tesco Stores Ltd 949/2/1 & 949/1/2 Macdonald Estates / ASDA Stores Ltd 694/1/1 & 694/2/2

Linlathen Developments Ltd (Written Submission) 918/2/1 & 918/6/1

Procedure Reporter

Formal Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.96 In January 2003 The Director of Planning of Angus Council presented a report to the council concerning three planning applications for "superstores" within Arbroath: at Westburn Foundry, Stobcross; Dens Road/Wardmill Rd; and at Westway Retail Park. The Director of Planning recommended refusal of all three applications (as did the retail consultants appointed by the council) on the grounds that there was insufficient retail capacity. Notwithstanding this advice, the Development Control Committee of Angus Council decided that they were minded to grant permission for the application for a superstore at Westway. This was notified to Scottish Ministers as marking a significant departure from the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. That led to the Westway application being ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers and considered, together with appeals for the two further sites, at a public inquiry held by Ms J McNair in September/October 2003.

29 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.97 Her report (The‘McNair Report’), setting out the findings and recommendations of that Inquiry, was issued in early 2004. The Scottish Ministers accepted its findings and recommendations and decided to refuse planning permission for all three major foodstore proposals in May 2004. Despite recommending refusal of each of the applications under consideration, the McNair Report stated that all parties agreed that there was a deficiency in convenience retail provision in Arbroath and that this should be met by a superstore, as defined by NPPG8. In June 2004 a full planning application was submitted by Macdonald Estates for a foodstore and 3 non-food retail units at Westway Retail Park – that application remains undetermined. In July 2004 two outline planning applications were submitted by Bett properties for supermarket proposals at Westburn, Stobcross. One proposal covered the site of the former Westburn Foundry (the ‘small site’) and the other (the ‘larger site’) covered this together with adjacent property occupied by Angus Council, principally the offices known as Bruce House. In September 2004 appeals against non-determination were submitted by Bett Properties in respect of both of those applications at Westburn.

2.98 In December 2004 The Director of Planning and Transport reported to Angus Council regarding his officers’ views on retail policy for the finalised Angus Local Plan Review and recommended that an additional ‘superstore’ of around 5,000sqm should be included in that plan, and that 3 sites (at Dens Rd/Wardmill Rd; Westburn Foundry (larger site); and Westway) should be identified on the proposals map as ‘potential sites’ for the superstore proposed – with site selection to be addressed at the local plan inquiry (with any approval of a proposal in advance of this being regarded as premature). The council agreed that an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm should be provided for in the finalised plan but decided that the site at Westway/Dundee Road should be identified on the proposals map of the Finalised Local Plan Review as the potential site for the new superstore – and this was published accordingly (as paragraph 25 and Policy A16) in FALPR in February 2005.

2.99 In May/June 2005 a public inquiry was held (by Ms K Heywood) to determine the Bett Properties/Tesco Stores Ltd (Bett/Tesco) planning appeals relating to the small and larger site proposals at Westburn. In July 2005 the appeal decisions were issued by Ms Heywood which granted 2 outline planning permissions: one relating to a supermarket of up to 3,500sqm GFA for the small site and one for a store of up to 5,000sqm GFA for the larger site, and both were subject to conditions. In order for Bett/Tesco to implement their larger permission at Westburn the council would have to sell Bruce House to the applicants/developers. Whilst the council has taken a formal decision that Bruce House is not for sale it is undertaking a feasibility study on this matter which has yet to report. On 8 September 2005, in response to the Westburn appeal decisions, the Director of Planning and Transport presented a report to the Infrastructure Services Committee of Angus Council setting out officers’ recommendations for Proposed Second Round Modifications to the FALPR. That report put forward a new local plan policy stating that provision be made in Arbroath for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm GFA and to allocate the smaller site at Westburn for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm GFA, subject to meeting access and service requirements. It also recommended that the reference to a food retail store at Westway, in the February 2005 draft finalised plan, should be deleted.

30 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.100 On 18 October 2005 the council resolved to include the following proposed Second Round Modifications, which were published in November 2005:

• Delete Policy A10 : Opportunity Site – Cairnie Street/Stobcross (and replace this with a new Policy A16 as set out below). • Delete existing paragraphs 22 and 23 and replace with new text (as below). • Insert new Policy A15 : Provision for Foodstore Development (as below). • Insert new paragraphs 24 and 25 (as below). • Renumber existing Policy A16 : Westway – Dundee Road as Policy A17. • Renumber text and policies and amend Proposals Map, as appropriate.

2.101 These proposed modifications would result in the Town Centres and Retailing Section (P108) of the finalised local plan review (FALPR) reading as follows:

“22. Although vacancy rates are relatively low, there has been relatively little investment in new retailing within the town centre in recent years and a large non- food retail unit has closed. More positively, the redevelopment of the vacant retail property at Gravesend to provide a Lidl discount store and two non-food units has been approved and will provide opportunities to strengthen the town centre.

23. In relation to out of centre retailing, the Morrison store is close to the town centre. It is the Council’s policy that an additional foodstore of around 5000 square metres should be provided to increase choice and reduce expenditure leakage from the catchment.

A15: Provision for Foodstore Development

An additional superstore of around 5,000 square metres gross floorspace should be provided in Arbroath, to be located at Westway/Dundee Road.

24. Following planning appeals planning permissions have been granted for further food retail development at the former Westburn Foundry site. Implementation of these consents will improve the range and choice of retailing and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. As the developer does not have control over the whole of the sites which have planning permission, there is some uncertainty as to the timing and size of the retail store which will be developed. It is considered appropriate to allocate the site of the former Westburn Foundry for the development of a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres gross floorspace, in accordance with the planning permission for the site. There may be scope to increase the scale of the foodstore up to around 5,000 square metres gross, if land ownerships can be consolidated. However, such consolidation is far from certain and will be subject to the outcome of a feasibility study into the possible relocation of the Council offices currently located on part of the site. It is intended to monitor this position and to consider proposals for other sites outwith the town centre against policy SC23 and other relevant development plan policies and national planning guidance.

31 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

A16: Cairnie Street/Stobcross

The site of the former Westburn Foundry is allocated for a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres subject to meeting access and servicing requirements.

25. Evidence and findings from a recent Public Local Inquiry in connection with major retail development proposals has confirmed that there is expenditure capacity to support a second new superstore that would improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. Angus Council has agreed that a further additional superstore of around 5,000 square metres (gross) would be appropriate. Following further consideration of the locational options, the Council has identified the Westway Retail Park as the preferred location having regard to various issues including accessibility and distribution, retail functions, development constraints, and land use and regeneration opportunities.

A17: Westway – Dundee Road

Land at Westway/Dundee Road is reserved for retail use, leisure use and ancillary development including the provision of a food retail store (around 5,000 sq m gross) and non food retail warehouses for sale of durable goods (limited to bulky and electrical goods.)”

2.102 In December 2005 Tesco Stores Ltd submitted an application for reserved matters in relation to its outline planning permission at the Westburn Foundry (for the small site) and it has also lodged an associated application for Roads Construction Consent (RCC) – both of which were being considered by the council but had yet to be determined when the local plan inquiry was completed or when this report section was written.

Basis of the objections

On behalf of William Morrison Supermarkets PLC (‘Morrison’)

2.103 The objector states that the effect of the above Proposed Second Round Modifications to the FALPR, is the allocation of two sites for retail development in Arbroath: a food retail store at Westway of up to 5,000 sq m and a foodstore at Cairnie Street/Stobcross up to 3,500 sq m. This would result in a combined total gross floor area of 8,500 sq m of new food retail development. In this context, on 15 December 2005, Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC (“Morrison”) lodged objections to these proposed modifications. Morrison argues that not only were the modifications on retailing in Arbroath made without any evidence to support an allocation at Westway, but that the said allocation is in itself contrary to both local and national planning policy.

32 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Planning History

2.104 Contrary to assertions made by the council witness Councillor King, both in his precognition and during cross-examination, Morrison contends that the allocated site at Westway has consistently been rejected as a location for convenience retailing, both by the council and by the Scottish Ministers on appeal. In December 1998, Angus Council refused planning permission for a supermarket at Westway as being contrary to local and national planning policy. An appeal against this refusal was subsequently withdrawn by the developer. At the Local Plan Inquiry in 2000, the same developer objected to Proposal A/TCR5 of the Finalised Angus Local Plan which excluded the sale of convenience goods at Westway. The reporters rejected the developer’s objection and, in support of the council’s position at that time, found at paragraph 32 of their report that:

“…there can be no question of the Westway site’s offering any functional integration with the town centre. The walk between the two locations can be very pleasant on a fine day, as experienced during the site inspection, but the distance is simply too great for there to be any prospect of substantial numbers of combined shopping trips using one parking space (car or bicycle) or a simple return bus journey; and there is virtually no walk-in residential catchment at this location which is peripheral to the town and not yet fully integrated into the urban fabric.”

2.105 In 2002, three planning applications for large convenience retail developments at Wardmill Road/Dens Road, Westburn Foundry, Stobcross and Westway, all in Arbroath, were lodged with the council. Contrary to assertions made by Councillor King during cross- examination, in resolving to grant planning permission for the development at Westway, the council:

“…agreed that the application be referred to the Scottish Ministers as the decision to grant permission for this development marked a significant departure from the Development Plan”.

2.106 It is pointed out that The Scottish Ministers decided to call in that Westway planning application for their own determination “in view of the proposed development’s possible implications for policies contained within the National Planning Policy Guidelines (NPPG) 8 “Town Centres and Retailing” and within the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan 2002.” The ‘findings in fact’ in relation to the Westway proposal can be found in paragraphs 9.177 to 9.213 of the McNair Report, 27 February 2004. In particular, the reporter’s assessment of the Westway proposal against the provisions of the structure plan can be found at paragraphs 9.193 to 9.196. As far as the criteria in the Town Centres and Retailing Policy 4 are concerned, the reporter found that Westway “was not easily accessible by modes of transport other than the car” (paragraph 9.193). In relation to Transport Policy 4, the reporter found that:

“The proposal does not demonstrate that it would provide the convenient and attractive facilities for pedestrian and public transport access that this policy requires as a minimum, in addition to facilities for cycle access;

33 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The proposal could use walking routes that could be linked into established or planned networks; and could be easily linked to established cycle routes. However, in practice, these are unlikely to be used to access the store.” (para 9.194)

2.107 The reporter’s assessment of the Westway proposal against NPPG 8 can be found in paragraphs 9.197 to 9.202. In summary, the reporter found that the Westway proposal would not accord with paragraphs 7 or 19 of NPPG8. In particular, the reporter found that the Westway proposal would not accord with criteria (e) of paragraph 45 of NPPG 8 as “…it would not be easily accessible by walking or cycle route that would link with the forecast catchment population.”

2.108 The reporter’s reasoning and recommendations in relation to the Westway proposal can be found in paragraphs 10.6-10.7. The reporter makes it clear that Westway does not accord with Town Centres and Retailing Policy 4 or with Transport Policy 4 of the approved structure plan. Morrison notes that this was due “in large measure to its location [para 9.187] and its poor accessibility by means other than the car, particularly in respect of walking and cycling links [para 9.191], and it is indifferently served by public transport.” (paragraph 10.7). The reporter recommended that the Westway planning application should be refused and this recommendation was adopted by the Scottish Ministers in their decision.

2.109 It is submitted on behalf of Morrison that the above planning history of the Westway site is of considerable importance in deciding whether Westway should be properly allocated for convenience retailing in the local plan review. In the objector’s view, the summary above demonstrates that the suitability of the Westway site for convenience retailing has been subject to detailed and rigorous scrutiny on three prior occasions in the last eight years - the most recent being just 27 months prior to the local plan review inquiry. On each occasion, the Westway site has either been refused planning permission for convenience retailing or failed to be allocated in the local plan for such retailing because of its lack of accordance with national and local policy due to its peripheral location. It is argued that Westway’s locational disadvantages are even more manifest in comparison with the Westburn/Stobcross site.

2.110 It is submitted that the planning history is also of considerable importance in deciding what weight should be attached to the views and opinions of the Councillors giving evidence to the present local plan review Inquiry. It is the view of Morrison that there has been a considerable shift in the position of the council in relation to:

• the suitability of the Westway site for convenience retailing; and • whether it is necessary to meet a deficiency, which is not supported either by their professional officers or by independent professional opinion.

2.111 Morrison contends that this has a bearing on the credibility of the council’s defence of its Proposed Second Round Modifications to the Finalised Local Plan Review.

34 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The council’s proposed second round modifications

2.112 The Finalised Local Plan Review initially made provision for one additional foodstore of around 5,000sqm gross to be located at Westway. Subsequently, on the 18 July 2005, two planning permissions were granted on appeal for a store of either 3,500sqm or 5,000sqm gross on the site at Westburn Foundry/Stobcross, Arbroath. It is argued by Morrison that the council’s proposed second round modifications, as outlined earlier, ‘fly in the face’ of the recommendations made on this matter in a report to committee (8 September 2005) by its own Director of Planning and Transport. The main purpose of his report was to consider whether any modification should be proposed to the Finalised Local Plan Review in response to the objections and the recent appeal decisions. The Director of Planning advised the council in his report (para 3.4):

“Having regard to the proposed allocation at the Westburn Foundry site, it is necessary to review the policy in the Finalised Local Plan regarding the Westway site. Prior to the first Public Local Inquiry in September/October 2003, the position adopted by the Council and all of the other main parties was that there was capacity for one additional superstore…..Planning permission has now been granted for retail development at Westburn Foundry and for the development of a Lidl discount store and two non-food retail units totalling 2,626 square metres gross on the site of the former Safeway store at Gravesend.”

2.113 In paragraph 3.5 of his report, the Director stated:

“Following the planning appeal decisions, Macdonald Estates submitted a Cumulative Retail Impact Assessment Statement to be considered in relation to their planning application at Westway and also in relation to the Local Plan allocation at the same site. The assessment which was based upon the development of a Tesco foodstore of 2,500 square metres gross at the Westburn site, the new Lidl store at Gravesend and an extension to Morrisons, concludes that the cumulative impact “….will not significantly undermine the viability and vitality of Arbroath town centre, or any other town centre.” It also states that “in terms of turnover and available expenditure the primary catchment area will be broadly in balance with turnover matching the expenditure generated. This will effectively reduce the significant leakage to a marginal net inflow of expenditure with consequential beneficial impact for local employment.”

2.114 In paragraph 3.6 of his report, the Director continues:

“In view of the recent submission of the cumulative impact report it has not been possible in the time available to fully review its findings. Indeed it is considered that in accordance with previous practice an independent review by consultants should be carried out…Pending the review of the new impact assessment its findings are not accepted. In this case and having regard to the previously agreed position that there is capacity for only one additional large superstore, it is considered that the reference in the Finalised Local Plan to the acceptability of food retailing at Westway should be

35 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

removed. The position could be reviewed following clarification of the size of store which is to be built at Westburn/Stobcross and in the light of further information on cumulative impact.”

2.115 Morrison contends that the council’s Director of Planning reached the conclusions expressed in his report after detailed consideration of the various issues raised at the Finalised Local Plan Review Inquiry. Councillor King, under cross-examination, sought to argue that the report to committee and the professional opinion and judgment of the Council’s Director of Planning and Transport are irrelevant to the local plan Inquiry. In the view of Morrison, this approach is without merit pointing out that the conclusions reached by the Director followed his assessment of the Westway site, having regard to the material that was available to him. It is submitted that the outcome of that assessment process by the Director is a material and relevant consideration before the FALPR Inquiry.

2.116 It is accepted on behalf by Morrison that allocations in local plans are to be made by Members of the council and those Members retain discretion to reject the conclusions of their officers. However, it is argued that the Members’ decisions at all times must be for sound planning reasons, even in the event that the conclusions of the officers do not fit with the result the Members wish to achieve for political reasons. It is pointed out that, in contradiction to that position, Councillor King (who moved to amend the Finalised Local Plan to include the second round modifications) appeared unsure what the role of the council is when preparing a local plan and when asked what he considered to be relevant and material considerations in formulating the local plan, he relied heavily on the weight of local opinion. It is also noted that, when questioned on whether he accepted that allocations for food retail developments in the local plan should only be made where their impacts have properly been assessed, he had difficulty understanding the concepts being discussed.

2.117 It is contended that the general understanding of the councillors appearing as witnesses at the local plan inquiry - regarding the requirement in s.11(5) and s.17(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for local plans to conform to the structure plan - was at best confused and at worst misconceived. It is submitted that cross- examination of those witnesses disclosed that they were not in a position to undertake the same professional assessment carried out by their Director of Planning and Transport and contained in his report of 8 September 2005. Furthermore, it is argued that at the time the council decision on local plan modifications was taken in November 2005, there was no independent assessment available to them, from appropriately qualified professionals, to support the planning reasons upon which they purported to take their decision. It is submitted that a simple comparison of retail floorspace in towns adjacent to Arbroath was insufficient to enable an informed view to be taken on issues such as qualitative and quantitative deficiency and impact.

2.118 In all these circumstances, Morrison argues that it is difficult to see how the council Members were entitled to take the decision that they did, in the absence of a proper understanding of the assessment process in which they were engaged and in the absence of independent professional opinion to support the reasons relied upon. In Morrison’s view, it becomes all the more difficult when one takes into account the councillors’ evidence as to the

36 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

principal motivation and reason for their decision – local opinion. It is noted that Paragraph 61 of SPP1 makes it clear that the amount of weight to be given to public concern as a material consideration must be based on the relevance of the planning issues raised. It is Morrison’s submission that public concern or opposition can never operate as a substitute for proper consideration of the planning merits of a particular proposal. It is contended that in this particular case the council Members allowed their views on the amount of public support for a food retail store at Westway to materially affect their planning judgement.

2.119 Following its decision regarding Proposed Second Round Modifications to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, the council subsequently commissioned Roderick MacLean Associates to appraise the retail assessment (submitted in August 2005) in support of the planning application for a proposed ASDA superstore at Westway. The report produced by Roderick MacLean Associates in December 2005 (at paragraph 3.9) found that:

“Since the combination of ASDA at Westway and a 2,500 sq m Tesco at Stobcross would cause high cumulative impacts in combination with other existing consents, Roderick MacLean Associates consider that a combination of ADSA with the larger Tesco store at Stobcross would not have nearly sufficient expenditure capacity to be supported, especially as Tesco intended their 3,500 sq m store to have a high proportion of convenience sales.”

2.120 In this context, it is suggested that Councillor Spiers, in cross-examination, correctly described the effect of the Proposed Second Round Modifications as having “put the cart before the horse”. It is noted that the same Councillor also conceded that if he had been aware of the conclusions of the Roderick MacLean Associates report before the meeting of 18 October 2005, he would not have supported the Proposed Second Round Modifications. It is submitted on behalf of Morrison that this illustrates the flaw which underlies the council Members’ whole approach to the allocation of the Westway site in the Finalised Local Plan – namely putting local opinion before planning judgement.

Westway

Compliance with Structure Plan:

2.121 Section 11(5)(b) the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that:

“In formulating their proposals in a local plan the planning authority –

(b)shall secure that the local plan conforms generally to the structure plan, as it stands for the time being, whether or not it has been approved by the Secretary of State.”

2.122 Furthermore, s.17(3) of the 1997 Act states that:

“Where the Secretary of State has, under section 10, approved a structure plan for any area the planning authority shall not adopt any plan or proposals which do not conform to that structure plan.”

37 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.123 Morrison notes that the planning history outlined earlier demonstrates that on three separate occasions – two of them following public local inquiries - food retail development at Westway has been held to be non-compliant with the structure plan. It is Morrison’s view that the situation remains the same now, as a direct and unavoidable consequence of the peripheral location of the Westway site, and evidence has been led in support of that view. On this basis, Morrison refutes the contention made by a specialist witness on behalf of Asda/Macdonald - appearing in support of the allocation of the Westway site in the Finalised Local Plan - that proposed improvements in Westway’s accessibility are sufficient to address the criticisms of the Ms McNair, the reporter at the first public local inquiry in 2003, regarding Westway’s inaccessibility and structure plan compliance.

2.124 Much emphasis was placed by the council in its evidence, on the possibility of bus operators improving their services to Westway if a food retail store is developed there. It is pointed out, however, that to date the council has been unable to provide evidence of any such commitment from bus operators - even in general terms. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that existing bus services to the Westway site are sporadic and at times non-existent during peak shopping times. Considerable emphasis has also been placed upon the proposed provision by the intended store operator Asda of a dedicated bus service to the Westway site. It is noted that this evidence was also before Ms McNair at the first planning inquiry in 2003. The only difference now is that Asda/Macdonald has produced a proposed bus timetable for such a service. It is argued on behalf of Morrison that this is an insufficient basis upon which to justify departing from the findings of the reporter following that first planning inquiry.

2.125 Based on these considerations it is contended that the allocation of Westway as the site of a food retail store in the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review would be contrary to the structure plan and therefore in breach of the above listed provisions of the 1997 Act.

Compliance with NPPG 8:

2.126 It is argued that the specialist planning evidence and retail assessments put forward on behalf of Morrison demonstrates that the allocation of Westway for an out of centre food retail store is non-compliant with NPPG8. It is pointed out that differences in the retail assessment undertaken on behalf of Morrison and that produced for Asda/Macdonald, can be explained by reference to the different test years, catchment area and population forecasts adopted by the respective parties. The principal area of difference, however, relates to whether or not the whole of Carnoustie is included within the catchment area of Arbroath. It is noted that Ms McNair, in the report of her 2003 planning inquiry, considered that the inclusion of the whole of Carnoustie was likely to overstate the catchment area of Arbroath, but no definitive position was adopted by her on this. Ms Heywood, the reporter in the second planning inquiry in 2005, did not present a conclusive view on this matter. It is noted that the Roderick MacLean Associates (RMA) report adopted a similar position to Morrison in suggesting that some residents in Carnoustie will continue to shop in Dundee. It is also pointed out that the RMA report rejects the conclusions of the Asda/Macdonald retail assessment dated August 2005. In all the circumstances, it is submitted that the Morrison approach of not including the entire population of Carnoustie in the catchment is one which more closely represents the realities of shopping habits in the region.

38 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.127 Reference is made to the findings of the reporter following the 2003 planning inquiry, in particular paragraphs 9.197 to 9.202 of The McNair Report, concerning NPPG 8. Ms McNair found that the Westway proposal would not accord with paragraphs 7 or 19 of NPPG8. That reporter also found that the Westway proposal would not accord with criteria (e) of paragraph 45 of NPPG 8 as “… it would not be easily accessible by walking or cycle routes that would link with the forecast catchment population.” It is contended on behalf of Morrison that the situation remains the same today as it did when that reporter presented her findings.

The Cairnie Street/ Stobcross Site (‘the Stobcross site’)

The smaller Tesco scheme:

2.128 Morrison does not object to Policy A16 (of the Proposed Modifications) relating to the Stobcross site, but seeks a minor amendment to confirm that the reference to scale of retail development is 3,500sqm gross retail floor area. It is accepted that this site is suitable and available for such development within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that this is a committed development for retail assessment purposes.

The larger Tesco scheme:

2.129 It is noted that the FALPR does not propose to allocate land at Stobcross for a superstore of up to 5,025sqm GFA, despite the fact that outline planning permission has been granted for such a development. It is acknowledged that the council has discretion on this matter, related to the fact that Tesco Stores does not control all of the land and implementation of this larger permission would depend on relocation of council offices from land still owned by the council. On this basis, it is argued on behalf of Morrison that PAN49 does not support the identification of the larger Stobcross scheme for retail development in the local plan as there is no reason to suggest that the outline permission would be implemented within about 5 years (the period up to 2011) given the particular land ownership issues.

2.130 In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above it is contended policies A15 and A17 put forward by the council should be deleted and if this is not possible then Morrison suggests changes to the wording of the policies A15, A16 and A17, as specified in its objections to the Proposed Second Round Modifications published by the council in November 2005.

On behalf of Bett Properties Ltd/ Tesco Stores PLC (referred to as “Bett/Tesco”)

2.131 The objections by Bett/Tesco relate:

• in general to policies which support an allocation for a food superstore at a location at Westway on the western outskirts of Arbroath and which has already been the subject of consideration at three local inquiries; and

39 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• to a policy which only partially supports the location of a food superstore at the former Westburn Foundry, Stobcross (“Westburn”) which is under the control of Bett/Tesco and which has also been the subject of consideration and support as a result of two local inquiries.

Planning History:

2.132 The location at Westway has been proposed for development by Macdonald Estates and ASDA Stores ( “ASDA”) who are also objectors at this Inquiry, and the development at Westway has been supported by a number of Members of Angus Council (“the council”) acting as the planning authority. It is noted that in addition to the objections by Bett/Tesco, the allocation of the location at Westway has been objected to for food retailing by Morrison.

2.133 The planning history of Westburn and Westway has been summarised in evidence on behalf of Bett/Tesco and on behalf of Morrison – as outlined above. In this context, it is noted that the location at Westway was rejected for food retailing:

• following the Local Plan Inquiry held in 2000 (“the 2000 Local Plan Inquiry”) • following the local inquiry held in 2003 (“the 2003 Inquiry”) in the Report by Miss J McNair dated 27th February 2004 (the “McNair Report”) which was accepted by the Scottish Ministers; • and following the 2005 Inquiry, it was not supported in the decision letter issued by Miss Karen Heywood, dated 18th July 2005 (“Miss Heywood’s Decision”)

2.134 In contrast, it is pointed out that the location at Westburn was supported as the preferred location for food retailing in Arbroath in The McNair Report, and separate outline planning permissions were granted by Miss Heywood’s Decision for foodstore developments at Westburn of 3,500sqm gross floorspace (“the smaller store”) and 5,025sqm gross floorspace (“the larger store”).

Legal and planning policy issues:

2.135 It is argued that there are several legal and planning policy issues which are relevant to the policies which are proposed by the council in the FALPR and the Second Round Modifications, and to the recommendations which may be made following this local plan Inquiry. It is suggested that these tend to support the position of Bett/Tesco and not to support the position which is being put forward by the council and by ASDA.

Scope of decision making:

2.136 It is pointed out that it is a fundamental principle that in exercising statutory powers, a statutory body such as the council must exercise any discretion within the scope of the power delegated to the statutory body. In the case of a planning authority such as Angus Council, the Members of the council must make decisions on planning matters which are in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”).

40 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Members are not entitled to act upon their own personal preferences, either individually or as a group, and they must make any decision under the 1997 Act in accordance with that Act.

2.137 In the case of an application for planning permission, a planning authority in deciding whether or not to grant permission for development “shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations”. In the case of the preparation of a local plan in terms of section 11(3)(a), it shall consist of a written statement setting out “the authority’s proposals for the development and other use of land”, and in terms of subsection (5) the planning authority “shall have regard to any information and any other considerations which appear to them to be relevant or which may be prescribed.”

2.138 It is noted that the nature of the material considerations which may be relevant to decisions by a planning authority in relation to development have been set out in national planning policy. Paragraph 37 of Scottish Planning Policy: The Planning System (SPP1) states that “Local plan policies must conform to the structure plan and be fully justified, demonstrating what is and is not acceptable in land use terms”. Paragraphs 50 and 51 identify what may be material and relevant considerations, one of which is “legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters.” It is pointed out that this acknowledges the long understood principle that public objection or public support by themselves, even if expressed by a large number of people, do not provide a material consideration sufficient to justify either refusal or granting of planning permission. Scottish Development Department Circular 6/1990 which relates to awards of expenses in relation to appeals, provides in paragraph 7 that unreasonable behaviour on the part of a planning authority may include refusing an application because of local opposition where that opposition is not founded upon valid planning reasons, and failing to take account of relevant statements of government policy and departmental circulars or of relevant precedents of which the planning authority are aware.

2.139 It is argued that these matters are relevant and important in demonstrating that it would not be appropriate for the council to adopt any policy in the FALPR in the absence of proper planning reasons for doing so. Similarly, it is Bett/Tesco’s view that the council Members are not entitled to allocate a site for development in the FALPR simply because of what some of them, including Councillor King, believe is vocal public support or opposition. It is contended that the council’s proposal in the Second Round Modifications to adopt allocation A16 with a floorspace of 3500 square metres at Westburn, without acknowledging in the allocation that there is a planning permission for a food superstore at that location of up to 5025 square metres, has no proper planning justification and is not in accordance with the precedent of a grant of outline planning permission for the larger store. Furthermore, it is argued that there is no justification for the continued support by the council for allocation of a food superstore at Westway, in A15 and A17, based solely upon what certain council Members believe to be public support for the location at Westway. It is contended that, even if that support did exist - which is open to question - it would not be sufficient reason to allocate development at Westway which was fundamentally not in conformity with planning policy.

41 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conformity with the structure plan:

2.140 It is noted that in terms of section 17(3) of the 1997 Act, and as confirmed in paragraph 37 of SPP1, referred to above, a planning authority shall not adopt any plan or proposals which does not conform to the relevant structure plan. In this particular case, it is pointed out that the location of Westway would not be in conformity with the approved structure plan, noting that this has been acknowledged by the council’s Director of Transport and Planning and accepted by the council during the local plan inquiry. It is also pointed out that no evidence has been offered on behalf of the council to overcome this disconformity. Accordingly, it is submitted that it would be unlawful for the council to adopt the FALPR in the event that it included a proposal for food retailing at Westway.

Conformity with national planning policy:

2.141 It is noted that no evidence has been presented by the council as to how the location at Westway would satisfy the requirements of National Planning Policy Guidance: Town Centres and Retailing (NPPG8). The McNair Report confirmed that the location at Westway was not supported by National Planning Policy Guideline: Transport and Planning (NPPG17), and once again the council has offered no evidence as to how the location at Westway could be now justified in this context. Accordingly, it is argued that the council has led no evidence in justification of the location at Westway in terms of the requirement to comply with national planning policy and, to that extent, allocations A15 and A17 of the ALPR, which purport to allocate food retailing at Westway, could not be supported.

The relevance of previous decisions:

2.142 It is stated that a previous appeal decision is capable of being a material consideration to which regard ought to be had in a subsequent decision. It is pointed out that this has been recognised and confirmed in a number of cases, to which detailed reference is made. On this basis it is argued that the decision of the Scottish Ministers in 2004 based upon the McNair Report is a material consideration which should be followed as a matter of public policy, and that Miss Heywood’s Decision is also a material consideration. The council Members relied upon Miss Heywood’s Decision to support its allocation A16 at Westburn in the Proposed Second Round Modification. It is pointed out that neither the McNair Report and the related decision of the Scottish Ministers, nor Miss Heywood’s Decision have given any support for food retailing at Westway, and they have based that approach upon considerations relating to the development plan, national planning policy and other material considerations. It is argued, therefore, that in continuing to support Westway, the council Members are failing to have regard to these principles.

Principle of development:

2.143 The courts have determined that the principle of a development approved by an outline planning permission cannot be reconsidered in the approval of reserved matters. It is argued that this means that in determining the application for reserved matters in respect of the smaller store at Westburn, which is before Angus Council, the Members cannot make a

42 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

decision which undermines the principle of retail development at that location. It is pointed out that the same will be the case in the event of an application for approval of reserved matters in respect of the larger store. It is noted that a council witness, Councillor King, accepted this. It is argued that this means that the Members of the council cannot undermine the two planning permissions which have been given for retail development at Westburn by restricting the allocation at Westburn to the smaller store only. Approval of reserved matters:

2.144 It is pointed out that the courts have upheld that the holder of an outline planning permission may apply more than once for approval of different proposals for the same reserved matters. It is noted that the approach for ASDA in this particular case has been to subject the current application for approval of reserved matters, in respect of the smaller store at Westburn, to a series of detailed criticisms, in an apparent effort to demonstrate that the smaller store could not be implemented. It is submitted that this approach is illegitimate because the decision on whether or not to grant approval of reserved matters is not one for the local plan inquiry. Instead it is a matter for the council (acting properly within their powers under the 1997 Act and the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 224), after the appropriate consultations and opportunities for discussion and revisal have taken place). It is pointed out that the emphasis by ASDA on the present application for approval of reserved matters at Westburn ignores the fact that even if it were to be refused, and subject to any appeal against such refusal, Bett/Tesco may submit one or more further applications for approval of reserved matters, subject only to the ultimate time limit in the outline planning permissions granted by Miss Heywood’s Decision. It is stated that the situation is exactly the same in relation to an application for roads construction consent (“RCC”) in terms of section 21 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, save that not only is this a separate matter procedurally, but it is one under separate legislation and to be determined by the council, acting as the “roads authority” in terms of that legislation.

The merits of the case for Bett/Tesco

2.145 Before summarising its position, in respect of Westburn and Westway and in relation to the proposed narrative and allocations contained in the Proposed Second Round Modifications, Bett/Tesco point out that the extent of the opposing case put forward on behalf of the council is very limited. It was restricted to the evidence given by the three councillors who do not provide any detailed policy or other support for their position in favour of Westway. Their support for Westway is based almost exclusively upon what they believe to be public support for the location at Westway. Furthermore, it is suggested that one of the council’s witnesses, Councillor King, appeared not to be interested in whether or not the council’s decision took into account proper planning considerations or policy at all.

2.146 Despite the clear rejection of Westway in the McNair Report and by the Scottish Ministers following the 2003 Inquiry, at the 2005 Inquiry certain Members of the council and those acting for ASDA continued to support a location at Westway - which was unsupportable in planning policy terms, in Bett/Tesco’s view. At that time, in submissions on behalf of Bett/Tesco, Miss Heywood was urged to bring the uncertainty over the provision

43 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

of a new major foodstore for Arbroath to an end by rejecting the opposition to Westburn - which had been put forward by those acting on behalf of Westway - and without further distraction at Westway. It is argued now that Miss Heywood must have accepted those submissions on behalf of Bett/Tesco because, not only did she grant outline planning permission for a foodstore development at Westburn, she granted the applications for both the smaller store and the larger store. It is contended that these decisions should have meant:

• the end for Westway, both in the minds of those acting on behalf of ASDA and in the minds of those council Members who gave evidence in support of Westway at the 2005 Inquiry; and • recognition that, for all the proper planning reasons which had been demonstrated, Westburn was the appropriate location.

2.147 It is noted that this has not turned out to be the case as the Members in question and those representing ASDA have repeated yet again their assertions in support of the location at Westway. It is pointed out that they have done so in a situation where that location has not changed to any material extent either in its relationship to Arbroath or in relation to the facilities which would be provided on the site. It is argued on behalf of Bett/Tesco that the location at Westway is simply unsustainable as a potential location for a food superstore, and so proposals for its inclusion in the FALPR ought to be rejected emphatically.

2.148 In making this general submission about the location of Westway, Bett/Tesco place emphasis on the fact that:

• firstly, the Westway site was rejected as an appropriate location for food retailing following the 2000 Local Plan Inquiry and that was accepted by the council; • it was then rejected as an appropriate location for food retailing by Miss McNair after the 2003 Inquiry, and her report was supported by the Scottish Ministers; and subsequently; • it was not accepted by Miss Heywood as a possible alternative to Westburn, in her decision following the 2005 Inquiry; • it has also been rejected at various points by officers of the council, and in particular they did not support the location of Westway at either the 2003 Inquiry or the 2005 Inquiry; • furthermore, the Westway site allocation is the subject of objections at the FALPR inquiry, not only by Bett/Tesco but also by Morrison. The only specialist planning witness appearing on behalf of ASDA, in support of the location at Westway, also gave evidence at the 2003 Inquiry and at the 2005 Inquiry, both in favour of Westway and against Westburn. It is pointed out that his evidence was rejected by the relevant reporter, and on one occasion by the Scottish Ministers, following the 2003 and 2005 Inquiries.

2.149 In Bett/Tesco’s view, the fact that the locations at Westburn and at Westway have been examined in considerable detail at two previous Inquiries - and in the case of Westway also at a previous Local Plan Inquiry - means that a great deal of what has been considered in the FALPR Inquiry is not new. In particular, it is stated that all of the practical issues in

44 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

relation to Westburn which have been raised, in particular the access arrangements and design issues, were also the subject of consideration at the 2005 Inquiry and in Miss Heywood’s Decision. It is argued, therefore, that considerable assistance can be derived from what was considered by the previous reporters on the same matters. Accordingly, this is not a situation where it is necessary to assess evidence for the first time.

2.150 In this context the individual objections which have been made by Bett/Tesco, in support of the location at Westburn and in rejection of the location at Westway, are summarised below, noting that their position has been supported by the previous reporters and the Scottish Ministers as outlined earlier.

Westburn:

2.151 The council proposes the allocation of a foodstore at Westburn in the FALPR in terms of paragraph 24 and allocation A16 of the Proposed Second Round Modifications. This is a positive allocation by the council which Bett/Tesco accepts. One of the council witnesses stated, in response to a question, that that he believed that the evidence in support of Westburn came from Miss Heywood’s Decision. The council confirmed in correspondence that it was not relying upon any new studies and that the council’s evidence proceeded on the basis that the smaller store at Westburn “can be developed.” It is argued that two consequences follow from this position. Firstly, it means that in relation to the smaller store at least, the FALPR proceeds upon the basis that 3,500sqm of gross floorspace will exist at Westburn. This is consistent with the fact that the principle of development cannot be revisited in the consideration of any reserved matters application. On this basis it is argued that the evidence for the council in this respect is consistent with the position of Bett/Tesco, and is not consistent with the position of ASDA, who suggest that the outline planning permission for the smaller store at Westburn cannot be implemented. It is noted that ASDA did not cross-examine any of the councillor witnesses, despite the fact that ASDA object to the Proposed Second Round Modifications in respect of the allocation at Westburn and presented an expert planning witness to give evidence in support of that objection. In the absence of proper cross-examination of the council by ASDA, it is suggested by Bett/Tesco that little weight should be given to that objection.

2.152 It is argued that, if the council relies upon Miss Heywood’s Decision to justify the allocation of foodstore floorspace at Westburn, there is no logic in accepting an allocation of the smaller store and rejecting an allocation of the larger store. The only reason why the larger store has not been included in the Second Round Modifications is, as stated in paragraph 24, that consolidation of the land ownerships “is far from certain.” The council has confirmed that it is carrying out a land audit for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not its office building at Bruce House could be relocated. On this basis it is argued on behalf of Bett/Tesco that there is no evidence that the larger store at Westburn can be ruled out, which is consistent with Miss Heywood’s Decision where she granted outline planning permission equally for the smaller store and the larger store. Accordingly, it is contended that the distinction sought to be drawn by the council members is simply illogical and unjustified.

45 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.153 In this context, it is argued that the wording of allocation A16 should read “ … up to 5,000 square metres”, rather than “ … up to 3,500 square metres,” and that the preferred location is Westburn (otherwise Stobcross). In this regard it is noted, firstly, that the results of the survey of public opinion carried out in November and December 2005 are not consistent with the assertion by the councillors that there is overwhelming support for Westway and no support for Westburn. Secondly, it is noted that there have been no objections from individuals to the Proposed Second Round Modifications in favour of Westburn.

2.154 Turning to the evidence put forward by ASDA in seeking to reject the allocation at Westburn, attention is drawn to the precise terms of Policy Allocation A16 in the Second Round Modifications, which reads “The site of the former Westburn Foundry is allocated for a foodstore of up to 3500 square metres subject to meeting access and servicing requirements”. It is pointed out that this allocation raises two issues, firstly regarding the size of the foodstore to be supported, and secondly the reference to access and servicing arrangements. It is important to emphasise that the council is supporting the development of a foodstore at Westburn of up to 3,500sqm gross floor area, which is already the subject of one of the outline planning permissions granted by Miss Heywood’s Decision. In summary, and contrary to suggestions made on behalf of ASDA, it is a development which all parties involved, including the council, expect to be implemented.

2.155 It is pointed out that the same access and design criticisms against the Westburn proposals now put forward on behalf of ASDA were also made by the same ASDA witnesses at the 2005 Inquiry. It is noted that this not did not prevent planning permission being granted in Miss Heywood’s Decision. It is to be borne in mind that allocation A16 itself is subject to access and servicing requirements being met and so that allocation is intended to permit the council as planning authority to ensure that these arrangements can be provided. The formal allocation in the FALPR provides for these matters to be examined at the appropriate time in the course of consideration of a reserved matters application - and if this were to be refused a second application for the approval of reserved matters could be made which might be acceptable, as discussed earlier. Accordingly, in Bett/Tesco’s view, the ASDA evidence on Westburn’s ‘reserved matters’ is not truly relevant to the FALPR proceedings because it concerns matters which the proposed allocation clearly envisages will be dealt with at another stage. Whilst ASDA contends that the Wetburn site “cannot deliver”, the council’s legal advisor confirmed during the FALPR inquiry that he was not aware of council officers saying that the present application for approval of reserved matters by Bett/Tesco was completely unacceptable nor was he aware of any insurmountable obstacles to the application for a Roads Construction Consent. It is argued, therefore, that the objection by ASDA to the allocation at Westburn (now A16), which was not challenged in cross-examination of the councillors, should be rejected.

2.156 The objections for Bett/Tesco, and the evidence presented in support of its case, make it clear that allocation A16 should be for up to 5,000sqm, and that allocation would be implemented in large part within the area allocated in the Proposals Map. It is pointed out that the issue is one of the extent of the floorspace which should be allocated, whilst the extent of the site required has not been a material consideration for the purposes of the

46 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

allocation. In any event, the site required for the larger store is defined by the outline planning permission for the larger store, and so there can be no uncertainty about its extent. It is contended, therefore, that the allowance of the objection by Bett/Tesco to the terms of allocation A16 would be entirely appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case and that no alteration to the proposals map of the FALPR would be necessary.

2.157 In summary, it is submitted that the objections by Bett/Tesco should be upheld and that allocation A16 should refer to a floorspace of up to 5,000sqm. Accordingly, it is also submitted that the position of the council in relation to allocation A16 should be rejected, and that the objection in principle by ASDA to allocation A16 also should be rejected.

Westway:

2.158 For the reasons outlined earlier, it is argued that there is no justification for any allocation for a foodstore at Westway, based on the evidence on behalf of Bett/Tesco - which is related to the findings and recommendations in the McNair Report and to Miss Heywood’s Decision, as well as the 2000 Local Plan Inquiry. It is contended that the evidence put forward by the council and for ASDA has not altered that position.

2.159 Setting aside any merits that may exist in support of Westway, it is pointed out that if the submissions made by Bett/Tesco regarding Westburn are upheld and a floorspace of up to 5000sqm is allocated at Westburn, there would be insufficient capacity for the floorspace proposed at Westway in allocations A15 and A17, even on the evidence for the council. It is noted that Councillor King accepted that if 5,000sqm were to be allocated at Westburn, the position for Westway would be “very much more difficult” and Councillor Speirs accepted that if 5,000sqm were to be allocated at Westburn, there would be not enough capacity for the allocation of 5,000sqm at Westway. Similarly, Councillor Spink accepted that in that situation an additional 5,000sqm allocation at Westway would not be justified. Accordingly, it is contended if the position of the council in relation to allocation A16 at Westburn is not justified - and up to 5,000sqm is allocated at Westburn, as proposed by Bett/Tesco - then the council accepts that an allocation for 5,000sqm at Westway could not be made.

2.160 In any event, it is argued that there is no other justification for such an allocation at Westway. As stated earlier, the location has been found by one reporter and by the Scottish Ministers to be inappropriate for food retailing, and not to comply with the development plan and national planning policy, in particular NPPG8 and NPPG17 and Westway has not been supported by a second reporter in preference to the location at Westburn. It is noted that Councillor King in supporting Westway cites local public support for it and for reasons of car accessibility, without reference to national planning policy which seeks to reduce car use. Furthermore, he stated that he does not consider himself to be bound by planning legislation and policy, and he regards the structure plan as only guidelines. It is also noted that whilst Councillors Spiers and Spink were not so emphatic regarding the scope to ignore planning legislation and policy, they both also relied upon what they regarded as the public desire for a foodstore at Westway. As stated earlier members of a planning authority have a statutory duty to make decisions on a proper basis in accordance with the scope of discretion given to them in terms of the 1997 Act, taking into consideration national planning policy and other

47 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

proper material considerations. In the present case, it is argued that the evidence for the council has not provided any basis upon which it would be proper to support the allocation of a food superstore at Westway. It is also hoped that an emphatic rejection of the position put forward by the councillors would bring to its final end their unjustified and unreasonable support for Westway.

2.161 It is pointed out that whilst Councillor King emphasised that he would not be placed in a position of pre-judging the application for approval of reserved matters at Westburn, he is prepared to give his support for Westway, which is the subject of an application for planning permission, which is before the council now, in order to create employment. Indeed, he has openly expressed his support for Westway over a long period, notwithstanding its rejection by Reporters and the Scottish Ministers. It is argued that he demonstrated his contempt for planning policy when he described the approved structure plan as containing a “pretty stupid policy”. It is also noted that he was generally critical of the officers of the council, on several occasions attempting to place the responsibility for actions on them rather than accepting that the decisions had been approved by Members. Accordingly, it is submitted that little if any weight can be attached to the evidence of a Member of a planning authority who is prepared to pay such little regard to what are the proper responsibilities of an elected Member to act within the scope of the powers properly bestowed upon the authority.

2.162 At the 2005 Inquiry, Councillor King appeared to maintain his support for the location at Westway upon the basis of his knowledge of local sentiment, gained by people speaking to him. Whatever may have been the position then, it is argued that the results of an independent telephone survey of Arbroath residents, recently carried out on behalf of Bett/Tesco, demonstrates that there is no overwhelming support for Westway. It is suggested that this provides for the first time a gauge of the level of public sentiment for the proposed foodstore development. The survey revealed that 41.5% of those who supported the development of a foodstore wished it to be at a location adjacent to Morrisons. It is submitted that this research has demonstrated that the basis of Councillor King’s support for Westway is unfounded, noting that the council has never carried out any objective assessment. It is argued that the fact that the council has apparently been in receipt of no individual objections to the development of a foodstore at Westburn since the council decided to support allocation A16 in October 2005, is consistent with the view that the location of Westburn does not excite significant antipathy locally and is consistent with the findings of the telephone survey. It is contended on this basis that continued support by the councillor witnesses for the location at Westway, and resistance to the location at Westburn, is unjustified.

2.163 In response to the case made by ASDA in support of the location at Westway, it is pointed out firstly, that the arguments put forward by the ASDA planning witness are inconsistent with the decisions already made by the Scottish Ministers following the 2003 Inquiry and following the 2005 Inquiry. It is also pointed out that at those Inquiries the same arguments had been put forward on behalf of ASDA by the same witness. Furthermore, it is contended that no significant new factor has come into existence since these appeal decisions which would be sufficient to justify the location at Westway, which is contrary to national planning policy to a significant extent in Bett/Tesco’s view.

48 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.164 It has been suggested that the allocation of Westway in the FALPR would provide benefits in transportation terms, namely reducing leakage to Dundee and providing for the completion of the balance of the retail park, thereby reducing comparison leakage. It is pointed that both of these factors were considered at the 2003 Inquiry, when the reporter found that the recovery of leakage had been overstated and the existence of the non-food retail park provided no justification for a foodstore at Westway. Suggestions about cycle accessibility and available pedestrian routes made in support of the Westway site at the local plan inquiry were similar to those rejected in the McNair Report and it is submitted that nothing has changed relative to the location at Westway. In particular it is argued Westway was a fundamentally inappropriate location in 2004, it has not moved and remains at a fundamentally inappropriate location in 2006, and will remain so throughout the period of the FALPR until 2011. It is contended that the council and ASDA cannot simply ignore these clear conclusions about the site at Westway, and nothing they have suggested at the local plan has added any new factor which would be sufficient to set aside the conclusions of the McNair Report and the Scottish Ministers.

2.165 It is noted that ASDA now rely upon one proposed new bus service to serve the Westway site and have produced a potential timetable for it. It is argued on behalf of Bett/Tesco that this could not conceivably make up for the Westway site being so poorly located that it has been conclusively rejected previously. In any case, in consideration of the location at Westway, the McNair Report anticipated improvements to the bus services at Westway which had been put forward at the 2003 Inquiry by ASDA. Accordingly whilst details of a service have now been provided for the first time, the addition of a new bus service is not a wholly new factor.

2.166 It is pointed out that, even if only the smaller store were to be allocated at Westburn, which is not the accepted position of Bett/Tesco, the position of the council in submissions before the 2003 Inquiry was that only one large foodstore should be allocated. The council has provided no reasoned explanation as to why that position has altered. It is suggested by Bett/Tesco that the only reason why the council now supports two stores is because of the approval of the smaller store at Westburn (as well as the larger store) and the desire of the councillors still to promote Westway. It is noted that the independent retail consultant recently instructed again on behalf of the council, does not support a store at Westway, even if only the smaller store were to be built at Westburn. Furthermore, in order to justify the position for Westway, ASDA’s own planning witness relied upon levels of recovery of leakage which Bett/Tesco suggest are unrealistic.

2.167 It is argued that the ASDA witnesses, having been critical of the Westburn allocation, are not being even-handed in seeking an allocation at Westway, despite the fact that: it has no planning permission at all; it has no approval of reserved matters or detailed planning permission; and it has no RCC. The McNair Report recognised that Westway had issues which would require to be addressed, for example on sightlines and queue lengths. It is submitted, therefore, that it is illogical for the witnesses for ASDA to favour allocation of Westway, in respect of which such issues had not been addressed, and to discount the Westburn site where similar issues are actually the subject of formal applications to the planning authority and the roads authority. In this context, it is contended that there has been

49 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

put forward no justification for a foodstore at Westway, and that the objections to the allocations A15 and A17 of the Second Round Modifications should be upheld. Policy SC23

2.168 Bett/Tesco have objected to the amendment to Policy SC23 of the FALPR and to the supporting text. This has been dealt with as a separate report topic.

2.169 For all of these reasons, it is argued that the objections for Bett/Tesco should be upheld and the evidence for the council and the objections for ASDA should be rejected. Accordingly, it is submitted that the FALPR and the Second Round Modifications be amended and the local plan review be adopted in terms of the objections for Bett/Tesco.

On Behalf of Macdonald Estates / Asda Stores Ltd (‘ASDA’)

2.170 It is noted that the only issue to be considered is the validity of objections into the FALPR. It is also noted that the local plan should control development until 2011 and also look forward to 2016. As the local plan seeks to plan and guide development for the next ten years, retail predictions and calculations for the following ten year period are relevant, which is different to an appeal which does not involve planning for the next ten years. In ASDA’s view it is therefore critical to take a longer term view when assessing the evidence and the consequences of any allocations. It is pointed out that an allocation in the local plan does not mean that a planning approval will automatically and immediately be forthcoming. It is suggested, however that an allocation does require to be realistic and reasonable having regard to the best evidence available about the position over the next ten years. PAN49 states that any allocation that is not realistic or reasonable should not be confirmed.

2.171 It is pointed out that the retail evidence presented on behalf of ASDA has been accepted by the council and is consistent with its position. It is also noted that Tesco and Morrison are trade competitors in Arbroath and their sites there enjoy no policy protection. Accordingly, it is argued that any issues they have raised relate to concerns about competition and the evidence led on their behalf must be seen in that context. Their criticisms should therefore be seen as concern for their own trading positions both in Arbroath and elsewhere. In particular, it is pointed out that Tesco in Dundee benefits currently from patronage from Carnoustie/Monifieth as well as Arbroath. It is suggested that, since in policy terms competition and choice is to be encouraged, the more Tesco and Morrison complain the more it proves the Westway site should be allocated as it will provide competition and choice.

Consideration of the Morrison Evidence:

2.172 For the reasons outlined above, it is suggested that the evidence on behalf of Morrison should be treated with caution, noting that their evidence on retail issues was rejected at the last Inquiry. It is argued that whilst the current position of Morrison is different it is still without merit. In particular, with regard to Morrison it is argued that:

50 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• their continuing suggestion that Carnoustie is outwith the Arbroath catchment is contrary to all the evidence and so is unreasonable; • they have assessed a store size at Stobcross that cannot be constructed. It is pointed out that commercially it would suit Morrison very well if a site was allocated at Westburn that could not actually be built; • the retail figures presented on behalf of Morrison are flawed and could not be explained in detail by their retail specialist witness and so no weight can be attached to them; • the attempt by the same witness to argue that the Morrison store is in the town centre, when clearly it is not, was unreasonable and taints the rest of his evidence.

Policy A16 Cairnie Street/Stobcross (Westburn):

2.173 ASDA has lodged several objections to the allocation of the Westburn site for retailing as well regarding the size of retailing that is stated can be accommodated on the Westburn A16 site. These objections are in two parts: traffic and transport issues and issues concerning the size of retail store achievable there.

Traffic and transportation issues:

2.174 It is pointed out that no traffic engineer witness was led by Tesco to address issues arising about the shortcomings of the Westburn site. The specialist witness on behalf of ASDA concluded that “There is an unresolved issue of road safety which is not capable of resolution as I consider a departure from standard to be inappropriate. This is a matter of sufficient concern to warrant deletion of Policy A16 in the Finalised Local Plan and the reinstatement of the original proposals for this site for business/residential use as identified in the original Finalised Local Plan”.

2.175 The reasons for this are summarised as follows:

• DMRB has a mandatory requirement for a target height of 0.25m and driver height of 1.05m. The forward visibility requirement is 70m; • There will be sub-standard visibility on the Guthrie Port approach to the roundabout. In several instances the deficiency is greater than 20m. That deficiency of forward visibility distances is in excess of 25% and on occasions in excess of 33%. On any view the deficiency is very significant and is not in dispute; • This deficiency directly affects the ability of a driver to stop or slow down to avoid hitting a car/motorbike or cycle in front. This is an important safety issue which would increase the risk of accidents with potentially fatal or injury accidents. This issue was accepted by the previous Reporter, Miss Heywood, who anticipated that it may be impossible to build the store if RCC is refused for reasons of safety; • Whilst the DMRB allows a ‘Relaxation from Standard’ it requires particular attention be given to safety resulting from such a relaxation. As a relaxation is not permitted below Desirable Minimum Standards for stopping sight distance on immediate approaches to junctions it cannot be granted here;

51 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• Whilst the DMRB also refers to a “Departure from Standard” this is only used in situations of “exceptional difficulty” and the DMRB also requires that safety is not significantly reduced.

2.176 In summary, such ‘Departures’ can only be used in very limited circumstances and a Departure is an acceptance of a situation of exceptional difficulty. However a Departure cannot be used where safety is significantly reduced, which ASDA contends is the case at Westburn where the forward stopping distance requires to be reduced by in excess of 33%. On this basis it is argued that in the Westburn circumstances, a Relaxation would not be permitted and a Departure would not be appropriate as safety would be significantly compromised. In ASDA’s view this conclusion is reinforced by the fact that there is another site available at Westway, with no such difficulties, for the same purpose as proposed at Westburn.

2.177 Accordingly, it is contended that there is no reasonable prospect of a roundabout or signal controlled junction in the location shown for the Westburn proposal being consented and therefore constructed. In these circumstances it is argued that the proposed Tesco store at Westburn cannot be accessed. Furthermore, on the basis of the available evidence ASDA contends that there is no reasonable prospect of the required access roundabout being moved/adjusted to enable construction because:

• the degree by which the roundabout is substandard will only be reduced by moving west some 45-50m. This is impossible due to other junctions and ground levels on the Stobcross site; • there are significant engineering problems to the east – in particular the railway overbridge/railway/bridge parapets. This means it will be impossible to effect any changes to those structures.

2.178 It is noted that in relation to the RCC which has been applied for by Tesco, the submitted drawings are likely to have to be amended to reflect comments from the council’s Roads Department and also to take into account the results of the Safety and Cycle Audit. It is pointed out that two separate Safety Audits have been lodged, one by residents and one by ASDA, for consideration by the council.

2.179 In all these circumstances it is argued that ASDA’s objection to the A16 allocation should be upheld and Policy A16 deleted in the interests of road safety and on the basis that the store at Westburn cannot be delivered. It is also contended that the original proposals for business/residential use, as earlier proposed, should be reinstated for the Westburn site.

Size of retail store at Westburn:

2.180 It is pointed out that there is no suggestion, even by Tesco, that a superstore of the scale identified by the McNair Report as being appropriate for Arbroath could fit onto the Westburn site. It is suggested that Tesco’s contention that a 3,500sqm store can fit on the site A16 is contradicted by scaling their own plans which indicate a 3,272sqm store design. More importantly it is argued that Tesco’s proposals, as shown on the drawings, would be

52 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

contrary to the conditions attached to the outline planning permission granted on appeal, in particular concerning: recycling; landscaping; the scale of the mezzanine floor; and provision of improved pedestrian links. Furthermore, it is suggested by ASDA that the service yard, the fire escape and disabled parking facilities shown on the Tesco drawings are all inadequate. On this basis the specialist design witness of ASDA suggests that what is achievable on the Westburn site is only a 2,446sqm gross or 1,347sqm net retail store, which amounts to a small supermarket. In this context it is argued that any suggestion made by Tesco that site A16 can accommodate 5,000sqm is quite clearly absurd and unreasonable, whether or not this is done to undermine the proposals at Westway.

2.181 In these circumstances it is contended that site A16 at Westburn should not be allocated for retail use when there is no reasonable prospect of this being achieved, and in any circumstances it should not be identified for a retail store of 3,500m².

Other retail assessment issues:

2.182 Based on the findings of previous Inquiries, it is noted that there is agreement between all of the parties concerned that there is a quantitative and qualitative deficiency in convenience retail provision in the Arbroath area. The findings of the McNair Report in 2004 concluded that a superstore was appropriate at Arbroath to meet deficiencies and recover leakage and this would provide improved competition and choice, as well as access to lower prices and improve retail provision in Arbroath in qualitative terms. It is suggested on behalf of ASDA that it is self-evident that deficiencies will increase with time towards 2016 if not addressed and so the matter becomes more urgent. In this context it is suggested that it is a matter of agreement that site A16 at Westburn cannot accommodate a superstore. It is argued that the evidence above indicates that even if that site can be accessed satisfactorily, the retailing provided would only be of the order of one half of the minimum size of a superstore, whereas the Westway site can accommodate a superstore.

2.183 It is pointed out that the retail assessment undertaken on behalf of ASDA indicates that the projected turnover would only match projected expenditure by 2016 if there was superstore of 5,111sqm at Westway and at Westburn a store of either 2,446sqm or 3,272sqm. It is noted that this outcome would address the issues identified by the McNair Report as of concern and considered by the council to be of concern during the local plan period. It is argued that without Westway there will be no superstore to reduce leakage from Arbroath. It is acknowledged that there would be some diversion of trade from Arbroath town centre but this will be less than the increase achieved in existing shops, by ASDA’s calculations, and so it is argued that there would be no impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. Furthermore, it is suggested that food retailing by ASDA at Westway would attract further non-food retailing at that location which would have a further benefit of reducing comparison leakage from Arbroath, which ASDA expects to reach £176m at 2016. It is pointed out that the proposed Asda store at Westway would include an element of comparison retailing which should therefore be supported.

2.184 Based on these retail issues it is argued that Westway should be allocated for food retailing for the following reasons:

53 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• A superstore is required to meet deficiencies and reduce leakage; • Westway is the only site that can provide a superstore; • There are at best uncertainties over the ability of A16 (Westburn) to deliver any retailing. In that eventuality, without Westway there would be no new retail floorspace in Arbroath; • Even if site A16 at Westburn delivers some retail floorspace it cannot provide a superstore and there is sufficient expenditure for both A16 and Westway; • Based on all of these considerations, it is imperative having regard to the proper planning of Arbroath.

Westway

2.185 The proposal by Angus Council is to allocate food retailing at Westway to complement the existing development, and to encourage the implementation of the allocation for further non-food retailing at Westway. The primary aims, however, are: to provide competition and choice; to meet the established deficiencies in qualitative and quantitative terms; and to reduce or eliminate leakage of expenditure, primarily to Dundee. In ASDA’s view, the Westway proposal would address all of these aims.

2.186 It is pointed out that Westway is an established retail location within the urban area of Arbroath. Furthermore there is a lack of alternative sites within or on the edge of Arbroath town centre and so it is argued that the Westway proposal would:

• fully meet the requirements of the sequential approach • be in the best location within Arbroath to: o intercept the leakage of convenience turnover both from within the town and surrounding areas currently directed to Dundee o capture expenditure from the Carnoustie area currently directed to Dundee • be in an excellent location: o to provide the opportunity to establish an important gateway site at the entrance to the town which has a high profile following the completion of the upgrading of A92 o in relation to existing public transport services linking to the town centre, elsewhere in Arbroath and the surrounding rural areas o fully meet appropriate parking standards and can provide safe and effective access/egress for private and public transport. This is in contrast to proposed alternative sites in the town o to provide safe access/egress for service vehicles o to link well with existing cycle routes and be within easy walking distance of housing areas (existing and proposed) and significant visiting population associated with the large local caravan parks. It is also well located to existing and proposed industry o to provide a stimulus to additional comparison retailing at the retailing park further reducing expenditure leakage from Arbroath to Dundee

54 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• be of a design that would fit well with the existing character of buildings in the local area • be sufficiently large to accommodate the development linking with existing floorspace and which, unlike proposed alternative sites in Arbroath, will not adversely affect adjacent sensitive premises such as housing and/or listed buildings • have strong support of the public and business communities of Arbroath who recognise the benefits of the location of a superstore on this site

It is pointed out that the approved structure plan has the following strategic aims:

• Proposals should be realistic, positive and practical and the local plan should identify appropriate opportunities for development • Proposals and policies should be in general conformity with the structure plan • Promotion of retail development in town centres where possible and the adoption of the sequential approach for retail proposals to protect the vitality and viability of town centres • Identification of retail development in response to deficiencies in provision • Requirement for retail development (outwith town centres) to be accessible by a choice of modes of transport • Requirement for all development to provide facilities/routes for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport • The need for ease of access to facilities and services (including shopping) throughout Angus; to reduce the need to travel; and be located where local road network capacity is available.

2.187 It is argued that the Westway proposals would accord with all the foregoing strategic aims as well as conforming to National Planning Policy NPP8 and Draft SPP8 concerning promoting competition and choice and regarding the sequential test. In addition it is pointed out that walkways and cycleways pass the site and Westway now enjoys good public transport links with twice the number of services serving the site than previously and it has bus stops nearby. In addition the proposals include provision of a new dedicated bus service of fifteen minute frequency from the store door to Kirkton and the town centre. It is pointed out that this would provide a major benefit to residents, shoppers and nearby employees alike. Furthermore, it is argued that reliance on cars would be reduced by stemming leakage through journeys to Dundee.

2.188 In summary, it is contended that the proposals at Westway meet all requirements of the structure plan and the local plan and should be supported by allocating the Westway site for food retailing of around 5,000sqm, as proposed by the council. This allocation should draw attention to its planning merits including ease of implementation, design benefits and economic benefits. It should also acknowledge that Westway is the only available site which can locate a superstore to provide competition and choice for consumers. It is argued that as the A16 Westburn site cannot deliver one, for the reasons outlined above, if Westway does not receive the appropriate allocation Arbroath will not get a superstore, which would be a highly undesirable outcome in ASDA’s view.

55 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Written Submissions Objections

819/1/1

2.189 Arbroath Area Partnership object to the absence of road safety considerations in the council’s requirements for the site use at Stobcross. In its view Policy A10 should be amended to read “…. after completion of remedial works proposals resulting in significant additional traffic on Cairnie Street and Lochlands Street would not be considered appropriate use of the site.”

918/2/1 & 918/6/1

2.190 In summary, Linlathen Developments Ltd argue that Policy A16: Westway is contrary to the approved structure plan and to NPPG8 Town Centres and Retailing for a number of reasons. It also notes the Scottish Ministers decision following the public inquiry in 2003 into retail proposals at Arbroath which found this site to be locationally deficient for a superstore development. Accordingly the objector contends that this site is not appropriate for a food superstore and reference to superstore development should be deleted and the only form of retail development acceptable on this site should be bulky goods retail warehousing.

The council’s response

2.191 In January 2003 Angus Council required to take a decision in respect of three planning applications for "superstores" within Arbroath. The Director of Planning and the retail consultants appointed by the council recommended refusal on the grounds there was insufficient retail capacity. Notwithstanding this advice the Development Control Committee of Angus Council decided that they were minded to grant an application for a superstore at Westway and so that application was ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers and considered at a public inquiry together with appeals for the two further sites. The findings of that Inquiry in 2003 are contained in the McNair Report. It is pointed out that this report demonstrates in Paragraph 8.1 that Angus Council's position that there should only be one further store was clearly predicated on the basis that the consequence of two new stores was not addressed at the Inquiry. Angus Council has been absolutely consistent in stating that the deficiencies in convenience retailing in Arbroath require to be addressed by a superstore and this has been the consistent position of the council Members and indeed all parties at that 2003 Inquiry. Paragraph 9.2 (second bullet point) of the McNair Report states that all parties agreed that the deficiency should be met by the form of a superstore as defined by NPPG8.

2.192 A further Inquiry was held into appeals by Bett/Tesco in relation to applications at the Cairnie Street/Stobcross (Westburn) site which resulted in Ms Heywood granting two outline retail permissions relating to a store of up to 3,500sqm and one up to 5,000sqm. In order for the larger store to be implemented the council would have to sell Bruce House to the applicants. It is noted that the council has taken a formal decision that Bruce House is not for sale and that remains the current position, although the council is undertaking a feasibility study on this matter which has yet to report. Accordingly, it is argued that at the present

56 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review time there is no certainty that a 5,000sqm store can ever be developed at Westburn, irrespective of other issues.

Response to the objections by Bett Properties Limited/Tesco Stores Limited to the text of A16 (as modified:

2.193 Bett/Tesco suggest that the text of Policy A16, as shown in the Proposed Second Round Modifications, should be modified to formally allocate the Westburn foundry site for a foodstore of up to 5,000sqm rather than up to 3,500 sqm. In response the council contends that this objection is fundamentally flawed on the basis that there is no evidence presented to demonstrate that the site as shown in the Proposals Map could accommodate a store of up to 5,000sqm and Bett/Tesco has not objected to the Proposals Map. As a consequence it is the council’s view that the text of A16 should not be altered, as there is no foundation for the modification suggested.

2.194 The second reason why the council contends that the modification put forward by Bett/Tesco should not be accepted is that there is considerable uncertainty about the proposals to build a 5,000sqm on an enlarged site incorporating the council offices known as Bruce House. It is pointed out that committed development is a defined term in respect of PAN49 and before being incorporated within the local plan the planning authority must be confident that proposals can be implemented within about 5 years of the adoption of the plan. PAN49 in paragraph 55 identifies the tests for proposals and these include an intention to develop within 5 years of plan adoption. During the course of the Inquiry, the planning specialist on behalf of the objector made reference to PAN38 with regard to the effectiveness of housing. It is noted that paragraph 29 of PAN38 provides a list of criteria associated with effectiveness and ownership is one of them. In particular if land is in the ownership of a local authority or other public body it should only be included where it is part of a programme of land sales. In the council’s view the area of ground covered by Bruce House cannot be said to be effective at this stage. Nevertheless, as outline planning permission exists for a store up to 3,500sqm on the site A16 largely in the control of Bett/Tesco, it is argued that the council's wording of Policy A16 is entirely appropriate and should not be changed as suggested by the objector.

Response to Asda/Macdonald Estates (ASDA) objections to Cairnie/Stobcross (Westburn)

2.195 The text of Policy A16, as shown in the Proposed Second Round Modifications, refers to the requirements of any proposal for Cairnie St/Stobcross having to meet access and servicing requirements. The council argues that its decision to allocate the site at Cairnie Street/Stobcross is in accord with the appeal decision which granted outline planning permission in 2005, noting that this permission will be extant for approximately the first 5 years of the development plan. The position of ASDA is that, as a consequence of fairly detailed matters relating to development of the Westburn site and its access, the A16 allocation for retail development should be deleted from the plan in its entirety. These are matters that are currently being considered by the council in relation to an application lodged by Bett/Tesco for reserved matters on the A16 site proposal. The access issues raised by ASDA relate to an application for Roads Construction Consent which again is currently

57 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

before the council. Whilst these processes are underway the council was not at a stage where it had reached conclusions at the time of the local plan inquiry. Nevertheless, given the terms of the outline permission which has been granted, it is the council’s view that it would be appropriate to continue with the text that is set out in A16, as shown in the Proposed Second Round Modifications.

Response to objections by Wm Morrison Supermarkets (Morrison) and Bett/Tesco to Westway

2.196 It is acknowledged that there has been a considerable history in relation to proposed further convenience retailing in Arbroath. The Westway site was granted planning permission for a bulky goods retail warehouse park in 1998 and included in the Angus Local Plan of 2000, which recognised the then deficiency in bulky goods retailing within Arbroath. At that time the owners of Westway had sought to have the site also allocated for convenience retailing but the council at that stage did not support the Westway location for that purpose, nor the need for additional convenience provision.

2.197 Angus Council is promoting the finalised local plan review to incorporate a foodstore as part of the Westway Retail Park. It is the council’s view that both Morrison and Bett/Tesco have focused entirely on one aspect of the local plan allocation at Westway, restricting their criticisms to particular paragraphs of particular "retailing" or "transport" policies. It is argued that these objectors have not taken into consideration the context of that allocation within the wider Angus Local Plan strategy and the overall strategy of the structure plan. Furthermore, the approach of Bett/Tesco appears to have almost been to treat the matter as competing planning applications which, in the council’s view, is not an appropriate way in which to approach a local plan.

2.198 Councillor King in his evidence refers to the strategic vision for the Angus towns in terms of the structure plan. It is submitted that the key test for the local plan is whether or not the plan incorporating the Westway allocations accords with the structure plan strategy and also the strategy for retailing. It is noted that the approved structure plan in paragraph 3.7 recognises that employment has not been evenly spread throughout the structure plan area and in particular that Arbroath has suffered from high unemployment, consistently the highest in Angus and above Dundee during that period. It remains consistently well above the Scottish average. The councillors giving evidence on behalf of the council all had personal experiences, from their individual professional perspectives in the locality, of the economic problems which Arbroath has faced and each of them has a strong resolve to effect change for the better in the town's economy. Significant new investment is being promoted in the harbour area and tourism is seen as a key to enhancing the economic performance of the town. As one of the witnesses stated, he wanted to effect a change in the perception of Arbroath and for this to occur the council has to seek to maximise new investment within the town.

2.199 The structure plan in paragraph 3.7 has also recognised the issues associated with Arbroath and a major strategic business allocation has been made in terms of Employment Policy 3, immediately to the west of Westway. This is a major expansion of 21 hectares of

58 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

business and industrial land. Against that background the Westway site sits between a major expansion of Arbroath to the west and the further enhancement of the town's tourist facilities to the south of the town centre. Westway is located close to the seafront attractions which are also at the heart of the tourist market and within close proximity to major caravan parks. All of the councillor witnesses are confident that there is overwhelming public support within Arbroath for the provision of additional convenience retailing at Westway and the local plan allocations are supported by all of the Arbroath councillors, Arbroath Community Council and by the Arbroath Business Association which includes town centre retailers.

2.200 It is stated that the Town Centres and Retailing Policies contained in the approved structure plan, in particular policies 1 and 4, are of relevance to the Westway allocation. Policy 1 supports both the town centres and the towns as being the key locations for new development. It is argued therefore the council's approach to considering whether Arbroath as a town is properly serving both its own population and its hinterland is the appropriate test to apply in determining the need for new convenience floorspace. It is suggested that this is as much a planning policy argument as a pure retail issue. The key issue is providing the appropriate facilities within Arbroath having regard to its sphere of influence along the coastal corridor.

2.201 Fundamental to the councillors’ decision to support the provision of further retailing at Westway is the fact that in comparison to Forfar there is significant under provision of retail floorspace in Arbroath. Whilst that may seem to be a simple measure it is one which does provide a benchmark by which one can assess how well a town is served. There is every justification in terms of Policy 1 for seeking to strengthen its role as the largest town in the area. It is pointed out that if there is to be additional floorspace promoted over and above the Westburn allocation then it would have to be undertaken in a manner which did not undermine the town centre, including the Co-op and the newly opened Lidl store there. It is noted that neither of these has objected to the local plan allocations. Against that background it is the opinion of Councillor King that the allocation of the site at Westway would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre.

2.202 Whilst the Roderick MacLean Associates (RMA) Report of December 2005 was lodged for the local plan inquiry it has not been put to the councillors because the Asda /Macdonald Estates application has yet to be put before the Committee. Whilst it was suggested to the councillor witnesses that the RMA Report was not helpful to the council's position, it is contended that it is important to read that report as a whole. It is pointed out that the author reaches certain conclusions on capacity and recognises that if the Westburn proposal is developed in conjunction with Asda/Macdonald Estates at Westway there would be some rationalisation as a consequence. However the RMA Report advises in paragraph 2.19 that the highest impacts are likely to be on stores such as Somerfield, which is situated outwith the town centre, and the two stores operated by the local plan objectors, with the potential closure of the Somerfield store releasing further capacity. It is also noted in paragraph 4.3 of that report that the addition of the Westway proposal is likely to only result in a very small additional diversion from the Co-op because it would already have suffered the trade diversion to any store constructed on the Stobcross site. Furthermore, the Lidl store is identified to operate in a different market to superstores and, as Miss Heywood’s decision

59 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

letter suggests, will only compete at the margins. It is argued therefore that the RMA Report supports the view expressed by Councillor King that implementation of the Westway proposals would not result in significant impacts on the town centre. It is pointed out that the RMA Report’s appraisal of the retail assessment relates to a single planning application whereas the local plan strategy seeks to consider firm development up to and including 2011 and indicatively beyond that. It is contended that this difference in assessment has been reflected in the updated retail figures provided by ASDA’s retail witness.

2.203 The councillors consider that implementation of the Westway proposal would have significant benefits for Arbroath, maximising investment and employment. In particular it is argued that implementation of the convenience element of Westway would considerably enhance the prospects of implementing the balance of the retail park there. ensuring that the local deficiencies in bulky goods retail provision, identified as far back as 1998, would be addressed. It is also argued that the proposed Asda at Westway would result in genuine competition between major stores locally and the key beneficiaries would be consumers. Furthermore, it is suggested that the proposed improvements in public transport associated with the convenience element of the Westway proposal would be of benefit not only to the store itself but to the balance of the retail park and local businesses.

2.204 During the course of the Inquiry, Bett/Tesco raised the issue of conformity of the local Plan to the structure plan (section 17 (3) of the 1997 Act). On behalf of the council it is contended that the way in which conformity must be looked at is whether or not the proposal accords with the structure plan and in particular with the strategy being pursued. In this regard, it is suggested that the strategic vision, the retailing policies and transportation policies are all of relevance. As stated earlier, it is the council’s view that the local plan incorporating the Westway allocations would better achieve the overall strategy than without it. Furthermore, it is argued that the structure plan policies referred to in relation to retailing and transport are not a barrier to the allocation of Westway. They are criteria-based policies which have been addressed by the councillors. Against that background, it is contended that if the councillors are right on these matters the retail function of Arbroath, as a town, would be consolidated and it would better serve both the town itself and its rural hinterland, including Carnoustie, by addressing both convenience and comparison deficiencies. If it is accepted that the local plan better achieves the strategic vision with the Westway proposal in, there would have to be overriding reasons as to why it should not be included. The objectors’ detailed positions regarding Westway are dealt with in turn below.

Objection by Morrison to the Westway proposal

2.205 Morrison objects to the Westway proposal on the grounds that it does not conform to the structure plan in retail policy terms and that it also fails transportation policies of the structure plan. In support of the objections on retail policy grounds, Morrison lodged a retail impact assessment which was the subject of detailed debate and questioning by ASDA. In the council’s view, Morrison’s analysis has completely underestimated tourist expenditure. It is pointed out that the major tourist provision within Arbroath is within the caravan parks and that caravan users have a much greater need for convenience retail facilities than those staying in hotel or other types of accommodation. The other major issue with the retail

60 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

assessment report prepared on behalf of Morrison relates to the non inclusion of Carnoustie fully within the catchment. All the councillor witnesses consider that Carnoustie should be part of the Arbroath catchment for Westway. Comparative drive times demonstrate that Carnoustie residents would be closer to a new Westway store than to the major convenience stores currently operating in Dundee. Furthermore, it is suggested that if Arbroath had all three major stores operating they would attract custom not only from Carnoustie but also from Monifieth, given the easier access to Arbroath than to Dundee.

2.206 It is argued that there would be nothing wrong in policy terms in Arbroath seeking to serve the full Angus catchment. Whilst the Morrison planning witness suggested that it would be improper for Arbroath to fully recover such expenditure on the grounds that Dundee had been identified as the regional centre, the council contends that the regional centre in retailing terms relates to the city centre comparison function. It is argued therefore that the full recovery of leakage of trade from Arbroath and its hinterland back to Arbroath would not in any way compromise Dundee's strategic retail function.

2.207 Whilst Morrison’s planning witness suggests that the development strategy in the draft local plan review is contrary to the policy objectives of NPPG8 the council points out that this development strategy is taken directly from the approved structure plan (paragraph 2.18 second bullet point, 2.33 and Town Centres and Retailing Policy 1). He is probably correct, however, to state that this does not directly follow NPPG8. The council argues that the local plan requires to conform to the structure plan and it is entirely appropriate that a structure plan can adopt a strategy with particular relevance to the plan area. In this respect there is no direct support for "towns" within NPPG8. However the structure plan clearly recognises the role of the Angus towns and the importance of strengthening them and, in particular, Town Centres and Retail Policy 1 clearly promotes the towns and their centres as locations for new retail development.

2.208 In terms of retailing Morrison also seems to suggest that there is significant linkage between the town centre and its store, based on interpretation of its own market survey findings. The council contends that this cannot be deduced from the responses to the particular questions asked in that survey. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the suggestion of a strong linkage between the Morrison store and Arbroath town centre is not supported by previous reporters’ findings. In particular the McNair Report made particular findings on this (in paragraph 9.30 and 9.31), stating that the links are not pronounced. In any event both Ms McNair and Ms Heywood found that the Morrison store does not enjoy policy protection.

2.209 Morrison has also objected to the Westway allocation on the grounds of accessibility, based on a comparison between Westway and Carnie Street/ Stobcross. In the council’s view, this is entirely the wrong approach and the question that requires to be looked at is the acceptability of Westway as a site for major food retailing. It points out that in that regard Transport Policy 4 provides a list of bullet points which a site requires to demonstrate. In the first instance it is argued that the Westway site does have safe convenient and attractive facilities for pedestrian, cycle and public transport access, and the walking and cycling routes can be linked to established and planned networks. There is no dispute that the road network

61 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

would have capacity available. Whilst it is accepted that there is a limited walk-in residential catchment for Westway, there are other uses adjacent to the Westway site, including Arbroath's largest employer with a 500 person workforce situated immediately adjacent to Westway, and there are caravan parks in close proximity. The Red Lion Caravan Park alone has the equivalent of a 700 resident (year-round) population, within a 800 metre walking distance of Westway. The local employees and caravan users in the vicinity should be considered as potential walk–in customers of a new store at Westway, in the council’s view.

2.210 In terms of public transport accessibility, it is pointed out that the transport witness of Morrison accepted that with the ASDA bus proposals there would be good accessibility to public transport at the Westway site. It is argued that Arbroath would be better served overall in public transport terms by the development proposals in the local plan, pointing out that this approach is entirely supported by the section on Local Plans in paragraphs 32 to 34 of SPP17. It is noted that the enhancement of general accessibility through developer contributions is specifically recognised in paragraph 25 of PAN75. Furthermore, it is argued that the significant recovery of leakage promoted by the implementation of the local plan proposals would again be consistent with National Transport Policy. It is suggested that the ability of the convenience element of the Westway proposal to support and enhance public transport provision would have clear benefits which would extend beyond the Westway area and relate to a general improvement in accessibility within Arbroath, linking the town centre to Kirkton and to the Westway area.

2.211 In summary, it is contended that the current local plan proposals incorporating Westway would better achieve national policy in transportation terms than if the Westway convenience proposal is removed, notwithstanding that, in some ways, this conflicts with the findings of the Ms McNair Report. It is, however, based on more evidence having been led at this latest Inquiry on the issues of accessibility in respect of Westway. Furthermore it is pointed out that changes to the land uses around the Westway site, in particular the increased business activity, have taken place since the decision by Scottish Ministers in 2004, and there have been improvements in public transport services since that date and a fuller understanding of the extent of the local caravan parks and their full-time equivalent population.

Objections by Bett/Tesco to the Westway proposal

2.212 It is argued by the council that attempts by Tesco to undertake a comparative exercise between the Westburn site and Westway regarding transport and accessibility are inappropriate. It is argued that the relevant question is the extent to which Westway can be made acceptable by being appropriately connected to the public transport network. It is pointed out that Westway is on a public transport route. As stated above, with the ASDA bus proposals there would be good accessibility to public transport at the Westway site and Arbroath would be better served overall in public transport terms by the development proposals in the local plan review.

2.213 It is suggested that Bett/Tesco’s planning objections to the allocation of Westway are largely predicated on a comparative exercise between Westway and Westburn. In the

62 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

council’s view that is not the appropriate way to judge matters in the context of a local plan. It is argued instead that, when considered as a whole, the local plan allocations by including Westway would achieve the structure plan strategy in a far more appropriate manner than without Westway. For the reasons outlined earlier, it is suggested that there would be no notable adverse impacts on Arbroath town centre arising from the additional allocation of Westway. It is pointed out that the only convenience stores in the town centre that are likely to suffer are the Co-op and Lidl and the issues associated with them have already been considered. As the RMA report advises the main impacts associated with the allocation of Westway would be the diversion of trade from the Morrison and from the proposed Tesco store. It is reiterated that these out of centre stores have no policy protection.

2.214 In order to counter the strong public support for the Westway proposal Bett/Tesco commissioned NEMS to conduct a shopping survey in November 2005. It is contended on behalf of the council that all that this survey demonstrates is that there is continued public support for the provision of new supermarkets within Arbroath from residents within Arbroath. Notwithstanding the strong public support, considerably less than 50% of people supported a new supermarket development next to Morrison in central Arbroath. The respondents were not asked to state where they would prefer to see a supermarket situated within Arbroath.

2.215 The cross examination of the council witnesses on behalf of Bett/Tesco focused almost exclusively on theoretical questions regarding what the councillors would or would not take into account in reaching planning decisions, rather than relating to decisions which had been taken in the context of the local plan. It is assumed that questions posed about the value of "public opinion" in planning decisions were in reference to SPP1 paragraph 61. It should be noted that this section deals with the role of public opinion concerning determination of planning applications. In response, one of the council witnesses referred to provisions contained in SPP1 about plan making in Paragraph 40. This gives advice to planning authorities relating to public involvement in the development of local plans. It is noted that this is somewhat differently expressed from the provisions in relation to development control. It strongly recommends that local community's views should be taken into account when formulating policies and states that agencies and business interests and the voluntary sector are also encouraged to participate in the plan preparation. It also states that planning authorities should seek to reflect their views where possible. The council points out that this confirms that the views of the public and of groups such as the Arbroath Business Association and Community Council should be given considerable weight in the formulation of the development plan.

The council’s concluding remarks

2.216 Angus Council has consistently held the view that the convenience retailing deficiency within Arbroath requires to be addressed by a superstore. It is contended that the local plan allocations provide a genuine opportunity to strengthen the function and role of Arbroath in terms of serving the town's population and the coastal and rural hinterland. This role is actively promoted and supported in terms of the strategic vision and settlement

63 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review strategy associated with the structure plan. It is argued that there would be considerable economic benefits associated with the development of food stores at Westburn and Westway. In addition it is the council’s view that the Westway proposal would also enhance the prospects of developing a gateway location, including the balance of the site for bulky goods retailing. It is noted that there is very strong public support for the proposals promoted in the local plan review and they are also supported by local organisations including business representatives. It is argued that if Arbroath is to break the cycle of decline it requires substantial new investment. Most importantly, there are parties who are prepared to make that investment and in the council’s view they should be afforded an opportunity to do so. It is pointed out that the objectors to Westway are organisations who have sites that do not benefit from policy protection and they have commercial interests in restricting further competition and retail opportunity within Arbroath. In this context it is recommended that there should be no change to the finalised draft of the local plan review, as amended by the Proposed Second Round Modifications. Accordingly, in the council’s view the objections made by Morrison, Asda/McDonald Estates and Bett Properties/Tesco should be dismissed.

Conclusions

2.217 Before considering the detailed merits of the cases put forward in respect of the objections to the finalised local plan review concerning major foodstore development policy and allocations in Arbroath, I summarise below some of the key facts that have shaped the planning history and context in which these objections have been lodged:

• The Westway site was granted planning permission for a bulky goods retail warehouse park in 1998 and included in the adopted Angus Local Plan of 2000, in response to a perceived deficiency in bulky goods retailing within Arbroath • At that time the landowners concerned sought to have the Westway site also allocated for convenience retailing – but the council at that stage did not support the Westway location for that purpose, nor the need for additional convenience provision • In January 2003 The Director of Planning of Angus Council presented a report to the council concerning three planning applications for "superstores" within Arbroath: at Westburn Foundry, Stobcross; Dens Road/Wardmill Rd; and at Westway Retail Park. The Director of Planning (and the independent retail specialist consultants appointed by the council) recommended refusal of all three applications on the grounds that there was insufficient retail capacity • Notwithstanding this advice the Development Control Committee of Angus Council decided that they were minded to grant permission for the application for a superstore at Westway - the council was advised that this matter would need to be notified to Scottish Ministers as marking a significant departure from the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan (DASP) • That application was ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers and considered, together with appeals for the two further sites, at a public inquiry in September/October 2003, chaired by Ms J McNair • The findings and recommendations of that Inquiry are contained in the McNair Report issued in early 2004 which was endorsed by the Scottish Ministers who

64 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

accepted its recommendations and decided to refuse planning permission for all three major foodstore proposals in May 2004 • Despite recommending refusal of each of the 3 applications under consideration, the McNair Report stated that all parties agreed that there was a deficiency in convenience retail provision in Arbroath and that this should be met by a superstore, as defined by NPPG8 • In June 2004 a full planning application was submitted by Macdonald Estates for a foodstore of 5,111sqm gross floor area (GFA) and 3 non-food retail units together with a re-modelled car park to provide 600 spaces at Westway Retail Park – that application remains undetermined • In July 2004 outline planning applications were submitted by Bett Properties for supermarket proposals at Westburn, Stobcross. One proposal covered the site of the former Westburn Foundry (the ‘small site’) and the other covered this together with adjacent property occupied by the council, principally the offices known as Bruce House (the ‘larger site’) • In September 2004 appeals against non-determination were submitted by Bett Properties in respect of their applications at Westburn • In December 2004 The Director of Planning and Transport recommended that an additional ‘superstore’ of around 5,000sqm for Arbroath should be included in the finalised local plan review, and that 3 sites (at Dens Rd/Wardmill Rd; Westburn Foundry (larger site); and Westway) should be identified on the Proposals Map as ‘potential sites’ for the superstore proposed – with site selection to be addressed at the local plan inquiry (and arguing that approval of a proposal in advance of this would be premature) • The council agreed that an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm should be provided for Arbroath but decided that the site at Westway/Dundee Road should be identified on the Proposals Map of the Finalised Local Plan Review as the potential site for this new superstore – and this was published accordingly (as paragraph 25 and Policy A16) in FALPR in February 2005 • In May/June 2005 a public inquiry was held (by Ms K Heywood) to determine the Bett Properties/ Tesco Stores (Bett/Tesco) planning appeals relating to Westburn. • In July 2005 those appeal decisions were issued, granting 2 outline planning permissions: one relating to a store of up to 3,500sqm GFA for the small site and one up to 5,000sqm GFA for the larger site, and both subject to conditions • In order for Bett/Tesco to implement their larger permission at Westburn the council would have to sell Bruce House to the applicants. Whilst the council has indicated that Bruce House is not for sale it is undertaking a feasibility study on this matter which has yet to report • On 8 September 2005 the Director of Planning and Transport presented a report to the Infrastructure Services Committee setting out officers’ recommendations for Second Round Modifications to the finalised local plan review, in response to the Westburn appeal decisions. This report put forward a new policy that provision be made in Arbroath for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm GFA and to allocate the site at Westburn for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm GFA subject to meeting access and service requirements. It also recommended that the reference in the February 2005 draft finalised plan for a food retail store at Westway should be deleted

65 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• On 18 October 2005 the council resolved to include in the Proposed Second Round Modifications a new policy (A15) under the heading ‘Provision of Foodstore Development’ making provision for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm in Arbroath and stating that this is to be located at Westway, justified on the basis of increasing choice and reducing expenditure leakage from the catchment. It also resolved to include another new policy (A16) allocating the Westburn Foundry site (small site only – excluding Bruce House) for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm subject to meeting access and servicing arrangements, justified on the basis of the outline planning permissions granted following planning appeals. Finally the council introduced a new Policy A17 reserving land at Westway/Dundee Road for a variety of uses including the provision of a food retail store of around 5,000sqm gross • In December 2005 Tesco Stores Ltd submitted an application for reserved matters in relation to the outline planning permission for the Westburn Foundry site (the small site) and also lodged an application for Roads Construction Consent (RCC) - both of which were being considered by the council at the time of the local plan inquiry [and which had still not been determined by the time this particular section of the Report was drafted].

2.218 The above bullet points summarise the recent history of the major developments and decisions concerning food retail planning in Arbroath leading up to the finalised local plan review and the Proposed Second Round Modifications. Against this background, it is useful to summarise the local plan objections and other representations made concerning Westway and Westburn, before dealing with the merits of those objections in each case.

Consideration of the objections related to the allocation concerning the Westway site (Proposed Second Round Modifications Policy A15 and PolicyA17)

2.219 In summary, Morrison argues that the council’s proposed allocation of land at Westway/Dundee Road for an out-of-centre superstore, has been put forward without satisfactory evidence to support the decision and that allocation is in itself contrary to both the approved structure plan and NPPG8. It is also argued that the allocation of a superstore at Westway, together with a supermarket on the Stobcross site would not satisfy relevant considerations set out in the approved structure plan and NPPG8. In these circumstances it is argued that policies A15 and A17 should be deleted.

2.220 Bett/Tesco have also lodged detailed objections to the policies (A15 and A17) which support an allocation for a food superstore at a location at Westway. It is pointed out that Westway has already been the subject of consideration at three local inquiries and rejected, principally on the basis of its peripheral location making it contrary to both the structure plan and national retail planning policies in NPPG8.

2.221 Linlathen Developments Ltd argue that the proposal for Westway (originally A16 in the February 2005 FALPR) is contrary to the approved structure plan and national policy and should be amended to exclude a food retail superstore and be confined to non-food bulky goods retailing.

66 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.222 I accept the general contention put forward on behalf of the council that the suitability or otherwise of the Westway site for a major food superstore should be assessed in its own right, not on a comparative basis with the Westburn site or other locations. Nevertherless, the existence of large foodstores already operating, as well as sites with planning permission, in and around Arbroath town centre cannot be ignored – particularly when assessing the spending capacity of the catchment area and likely impacts arising from new development proposals. Accordingly, in examining certain location criteria set out in the structure plan and in the national planning guidelines, in particular NPPG8, there is a legitimate need to look at particular aspects in comparative terms, for example with regard to accessibility to the town centre and the resident population of the catchment area.

Public Opinion:

2.223 I note that one of the key considerations for the council members supporting the allocation of the Westway site for major food retailing is that, in their view, it is strongly backed by local public opinion. I also note, however, that the evidence for this is largely anecdotal, being based on conversations held by local councillors with local people, enhanced by expressions of support from the local community council and the Arbroath Traders Association. The only survey findings drawn to my attention (conducted on behalf of the objectors) appear to suggest that support for Westway is less than overwhelming, but those survey results are neither comprehensive in their scope nor conclusive in their findings, in my opinion.

2.224 In any event, I am persuaded by the arguments put forward on behalf of Bett/Tesco that the council is not entitled to allocate a site for development in the local plan review simply because some of the councillors believe that there is public support for that site. I note that SPP1 (para 37) states that “local plan policies must conform to the structure plan and be fully justified, demonstrating what is and what is not acceptable in land use planning terms”. I will come back to the structure plan in due course.

Expenditure Capacity:

2.225 Paragraph 24 of the Proposed Second Round Modifications refers to the outline planning permissions recently granted on appeal for the Westburn Foundry site. Whilst expressing “some uncertainty as to the timing and size of the store which will be developed,” which is dependent on land ownership issues being resolved, it states that these consents, for a foodstore of up to around 5,000sqm, “will improve the range and choice of retailing and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. In this context, I agree with Morrison that the statement then made by the council in paragraph 25 of the Second Round Modifications to the effect that the evidence and findings of a recent public inquiry, presumably the one concerning the Westburn appeals, “has confirmed that there is expenditure capacity to support a second new superstore that would improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area” is unsubstantiated by the available evidence. Firstly there appears to be no mention in the decision letter on the Westburn appeals, issued by Ms Heywood in July 2005 to confirm scope for two superstores – one at Westburn and one elsewhere in Arbroath.

67 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Indeed Ms Heywood in her decision letter concurs with the views expressed in the McNair Report published in 2004 and endorsed by Scottish Ministers that there is scope for one new superstore at Arbroath.

2.226 I note the evidence lodged in the local plan inquiry, not by the council but on behalf of ASDA, that seeks to show that there would be sufficient expenditure in the catchment area to support a superstore at Westway in tandem with a foodstore on the Westburn site. I also note that the Roderick McLean Associates (RMA) report, commissioned on behalf of the council in December 2005, raises concerns about the assumptions in the calculations on which that analysis is based. In particular, it questions turnover and expenditure rates which suggest a more optimistic outcome – for example in terms of likely retail impact and claw- back of leakage - for the promoters of the Westway site than might reasonably be the case. Specifically, the ASDA assumptions, if shown to be optimistic, would result in a correspondingly lower retail impact associated with the Westway proposal, which may not be the case in reality. The differences in the results deriving from alternative base figures, horizon dates and key assumptions is illustrated by the assessments undertaken on behalf of Morrison and Bett/Tesco, compared with those put forward by ASDA. Given the variance in these key parameters it is difficult for me make a definitive comparative assessment between them but it is clear that the ASDA assumptions are the most optimistic and their robustness is questioned by an independent specialist (in the RMA report) commissioned on behalf of the council.

2.227 One key point of disagreement between the retail planning specialists representing the different objectors concerns whether or not the whole of Carnoustie should be included in the catchment area of Arbroath. One of the factors cited on behalf of ASDA in support of including all of the Carnoustie wards in its catchment population spending calculations for Arbroath is the newly dualled A92 road - making it easier for those living in all parts of Carnoustie to reach Arbroath, and in less time than it would take them to get to Dundee. In my view the benefits of the new dual carriageway link between Dundee and Arbroath work both ways, making it also easier and faster than before, for Carnoustie residents to access Dundee stores. In this context, for many people in the area surrounding Arbroath - in particular those living in the parts of Carnoustie furthest from Arbroath and hence nearer to Dundee - the greater range of shopping opportunities available in that regional centre may well outweigh a marginally shorter travel journey time to the Westway site, even if there was a large new foodstore offered there.

2.228 Clearly if not all of the wards of Carnoustie are included in the Arbroath catchment this would reduce the population and associated expenditure available locally for stores in Arbroath and make it much more difficult, and perhaps impossible, in catchment expenditure terms to justify promoting a food superstore on the Westway site in addition to a large foodstore at Westburn. Based on all of these uncertainties and the disagreements between experts regarding the likely retail impact associated with the proposed Westway superstore, I am not persuaded that there is robust evidence to confirm the council’s statement, in paragraph 24 of the Second Round Modifications, that there is sufficient expenditure capacity to support a second new superstore of around 5,000sqm at Arbroath (in addition to a

68 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

foodstore at Westburn, even of only 3,500sqm gross floor area), irrespective of whether it was located at Westway or elsewhere in Arbroath.

The structure plan and National Planning Policy Guidelines NPPG8 and NPPG17:

2.229 In line with paragraph 37 of SPP1, referred to above, section 17(3) of the 1997 Act states that a planning authority shall not adopt any plan which does not conform to the relevant structure plan – in this case the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan approved in 2002. I note that there is no dispute that when Angus Council resolved to approve a planning application in 2003 for a major foodstore development at Westway, it accepted its Director of Planning and Transport’s advice that to do so would be would mark a significant departure from the approved structure plan and on this basis notified the Scottish Ministers of its intention. The findings and recommendations of the ensuing public inquiry are contained in the McNair Report of 2004, which were endorsed by the Scottish Ministers. The McNair Report sets out in paragraphs 9.193 to 9.196 the basis on which the provisions of the structure plan were not adequately met by the Westway site, in particular with regards to access, due in large part to its location. Whilst ASDA has now provided a timetable for the new bus service proposed to link the site with the town centre and other parts of Arbroath, I note that the concept of a dedicated bus service was put forward at the 2003 public inquiry and so was known when the reporter found, in relation to Town Centres and Retailing Policy 4 of the approved structure plan, that Westway was not easily accessible by modes of transport other than the car. The same reporter also found that the Westway proposal did not conform to Transport Policy 4 as “the proposal does not demonstrate that it would provide the convenient and attractive facilities for pedestrian and public transport access that this policy requires as a minimum, in addition to facilities for cycling.”

2.230 I note that local bus services serving the Westway area have improved in the interim period and I acknowledge that its relative remoteness from housing areas is off-set to a degree by it being situated close to major centres of employment in the town and to residential caravan sites which are of a significant scale. Nevertheless, in my view the locational disadvantages of the Westway site itself remain essentially unchanged from the time of the previous public inquiries of 2003 and 2005, as it is situated close to the periphery of the town and remote from all the main housing areas of Arbroath. In this context, and for the reasons outlined below in respect of NPPG8, I am not persuaded that the details provided of a proposed dedicated new bus service link to the Westway site change the position significantly or sufficiently to alter the conclusions drawn in the McNair Report on its accessibility with regard to the structure plan policy requirements detailed above.

2.231 One of the aims of the structure plan is the promotion of retail development in town centres where possible and through the adoption of the sequential approach for retail proposals to protect the vitality and viability of town centres, in line with the criteria of NPPG8. The fact that there are no town centre sites offering scope for major retail development in Arbroath is not in dispute. I note that the McNair Report also found that the Westway site would not accord with paragraphs 7 and 19 of NPPG8, and in particular that it did not meet criterion (e) of paragraph 45 of the NPPG8 as “ it would not be easily accessible by walking or cycle routes that would link with the forecast population.” Whilst ASDA has

69 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

provided detailed evidence to seek to demonstrate that the Westway site can offer good pedestrian and cycle access and linkages, I am not persuaded that these design details can satisfactorily offset its inherent problem of peripherality and remoteness from the town centre and from housing areas of Arbroath. In summary, in my view the situation has not changed significantly and the current proposal by the council to allocate the Westway site for a food superstore would still not be in conformity with the above policies of the approved structure plan or with NPPG8. In this regard I am in general agreement with the arguments put forward on behalf of Bett/Tesco, Morrison and Linlathen Developments I note that the council has not sought to address the fact that, for similar reasons, the McNair Report found that the Westway proposals would not accord with NPPG17: Transport and Planning.

2.232 I note the arguments put forward on behalf of the council and ASDA concerning the strategic vision and aims of the structure plan with regard to employment. I also appreciate the structural problems which have adversely affected the economy of Arbroath in recent years. This has encouraged the council to seek ways to boost local employment prospects, including through new retail and tourism developments alongside other business expansion and environmental initiatives. Whilst these are all relevant they do not outweigh or justify setting aside the other structure plan aims, including those discussed above, as well as the aims of identifying retail development in response to deficiencies in provision and for retail development outwith town centres to be accessible by a choice of means of transport and reduce the need for travel.

2.233 Whilst the new upgraded A92 link between Dundee and Arbroath terminates close to the Westway site - which enhances accessibility to the Westway site for those in Carnoustie and from some other parts of the rural hinterland - this does not address the problem of Westway’s peripheral location within the town itself. I am similarly not persuaded that the stated objective of reducing leakage and improving choice for consumers would necessarily be achieved in the manner suggested by ASDA and the council - particularly when the assumptions on which ASDA’s retail spending and likely impact calculations were based are open to question, for the reasons given earlier. I do not place any significant weight on the fact that Arbroath has a deficiency of retail floorspace when compared with Forfar as these towns have unique locational characteristics and different catchment and spending profiles. Accordingly, I reject outright the suggestion that on the crude basis of retail floorspace differences between Arbroath and Forfar a store at Westway might be justifiable, when no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the catchment and spending profiles of the two towns have been assessed in any detail to enable any robust comparisons or conclusions to be drawn in this regard.

The objections related to the A16 allocation concerning the Westburn/ Stobcross site

2.234 It is evident that the planning appeals lodged by Tesco Stores plc in respect of Westburn/Stobcross resulted in two outline planning permissions being granted in July 2005:

• one for a foodstore not exceeding 3,500sqm GFA on the smaller site, essentially the Westburn Foundry site within the control of the appellants; and

70 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• one for a foodstore not exceeding 5,000sqm GFA on the larger site, encompassing the foundry site together with the Bruce House premises currently owned by the council.

2.235 I note that each of these permissions is subject to a series of planning conditions, including conditions related to access and servicing. I also note that there are objections concerning the fact that the council has allocated the Westburn Foundry site in Policy A16 and supporting text of paragraph 24 in the following terms:

“24. Following planning appeals planning permissions have been granted for further food retail development at the former Westburn Foundry site. Implementation of these consents will improve the range and choice of retailing and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. As the developer does not have control over the whole of the sites which have planning permission, there is some uncertainty as to the timing and size of the retail store which will be developed. It is considered appropriate to allocate the site of the former Westburn Foundry for the development of a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres gross floorspace, in accordance with the planning permission for the site. There may be scope to increase the scale of the foodstore up to around 5,000 square metres gross, if land ownerships can be consolidated. However, such consolidation is far from certain and will be subject to the outcome of a feasibility study into the possible relocation of the Council offices currently located on part of the site. It is intended to monitor this position and to consider proposals for other sites outwith the town centre against policy SC23 and other relevant development plan policies and national planning guidance.

A16: Cairnie Street/Stobcross

The site of the former Westburn Foundry is allocated for a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres subject to meeting access and servicing requirements.”

2.236 Whilst ASDA seeks the deletion of the whole of paragraph 24 and Policy A16 from the local plan review (and its replacement by an allocation of the Westburn A16 site for Class 4 business, call centre or residential uses), the other objectors Morrison, Bett/Tesco and the Arbroath Area Partnership are only seeking particular amendments to the wording of Policy A16.

ASDA’s objection to A16:

2.237 I note that ASDA considers that deletion of any mention of retail use for the Westburn Foundry site in the local plan is justified, based on its contentions that:

• the site concerned is not capable of safe access/egress for retail development • the site is not capable of accommodating a development of the size envisaged in the proposed modification • it would not address the quantitative or qualitative deficiency of Arbroath and the surrounding area

71 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.238 I will deal with each of these points in turn. Firstly, I note that access is one of the items covered by the planning conditions attached to the outline planning permissions at Westburn granted on appeal in July 2005. There is a Reserved Matters application lodged with the council by Tesco Stores Ltd in respect of the smaller site permission, relating to a store of 3,500sqm on the foundry site. There is also a Roads Construction Consent (RCC) application lodged with the council for the same development. At the local plan inquiry the council’s representative indicated that whilst it has been in discussion with the applicants about possible amendments to the detailed drawings lodged in respect of these applications no decision had been taken in respect of these applications and there was no Report to Committee available from its Director of Planning and Transport making an assessment of the applications and recommendations to the council on that basis.

2.239 In this context, I note that ASDA has chosen to commission its own design and transport specialists to undertake detailed analysis of the Tesco applications concerning Reserved Matters and RCC for the Westburn Foundry site. In respect of the drawings lodged by the applicants to the council, ASDA’s transport consultant concluded that the foundry site cannot be safely or adequately accessed for a foodstore of 3,500sqm GFA, taking account of the road and junction geometry and the physical constraints of the immediate surrounding area, taking into account national standards. This conclusion was reached even after considering the possible scope for relaxation of those standards on an exceptional basis. Bett/Tesco point out that the same access and design criticisms against the Westburn proposals were put forward on behalf of ASDA, by the same witnesses, at the 2005 Inquiry concerning the Westburn Foundry site but this did not prevent the outline planning permissions being granted, subject to conditions regarding access and other matters. Furthermore, the council’s legal representative has confirmed at the local plan review inquiry that he was not aware of council officers who are assessing these applications saying that the present application for approval of reserved matters by Tesco was completely unacceptable, nor was he aware of any insurmountable obstacles to the application lodged for RCC being approved.

2.240 There is no dispute that there are difficulties in providing satisfactory access and egress for a retail store on the Westburn site, for the reasons highlighted by ASDA and discussed at previous inquiries. I am not in a position, however, to assess the acceptability or otherwise of the detailed proposals put forward by Tesco or to provide recommendations in this regard as this is not within my remit. Most importantly, this is a matter for Angus Council not me to decide in due course, as the council is the competent authority to grant the necessary permissions relating to Reserved Matters and a RCC. Meanwhile, I am persuaded by the argument put forward on behalf of Bett/Tesco that even if the present Reserved Matters and RCC applications were ultimately refused by the council - whether on the grounds put forward by ASDA or for whatever reason - this would not prevent a second or subsequent applications being lodged which might be acceptable, within the time limits of the outline planning permission. Based on these considerations – together with the fact that there are outline planning permissions granted in 2005 establishing the principle of retail development at Westburn - I conclude that the first reason cited on behalf of ASDA, relating to safe access to the Westburn site, is not a reasonable or valid basis upon which to

72 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review recommend deletion of both the allocation of A16 for a foodstore and the supporting text of paragraph 24.

2.241 I note the detailed concerns expressed by ASDA’s design consultant regarding the limitations of the foundry site to accommodate a food store of 3,500sqm together with the necessary car parking, fire escape, service areas and landscaping as well as other associated support infrastructure - all in accordance with the planning conditions attached to the outline planning permission granted for that scale of store on the site concerned. Once more I would point out that these site specific design details within a Reserved Matters application are not matters before me but for the council to determine. I also refer again to the comments made on behalf of the council’s representative, that at the time of the local plan inquiry into this matter he was unaware of any insurmountable obstacles to the granting of the Reserved Matters permission. Accordingly, I reject the contention by ASDA that on the basis of the layout drawings and design details of the Tesco proposal and site constraints at the Foundry site, the A16 allocation of the Westburn foundry site for a foodstore should be deleted. In my view the wording of Policy A16 and the accompanying text make adequate reference to the terms of the allocation being made in respect of the foundry site.

2.242 The third reason why ASDA argues that a retail foodstore should be excluded from the uses to be accepted on the A16 site is that the proposal by Bett/Tesco for Westburn would not address the quantitative or qualitative deficiency in major convenience food retailing of Arbroath and the surrounding area (for a superstore presumably). I am fully aware of the debate and detailed disagreements aired at the previous Inquiries concerning whether or not the scale of the foodstore proposals at the Westburn foundry met the criteria to be termed a superstore - or were at least not significantly smaller than a superstore in trading floorspace terms, as discussed in Ms Heywood’s appeal decision. Setting these discussions to one side, I consider that the proposition by ASDA that the Westburn site should not be used for retail purposes if it is demonstrated that it cannot deliver a particular scale or type of store to meet specific quantitative or qualitative deficiencies, as perceived by ASDA, is not justified and wholly unreasonable. The outline planning permissions granted in July 2005 for a store of up to 3,500sqm GFA on the Westburn Foundry site - and for a larger store of up to 5,000sqm GFA on the larger site, including Bruce House if this becomes available - should have ended the debate as to the principle of a retail foodstore being acceptable at this location. Accordingly, I find no satisfactory basis for the proposition put forward on behalf of ASDA to justify deletion of paragraph 24 and re-drafting of Policy A16 to remove reference to a retail foodstore and its replacement by business, residential or other non-retail uses.

Morrison’s Objection to A16: Cairnie Street/ Stobcross:

2.243 Morrison notes that Policy A16 is justified by the council with reference to the recent outline planning permissions granted on appeal, subject to conditions. Morrison argues that the wording of Policy A16 should state that the floor area of 3,500 sq m is gross floor area, as set out in paragraph 24, and should make the allocation conditional on meeting all requirements of reserved matters and not just access and servicing. In addition it is suggested that the term “foodstore” should be replaced by “supermarket.”

73 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.244 In the absence of any arguments to the contrary, I am persuaded by the case put forward by Morrison with regard to the phrasing of Policy A16. Accordingly, I consider that for clarity the wording of Policy A16 should make reference to the allocation in the same terms as the outline permission granted for the Westburn Foundry site which is for a supermarket, rather than a foodstore, and that the words ‘gross floor area’ should follow the phrase “…up to 3,500 square metres”. In addition I recommend that the phrase “subject to meeting access and servicing requirements” in Policy A16 should be replaced by “subject to meeting all requirements of reserved matters attached to the outline planning permission granted for this site in July 2005” or words to that effect.

Bett/Tesco’s Objection to the wording of Policy A16:

2.245 Whilst welcoming the introduction of Policy A16 in the Proposed Second Round Modifications as a positive allocation of Westburn by the council, Bett/Tesco remains concerned that the wording of Policy A16 only partially supports the location of a food superstore at the former Westburn Foundry. It observes that the council has termed this policy with regard to the smaller permission, for up to 3,500sqm GFA, granted on the foundry site on the basis that it ‘can be developed’. It also notes the council is carrying out a land audit with a view to ascertaining whether the office building at Bruce House could be relocated and the site sold, which would release that site to enable the larger planning permission, for a store of up to 5,000sqm GFA to be developed instead. It points out that Paragraph 24 confirms that the only reason why the larger store permission has not been included in Policy A16 allocation is because the consolidation of land ownerships ‘is far from certain’. In this context Bett/Tesco argue that the larger store has planning permission and there is no evidence that it can be ruled out, so in its view the distinction sought to be drawn by the council is illogical and unjustified. Accordingly, it is argued that the wording of Policy A16 should be amended to refer to a store development up to 5,000sqm rather than 3,500sqm.

2.246 The council, in response to this particular objection, contends that the Bett/Tesco’s proposed amendment to Policy A16 is fundamentally flawed as there is no evidence to demonstrate that the A16 site, (shown as A10 on the Proposals Map of FALPR published in February 2005) could accommodate a store of up to 5,000sqm, noting that Bett/Tesco has not objected to the Proposals Map which excludes the Bruce House site from the area coloured A10. Furthermore the council considers that the proposed modification suggested by Bett/Tesco is inappropriate because there remains considerable uncertainty about the proposals to build a 5,000sqm store on an enlarged site incorporating the council offices land. It points out that committed development is a defined term in respect of PAN49 and before being incorporated within the local plan the planning authority must be confident that proposals can be implemented within about 5 years of the adoption of the plan. PAN49 in paragraph 55 identifies the tests for proposals and these include an intention to develop within 5 years of plan adoption and paragraph 29 of PAN38 provides a list of criteria associated with ‘effectiveness’ and ownership is one of them. In particular if land is in the ownership of a local authority or other public body it should only be included where it is part of a programme of land sales. On this basis, with the sale or release of Bruce House being far from certain, the council argues that the area of ground covered by Bruce House cannot

74 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

be said to be effective at this stage. As outline planning permission exists for a store up to 3,500sqm on the site A16 shown on the Proposals Map, which largely in the control of Bett/Tesco, the council argues that the wording of Policy A16 is entirely appropriate and should not be changed as suggested by Bett/Tesco.

2.247 I note that the area shown on the Proposal Map relating to Policy A16 of the Second Round Modifications (shown as A10: Opportunity Site - Cairnie St/Stobcross on the published finalised plan review of February 2005), which has not been questioned or challenged by Bett/Tesco, shows the Westburn Foundry site and is essentially land within the ownership or control of Bett/Tesco. Most importantly, that site on the Proposals Map excludes the council offices known as Bruce House. I am persuaded by the argument put forward on behalf of the council that there is no evidence to suggest that the foundry site, for which there is an outline planning for a supermarket of up to 3,500sqm gross floor area, could be developed to accommodate a store of up to 5,000sqm without extending onto the land occupied by Bruce House which adjoins it. For the reasons stated by the council, as summarised above, I consider that the enlarged site required for a larger store development of up to 5,000sqm GFA, as provided for in the other outline planning permission, is dependent on the council releasing Bruce House and so cannot be regarded as effective at this stage.

2.248 As there remains uncertainty about whether it would become available and hence effective within the period of the local plan period, I consider that the wording of paragraph 24 remains valid as does Policy A16 in referring to a development of up to 3,500sqm on the foundry site shown on the Proposals Map, subject to the modifications in detailed wording recommended in response to the objection lodged on behalf of Morrison. If, in the period leading up to adoption of the local plan, the council decides to release Bruce House to enable the larger store permission at Stobcross to be implemented, then I would recommend that the Proposals Map should be amended to incorporate it into the A16 site allocation and then there would be justification for amending Policy A16 to provide for a supermarket of up to 5,000sqm GFA to be allocated on the enlarged site in that eventuality.

2.249 Finally, on the basis of outline planning permission having been granted for a supermarket development on the Westburn site, I reject the objection lodged by Arbroath Area Partnership that use of the foundry site should be restricted to exclude uses that would generate significant additional traffic on Cairnie St and Lochlands St. As stated earlier, the principle of allowing a supermarket on this site has already been established by outline permissions already having been granted and this cannot be ignored or removed by a local plan allocation setting restrictions to prevent such a use.

Summary and Conclusions

2.250 I have taken account of all of the other detailed arguments put forward on behalf of the various objectors and the council in support of their respective cases, but find none individually or in combination that would outweigh the reasoning set out above leading to my conclusions reached in respect of each of the local plan objections lodged In summary, based on the considerations set out above and for the reasons given, I conclude that:

75 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• the evidence and findings from the two previous public inquiries on retailing in Arbroath (the most recent of which led in 2005 to outline planning permissions being granted for differing scales of supermarket development at the Westburn foundry site and for the larger site there, incorporating the adjoining council-owned land) do not confirm that there is also expenditure capacity to support an additional new superstore that would improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the Arbroath catchment area; • overall the evidence presented at the local plan inquiry and in submissions has persuaded me, firstly, that the findings of the two previous public inquiries on retailing in Arbroath (held in 2003 and 2005) remain valid and relevant and, secondly, that the local (or wider) circumstances have not changed sufficiently in the intervening period to make their conclusions no longer valid; • on this basis there is no justification for: o Policy A15 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications to support an additional foodstore of around 5,000sqm to be provided in Arbroath at Westway/Dundee Road; or for o Paragraph 25 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications • based on the same considerations, and in particular with reference to the need for the local plan, once adopted, to accord with the provisions of the approved structure plan and take account of national planning policy, there is no justification for Policy A17 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications to include the provision of a food retail store of around 5,000sqm gross within the land allocated for a retail park at Westway - Dundee Rd. In my view any retail use on this site should be restricted to non-food retail warehouses for sale of durable goods – as restricted by the existing designation of that site; • the terms of Paragraph 24 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications are well stated and should be endorsed • the (Proposed 2nd Round Modification) Policy A16: Cairnie Street / Stobcross is also justified in its existing form, subject to the following modifications to its wording to comply with the terms of the planning permission granted for the site concerned: o substitute the word ‘supermarket’ for foodstore; o add ‘gross floor area’ after 3,500 square metres o replace “subject to meeting access and servicing requirements with the phrase “subject to meeting all requirements of reserved matters attached to the outline planning permission granted for this site in July 2005” or words to that effect, to be consistent with the terms of the outline planning permission • there is not sufficient justification for amending the allocation of Policy A16 from 3,500sqm to 5,000sqm. I reach this conclusion based on the uncertainty of the availability of the council owned land required, within the timeframe of the local plan review, and because the possibility of development of that larger scale - in line with the larger outline planning permission - is already provided for in the wording of Paragraph 24 preceding the policy – as set out in the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications put forward by the council.

76 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Recommendations

2.251 I recommend that the finalised local plan review is modified in the terms set out above in my conclusions.

77 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: A11 - Opportunity site, Wardmill /Dens Road

Objector Reference

Linlathen Developments 918/2/2

Procedure Reporter

Written Submission Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.252 In January 2003 The Director of Planning of Angus Council presented a report to the council concerning three planning applications for "superstores" within Arbroath: at Westburn Foundry, Stobcross; Dens Road/Wardmill Rd; and at Westway Retail Park. The Director of Planning (and the retail consultants appointed by the council) recommended refusal of all three applications on the grounds that there was insufficient retail capacity. Notwithstanding this advice, the Development Control Committee of Angus Council decided that they were minded to grant permission for the application for a superstore at Westway. This was notified to Scottish Ministers as marking a significant departure from the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan and that application was ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers and considered, together with appeals for the two further sites, at a public inquiry held by Ms J McNair in September/October 2003.

2.253 Her report (The ‘McNair Report’), setting out the findings and recommendations of that Inquiry, was issued in early 2004. The Scottish Ministers accepted its findings and recommendations and decided to refuse planning permission for all three major foodstore proposals in May 2004. Despite recommending refusal of each of the applications under consideration, the McNair Report stated that all parties agreed that there was a deficiency in convenience retail provision in Arbroath and that this should be met by a superstore, as defined by NPPG8. In June 2004 a full planning application was submitted by Macdonald Estates for a foodstore and 3 non-food retail units at Westway Retail Park – that application remains undetermined In July 2004 outline planning applications were submitted by Bett properties for supermarket proposals at Westburn, Stobcross. One proposal covered the site of the former Westburn Foundry (the ‘small site’) and the other (the ‘larger site’) covered this together with adjacent property occupied by Angus Council, principally the offices known as Bruce House. In September 2004 appeals against non-determination were submitted by Bett Properties in respect of those applications at Westburn.

2.254 In December 2004 The Director of Planning and Transport reported to the council regarding his officers’ views on retail policy for the finalised Angus Local Plan Review and recommended that an additional ‘superstore’ of around 5,000sqm should be included in that plan, and that 3 sites (at Dens Rd/Wardmill Rd; Westburn Foundry (larger site); and

78 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Westway) should be identified on the proposals map as ‘potential sites’ for the superstore proposed – with site selection to be addressed at the local plan inquiry (with any approval of a proposal in advance of this being regarded as premature). The council agreed that an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm should be provided for in the finalised plan but decided that the site at Westway/Dundee Road should be identified on the proposals map of the Finalised Local Plan Review as the potential site for the new superstore – and this was published accordingly (as paragraph 25 and Policy A16) in FALPR in February 2005.

2.255 In May/June 2005 a public inquiry was held (by Ms K Heywood) to determine the Bett Properties/Tesco Stores (Bett/Tesco) planning appeals relating to the small and larger site proposals Westburn. In July 2005 the appeal decisions were issued by Ms Heywood which granted 2 outline planning permissions: one relating to a supermarket of up to 3,500sqm GFA for the small site and one for a store of up to 5,000sqm GFA for the larger site, and both were subject to conditions. In order for Bett/Tesco to implement their larger permission at Westburn the council would have to sell Bruce House to the applicants/developers. Whilst the council has taken a formal decision that Bruce House is not for sale it is undertaking a feasibility study on this matter which has yet to report. On 8 September 2005, in response to the Westburn appeal decisions, the Director of Planning and Transport presented a report to the Infrastructure Services Committee of Angus Council setting out officers’ recommendations for Proposed Second Round Modifications to the FALPR. This report put forward a new local plan policy stating that provision be made in Arbroath for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm GFA and to allocate the smaller site at Westburn for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm GFA, subject to meeting access and service requirements. It also recommended that the reference to a food retail store at Westway, in the February 2005 draft finalised plan, should be deleted.

2.256 On 18 October 2005 the council resolved to include in the Proposed Second Round Modifications a new policy (A15) that provision be made for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm in Arbroath and that this should be provided at Westway, stating that the justification for this was to increase choice and reduce expenditure leakage from the catchment. It also resolved, on the basis of the planning permissions granted following planning appeals, to include another new policy (A16) allocating the Westburn Foundry site (small site only – excluding Bruce House) for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm, subject to meeting access and servicing arrangements, and stated that there may be scope to increase the scale of the foodstore up to around 5,000sqm if land ownerships can be consolidated, but pointed out that such consolidation is far from certain. Finally, the council proposed to also include within the Second Round Modifications a new Policy A17 reserving land at Westway/Dundee Road for a variety of uses include the provision of a food retail store of around 5,000sqm gross. In December 2005 Tesco Stores Ltd submitted an application for reserved matters in relation to its outline planning permission at the Westburn Foundry (the small site) and also lodged an application for Roads Construction Consent (RCC) – both of which were being considered by the council but had yet to be determined when the local plan inquiry was completed or when this report section was written..

2.257 Since the appeal decisions by Scottish Ministers in 2004, there have been no further planning applications lodged in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site, Arbroath.

79 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Basis of the objection

2.258 It is argued on behalf of the objector that the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site, referred to as Site A11 in the finalised plan review (FALPR),, should be preferred to the Westway site for food retailing or at least the wording of Policy A11 should be amended to allow retailing as one of the alternative uses for the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site, for the following reasons:

• The Westway site allocation is contrary to the terms of the national planning guidance set out in SPP8, in particular, it does not satisfy the sequential test that forms part of that guidance • Constraints to development at Westway were identified at the last public inquiry and it remain remote from the new housing land allocations for Arbroath • The Scottish Ministers ruled out such a development at Westway as the site was found to be totally unsuitable for the proposed foodstore use • An alternative site is available for a supermarket development at Wardmill Rd/ Dens Road. • The Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site is closer to the town centre and consequently satisfies the sequential test of SPP8 • Since the last public inquiry a deal has been struck with the Arbroath Town Mission which will see them moving to a nearby purpose built new building, which will allow the development of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site to have even closer physical links to the town centre • Development of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site would be a catalyst for the proposals to re-generate the North Arbroath area, as detailed in Policy A6 of the FALPR.

2.259 Based on the above considerations, it is submitted that:

• The Westway site (A16) should be deleted as being ‘undeliverable’ • The Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site (A11) should be identified as the preferred site for the supermarket development • The wording of the A11 policy should be altered to allow retail development as one of the alternative uses • The wording of Policy A6:Regenerate! North Arbroath of FALPR should be altered to include opportunities for the provision of local services to support the communities of Cliffburn, Strathairlie and Demondale areas of Arbroath.

The council’s response

2.260 The council points out that when the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site was the subject of an outline planning application (02/00557/OUT) for a food retail development, that application was refused by the council in January 2003. It also notes that an appeal against that refusal was dismissed by the Scottish Ministers, ratifying the findings and recommendations of the Reporter appointed to hear that appeal inquiry. In the council’s view the finalised local plan review reflects:

80 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• the history of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site, including the refusal of planning permission for retail development there; • two planning applications for retail food store development that have been granted planning permission on appeal on the site of the former Westburn Foundry and Angus Council’s offices at Stobcross / Cairnie Street.

2.261 Based on all of these considerations, the council contends that there is no basis on which change the local plan review in the manner sought by the objector.

Conclusions

2.262 The contention that the Westway site should be deleted as a site allocated for major food retailing in the local plan is dealt with separately in this report alongside the consideration of other objections related to that topic under the section headed A10: Cairnie St and A16: Westway Retail, Arbroath.

2.263 It is evident that there has been a lot of development pressure in recent years for additional major foodstore development in Arbroath, including at the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site. The background section details the main sequence of events in the last five years and highlights key decisions during that period affecting food retail planning in Arbroath. As far as I am aware the last formal proposal for foodstore retailing on the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd was made in the form of an outline planning application lodged in 2002. This led ultimately to refusal on appeal by the Scottish Ministers in May 2004, along with refusal decisions made by them at the same time in respect of foodstore proposals at Stobcross/Westburn and at Westway. In all three cases these refusals endorsed the findings and recommendations of the inquiry reporter appointed to hear those appeals.

2.264 Whilst the promoters of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site have chosen not to lodge a further planning application in the period since May 2004, I note that there have been subsequent major foodstore applications lodged in respect of the Stobcross/Westburn site and at Westway. Furthermore, two outline planning permissions were then granted on appeal in respect of the Stobcross/Westburn site, one of which involves the adjoining Bruce House site owned by the council, all as detailed above. The smaller of those permissions is the subject of a reserved matters application and an application for roads construction consent. The outline planning permissions already granted in respect of that site are reflected in the allocation made under Policy A16 and associated text of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications to the FALPR. No decision has been taken by the council in respect of the Westway foodstore planning application lodged in June 2004. Nevertheless, contrary to the advice of its Director of Planning, the council proposes allocation of the Westway site for major food retailing in the FALPR. Policies A15 and A17 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications relate to that site. These Proposed 2nd Round Modifications have led to detailed local plan objections heard at a formal inquiry – and considered in detail elsewhere in this Report under the heading A10 /A16 Arbroath Retail.

2.265 In this context of changed local circumstances, which have evolved in the last 2 years and affect overall retail planning in Arbroath, I note that the objector in support of the

81 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site does not make any reference whatsoever to the outline planning permissions granted (at nearby Stobcross/Westburn) or comment on their significance. Indeed the only update provided by the objector in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site is to state that a deal has been struck with the Arbroath Town Mission. It is suggested that this will see them moving to a nearby purpose built new building, which would allow the development of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site to have even closer physical links to the town centre. I am not persuaded that this statement in isolation - or in combination with the bald assertion that development of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site would be a catalyst to re- generate the North Arbroath area – provides sufficient justification to allocate the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site for food retailing use in the finalised local plan review, either in preference to Westway (as being suggested) or as an additional allocation, particularly given the existing outline planning permissions for a large supermarket on the nearby Westburn/Stobcross site.

2.266 I am persuaded instead by the council’s arguments in response to the objection and conclude that the objections lodged in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site are not substantiated sufficiently to merit the changes to the finalised local plan review proposed, particularly in the context of the outline planning permissions granted in 2005 for a supermarket development on the nearby Stobcross site. Furthermore, I note that detailed proposals have been lodged by the applicants, Tesco seeking to gain approval of reserved matters with a view to proceeding towards implementation of a supermarket on that site. For all of these reasons I conclude that the objections lodged in support of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site being allocated for retail use should be rejected.

Recommendation

2.267 I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site (A11) or in respect of Policy A6: Regenerate! North Arbroath.

82 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Policy A12 – Working, West of Elliot Industrial Estate

Objector Reference

Crudie Farms 626/1/1 (per Charlton Smith Partnership)

Procedure Reporter

Written submission Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.268 Policy A12 allocates 21ha of land to the west of the existing Elliot Industrial Estate for Class 4, Class 5 and Class 6 uses, stating that development proposals which would prejudice expansion of development land to the west of the existing Elliot Industrial Estate would not accord with the local plan.

Basis of the objection

2.269 Generally support employment land but object to the omission of part of the allocated land west of Elliot as a housing allocation in the FALP Review 2005.

The council’s response

2.270 The proposed housing site put forward by the objector lies within the area identified for the extension of the Elliot Industrial Estate (A12 : Working - West of Elliot Industrial Estate in the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review). It notes that this extension area is continued from the adopted Angus Local Plan which (in Proposal A/EMP1 : Employment Land Feasibility Study) identifies the land concerned for future employment use after the completion of the A92 upgrade.

2.271 The council points out that the development of the former sewage treatment works for housing could prejudice the proposed extension of the Elliot Industrial Estate and would be incompatible with the long term use of this area.

Conclusions

2.272 There is no dispute that the site concerned, which is a former sewage treatment works, has been earmarked for some time for expansion of the Elliot Industrial Estate westwards, to provide further employment land for Class 4, Class 5 and Cass 6 uses. No compelling case has been made as to why some or all of this allocated land should be made available for housing. I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the land concerned is

83 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review required for industrial and related business expansion purposes and that its development in part for housing would prejudice the proposals for the remainder of that site.

2.273 No evidence has been presented to challenge the council’s argument that the land is required for industrial and related employment uses and a case has not been satisfactorily made to justify some of this land being reallocated for housing development. Indeed I consider that this former sewage works site, adjoining a large, existing industrial estate, would be best used for employment uses as proposed in Policy A12 of the finalised local plan review. Based on all of these considerations I do not consider that there are strategic or local reasons to justify re-allocation of the site concerned for housing, in whole or part.

Recommendation

2.274 I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

84 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Policy A19 - Hospitalfield House

Objector Reference

The Patrick Allan-Fraser of Hospitalfield Trust 100/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written Submission Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.275 The objections concern the Hospitalfield House and grounds in Arbroath, in particular Policy A19 of the finalised local plan review which seeks to safeguard it from development that would be detrimental to the historic character and landscape setting of the property.

Basis of the objection

2.276 It is argued on behalf of the Board of Governors of Hospitalfield Trust that the wording of Policy A19 would constrain any legitimate attempts by the Board to sell or develop any small piece of land within the Hospitalfield estate which is surplus to requirements. This would be the case even if such development would have no detrimental effect on the character and setting of the historic buildings and would not be detrimental to the amenity of the house and grounds. Such proposals have already been explored collaboratively with the council and with Scottish Enterprise Tayside as part of the Trust’s wider remit to sustain the development of appropriate activities at this historic site.

The council’s response

2.277 The council states that Policy A19 is intended to provide open space protection for this historic site. It is not intended to prevent all development but to ensure that development proposals are in keeping with this historic location, as requested by Historic Scotland in their submission to the Consultative Draft Local Plan. Accordingly, in response to the objection, the council in its Proposed First Round Modifications proposes the following addition to the wording at the end of para 26 on Page 109 of the finalised draft local plan review: “This policy is not intended to prevent all development, but to ensure any future development proposals are in keeping with this historic property and its landscape setting”. This wording represents an agreed position between the objector and the council. This proposed modification has led to the objection being CONDITIONALLY WITHDRAWN

85 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.278 I note that the objection has been conditionally withdrawn on the basis that the proposed modification by the council would provide a more appropriate introduction to Policy A19. Based on these considerations, I understand the basis of the objection and endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case. Accordingly, I conclude that the text of the finalised local plan review immediately preceding Policy A19 should be amended, by the addition of new text, as proposed by the council and agreed by the Hospitalfield Trust.

Recommendation

2.279 I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case, by incorporation of the following additional wording at the end of para 26 on Page 109 of the finalised draft local plan review: “This policy is not intended to prevent all development, but to ensure any future development proposals are in keeping with this historic property and its landscape setting”.

86 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Omission - Land at Elliot

Objector Reference

James Keillor Estates Ltd 553/1/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submission Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.280 The objection site is within the Arbroath Housing Market Area (HMA). The objector seeks allocation of the site at Elliot House, Arbroath, adjacent to the recently dualled A92 road, for new housing that has not been included in the finalised local plan review.

Basis of the objection

2.281 The case for the objection is made strategically with reference to the Dundee and South Angus HMA [whereas the site concerned does not lie within that HMA but within the Arbroath HMA]. It is argued that as all other housing development proposed for Arbroath in the finalised local plan review is located to the north and east of the town, the proposal for the Elliot House site would give a balance by offering a site to the west side of Arbroath.

2.282 The objector states that landscaping and other land works have been carried out at the objection site including refurbishment of the lochan adjacent to Elliot House. In the objector’s view this has resulted in the creation of a first class residential environment which would be well suited to a quality executive housing development to the north and west of Elliot House, which is a listed building. There is developer interest in the proposed site which, in the objector’s view, is understandable given its location and quality environment. The objector would be willing to work with the council do draw up a development brief for the site.

The council’s response

2.283 The council points out that the local plan is required to conform to the structure plan which allows for 850 new houses in Arbroath Housing Market Area in the period 2001 to 2011. At June 2004, after taking account of housing completions and sites under construction or with planning permission, the local plan required to identify sites for an additional 318 houses in the Arbroath HMA for the period up to 2011 to meet the structure plan requirements for this HMA. The finalised local plan review allocates land for an additional 465 houses, mostly in Arbroath – including sites at Montrose Road and Cliffburn

87 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Road, which are both effective. It is pointed out that the strategy for Arbroath promotes the continuation of regeneration and renewal.

2.284 In this context the site of a former bleachworks, abutting the objector’s site is being supported with a planning permission for 34 houses/flats which will address an important brownfield site at the entrance to the town. This type of development is preferred by the council to greenfield initiatives of the type being promoted by the objector in this case, and in the council’s view there is no need to allocate a further greenfield site in Arbroath for housing development. There do not appear to be any insurmountable roads or services issues related to the proposed site. Nevertheless, the council points out that there is a potential issue of concern regarding flood risk. It is noted that the Elliot Water is an area of potential flooding and a flood risk assessment submitted in 2004 seems to indicate that the developable area is likely to significantly smaller than proposed by the objector. In this context the council contends that housing development on the objection site would be unlikely to accord with SPP7: Planning and Flooding. It points out that any proposals for this site would be required to assess the likely impact of the development here on sites downstream including the redevelopment of the former bleachworks, referred to above.

2.285 In summary, the council contends that there is no justification in terms of either the structure plan strategy for the Arbroath HMA or the effective housing land supply in the Arbroath area that would require the allocation of further greenfield housing land in addition to the land supply already provided for by the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review. Furthermore there is an unresolved local flood risk problem which affects development of the site concerned.

Conclusions

2.286 There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the approved structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the HMAs, including for the Arbroath HMA area. For the reasons given earlier in this report (in the conclusions section relating to Policy SC1: Housing Land Supply) I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan, including those specified for Arbroath HMA, should be reflected in the local plan review.

2.287 No evidence has been presented to challenge the council’s argument that, in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocation of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to Arbroath HMA exceeds the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011. Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in Arbroath in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38. I do not consider that the creation of a site to the west of Arbroath to counterbalance existing housing land allocations to the east of the town is not a sufficient strategic reason to allocate the site concerned.

88 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.288 In this context I now turn to consider whether a new housing land allocation at Elliot House, as proposed by the objector, should be accepted on an exceptional basis for local reasons. I note that the flood risk issues highlighted by the council have not been addressed or challenged by the objector. Whilst there is no dispute that the site alongside Elliot House would create a desirable residential environment, this is not sufficient justification for promoting a new greenfield housing site there. Furthermore, in my view such an allocation would set a dangerous precedent for other similar sites to be promoted on an ad hoc basis. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there is insufficient justification to warrant allocation of the land at Elliot House, Arbroath for housing development within the local plan review.

Recommendation

2.289 For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

89 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Arbroath: Omission - land north of Warddykes,

Objector Reference

C Hay 926/1/2 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submission Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.290 The adopted Angus Local Plan allocates land at Montrose Road for housing in the period to 2006, and identifies the adjoining land parcel for longer term housing development. The allocated site was granted outline planning permission in 2004. In accordance with the adopted Angus Local Plan and the conditions attached to the outline planning consent, the developers are preparing a site brief for the whole 15ha area at Montrose Road, which is identified as allocated site A1 in the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review. According to the site developers, this phased development is expected to provide around 400 new houses in total. The objection now under consideration relates to the ‘Warddykes Road’ site on the opposite side of the A92 road, directly to the west of site A1.

Basis of the objection

2.291 It is argued on behalf of the objector that the site immediately to the north of Warddykes Rd and to the west of the A92 Arbroath-Montrose Rd is surplus to agricultural requirements and should be considered as an alternative or additional to the allocated A1 Montrose Road site in the finalised Angus Local Plan Review (FALPR). It is pointed out that the Warddykes site is available for development with a willing seller and strong development partner interest.

2.292 It is submitted that with the completion of the dualling of the section of the A92 road between Dundee and Arbroath the demand for housing in and around Arbroath will greatly increase and the local authority will have to respond to that demand. On this basis, it is argued that the Warddykes site should be allocated for housing within the finalised local plan review.

The council’s response

2.293 The council points out that the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan allows for 850 new houses in the Arbroath Housing Market Area (HMA) in the period 2001 to 2011. At June 2004, after taking account of completions and existing sites, the local plan requires to identify sites to accommodate 318 houses in the Arbroath HMA. Two greenfield allocations

90 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

in Arbroath at Montrose Road, (as identified in the adopted local Plan, and at Cliffburn, in support of the Regenerate North Arbroath project), provide for greenfield development in Arbroath. These sites and a range of brownfield and opportunity sites in Arbroath contribute to providing choice and meet the housing requirements established by the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. Accordingly, the council argues that there is no requirement to allocate further housing land in the Arbroath HMA, and to do so could bring the Angus Local Plan Review into conflict with the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan.

2.294 Angus Council remains of the opinion that, in principle, the whole site at Montrose Road is committed for housing development having been included within the development boundary for Arbroath and identified in the adopted Angus Local Plan (2000) as being 'reserved for future housing purposes' with an initial phase of approximately 80 dwellings being released in the period to 2006. In this context, outline planning permission for the initial phase was granted in December 2004 and discussions have been ongoing with the developer in taking forward detailed aspects of the proposal, including the preparation of a development brief to enable the full development of the whole site. The site is included in the Draft 2005 Housing Land Audit as being effective with an indicative start date during 2005/06. Furthermore, it is noted that there is support for the retention of this allocation in the local plan review on behalf of the landowner and the potential site developer.

2.295 Based on all of these considerations, in the council’s view there is no requirement at this stage to release any additional greenfield land in Arbroath.

Conclusions

2.296 There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the approved structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the Housing Market Areas (HMAs), including for the Arbroath HMA. I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the approved structure plan, including those specified for Arbroath HMA, should be reflected in the local plan review.

2.297 I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the requirements for the Arbroath HMA specified in the approved structure plan for the next five years have been fully met by the allocations made in the finalised local plan review, including the allocation at Montrose Road referred to above. Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan review to provide additional housing land allocations in Arbroath HMA in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38. On this basis I consider that there is no strategic need or justification for the Warddykes site to be considered for allocation in addition to the Montrose Road site already allocated as site A1 in the FALPR. There has been no attempt made by the objector to challenge the strategic arguments put forward by the council regarding housing land allocations in the HMA which, as discussed above, indicate that there is no justification to allocate another housing site in Arbroath. Whilst noting the argument put forward on behalf of the objector that there will be additional housing demand in the Arbroath area as a result of completion of the dualling of the A92 road, I am not persuaded

91 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

that this is sufficient reason to allocate the Warddykes site as an additional housing land allocation site on an exceptional basis.

2.298 In this context, I now turn to consider whether there is justification to incorporate the objection site as a replacement for the A1 allocation, given that there is no proven strategic housing need for an additional housing land allocation to serve Arbroath. Whilst the objector has put forward the Warddykes site for my consideration in principle, no attempt has been made to provide any arguments to demonstrate why it would be a better allocation than the allocated A1 site on the opposite side of Montrose Road. Indeed there is not even a reference to its scale and characteristics or its likely capacity. The only statement made in support of the case to have it considered as a housing site is that it is surplus to agricultural requirements and is available. I note that there has been a well documented and publicised housing site search and selection process by the council over a period of years, as part of the local plan review process. This included a number of short-listed site options in and around Arbroath, including the Warddykes site, each being considered in some detail against a list of criteria, enabling comparative assessments to be made. This process led to the council concluding on its proposed Arbroath housing land allocations for the FALPR, which included confirmation of site A1 at Montrose Road. In this context, I consider that there is no justification to abandon this in favour of the Warddykes Road site at this late stage when no evidence has been offered on behalf of the objector to merit such a reallocation. Furthermore, I note that the site A1 is proceeding towards a phased development with a development brief currently at an advanced stage of preparation. [Another objection to the A1 allocation seeking an alternative allocation at Crudie Farms has been assessed on its own merits and in comparison with the A1 site allocation separately in this report].

2.299 In this context, I conclude that are no strategic reasons or exceptional circumstances to warrant allocation of the Warddykes site either in addition to or as a replacement for the A1 housing allocation site on the north side of Arbroath.

Recommendation

2.300 For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

92 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Brechin: Key Issues and Development Strategy & Town Centre and Retailing

Objector Reference

Pritchett Planning Consultancy 928/1/1 & 1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.301 The settlement statement identifies three key issues, one of which is how to encourage and improve the vitality and viability of the town centre. The development strategy indicates support for measures to regenerate the town centre.

2.302 Paragraph 9, Town Centres and Retailing, refers to the establishment of a Township Heritage Strategy in the historic centre of Brechin. Policy B8, Town Centre Improvements, supports this initiative for the improvement and/or redevelopment of buildings and sites in the town centre which would support and enhance the retail and service function.

Basis of the objections

2.303 The text in respect of the key issues and development strategy should make it clear that a priority in Brechin is to provide for better quality convenience retail development as existing facilities are no longer capable of serving the current and future needs of the town. Dundee and Angus Structure Plan makes it clear that accessible shopping and the need to ensure that the community as a whole benefits from innovation, choice and change in retail development is an important strand of planning policy in Angus.

2.304 The town centre boundary is tightly drawn around the historic core of the town and is almost wholly within a conservation area. No development opportunity sites are identified for retail development within the town centre or on its edge. Retailers or developers searching for sites for new, innovative retail development find no guidance as to where appropriate areas of search might be.

2.305 Paragraph 9 should acknowledge that the opportunity for new large scale retail development within the town centre is extremely limited and therefore retail innovation is likely to occur in an out-of-centre location. The local plan review should support any opportunities that arise subject to satisfying the criteria of Policy SC23, Large Scale Retail Development Proposals.

93 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The council’s response

2.306 The claimed scope for large scale retail development in Brechin has not been substantiated or quantified. The Angus Retail Study 2002 indicates that the opportunity for future development is limited. In any event, Policy SC23, Large Scale Retail Development, provides clear guidance in terms of the sequential approach. There are vacant properties in the town centre and these would be the preferred location for any retail development. No changes to the local plan review are required.

Conclusions

2.307 I note the Angus Retail Study 2002 concluded that support for a new supermarket at Brechin could not be supported because of the small catchment area and local convenience expenditure capacity. Similarly, other than as a replacement for some existing provision, the capacity to support new discount stores is doubtful. Small-scale retail warehousing provision may be promoted but scope could be limited by new opportunities in nearby Montrose.

2.308 The structure plan refers to Brechin as one of the smaller towns in Angus which offers more locally orientated shopping facilities. In general, the Angus towns are said to provide a range of shopping opportunities geared mainly to the needs of the towns themselves and the rural hinterland. In some instances, the historic core inhibits the scope for physical expansion and renewal. Town Centres and Retailing Policy 1, Town Centres, seeks to promote the Angus towns and their centres as key locations for new retail developments and for complementary uses.

2.309 As pointed out by the council, there has been no justification or quantification of particular need and, in view of the terms of the structure plan and the analysis of the retail study, I conclude that there is no significant demand for additional retail development in Brechin. In turn, I conclude that it is appropriate for the Key Issues to refer to the encouragement and improvement of the vitality and viability of the town centre and for the Development Strategy to support regeneration measures in the town centre. Similarly, I consider the terms of paragraph 9 and Policy B8, Town Centre Improvements, to be appropriate. Although the town centre is tightly defined and much is designated as a conservation area, I believe that the area identified is reasonable, particularly in view of the lack of demand for additional retail development.

2.310 In the event that a significant retail proposal did come forward in Brechin, I accept the council’s argument that Policy SC23, Large Scale Retail Development Proposals (as modified), would provide adequate guidance. Other related policies may also be applied as appropriate.

2.311 Overall, I conclude that the local plan review deals with retailing in Brechin and the town centre in a satisfactory manner without the need for modification.

94 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Recommendation

2.312 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.

95 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Brechin: B1, Housing, Dubton Farm and Omission: Crookston East/Unthank Farm

Objector Reference

Kirkwood Homes Ltd 857/1/1 & 857/1/2

Supporter – B1- Housing, Dubton Farm, Brechin

Dalhousie Estates 807/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.313 B1, Housing – Dubton Farm, allocates approximately 29 hectares of greenfield land in the west of Brechin for residential development together with significant areas of landscaping and public open spaces. An initial phase of 100 units will be released in the plan period and the scale of further land release beyond 2011 will be determined by a future local plan. Various requirements are identified in respect of such matters as structural landscaping, access, transport links, drainage and affordable housing.

2.314 The site lies to the north of the A935, which forms the settlement boundary at this location, leading away from the town centre to a junction with the A90. The allocated land is undulating farmland, with a degree of enclosure by mature trees, and bounds an existing housing land allocation to the east (site B(b)). To the west the land becomes more open and level. This land is allocated for business land supply and is partly developed in this respect. Beyond the business land is a site allocated for a hotel or travel lodge and, finally, adjacent to the junction with the trunk road is a nursery and the Brechin Castle Centre (Pictavia).

2.315 The land known as Crookston East/Unthank Farm is located to the north of Brechin immediately beyond the settlement boundary between Crookston Road to the west and the B966, Trinity Road, to the east. The A90 forms the boundary to the north-west. The land is in agricultural use and rises gently away from the edge of the built-up area towards the A90.

The basis of the objections

2.316 Kirkwood Homes Ltd objects to the B1 designation at Dubton Farm and the lack of a residential allocation at Cookston East/Unthank Farm.

2.317 Dundee and Angus Structure Plan requires a local plan allocation of 240 houses in the Brechin/Montrose housing market area in the period to 2011 with a further 400 in the period

96 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2011-2016. Allowances should provide continued local growth and a range and choice of sites.

2.318 Despite a burgeoning housing market in Angus, since 2000 there have only been 17 house completions in Brechin of which 16 were prior to June 2001. This may indicate a constraint – perhaps ownership or marketing - on site B(b), Bearhill/Rosehill, which has not come forward despite detailed planning permission for 93 houses having been granted. If the site is not effective, it should be relegated to the constrained housing land supply, particularly as it is understood that there is no intention to commence development until 2006 at the earliest. In the absence of any other significant sites, it is clear that housing supply in Brechin is heavily over-reliant on a single site that has failed to come forward.

2.319 Local plan review Table 2.1 shows a required allocation of 120 houses in Brechin of which 100 houses are to be provided at Dubton Farm under B1. Advance structural landscaping required in terms of the existing local plan has not taken place.

2.320 The council believes the site to be a natural expansion which would consolidate the urban form. However, the western approach from the A90 gives an attractive, semi- agricultural impression – open, rural, green and enhanced by the mature tree-lined policies of Brechin Castle to the south of the A935. The Brechin Castle Centre and nursery have open aspects and the business park, although there is likely to be more development, has an open, landscaped texture. Site B1 is a large tract of open agricultural land which contributes greatly to the open, rural impression. Housing would lead to the loss of this important, attractive gateway and would be contrary to the advice contained in PAN52, Planning in Small Towns, insofar as scale and setting in the landscape are key areas to address in considering the scope for and possible direction in which a town could expand.

2.321 A similar adverse impression would be gained from the A90 and, without housing, the open view could be retained as the proposed community woodland would not be necessary.

2.322 In terms of noise and overlooking, both Dubton Farm and the land at Crookston East/ Unthank Farm require planting to screen flanking roads. Sewerage investment would be required in both cases and Dubton Farm is no better located in respect of the town centre and primary schools. Indeed, the major supermarket is on the opposite side of the town centre to site B1, some 1.5 kilometres distant.

2.323 Although well-located for the A90, the final extent of the development at Dubton Farm and Bearhill/Rosehill could cause considerable congestion with dangerous tailbacks on slip roads. Much traffic through the town would also be generated and add to existing congestion. Relatively few residents would work at the business park and most would travel to , Dundee and other towns in Angus.

2.324 Dubton Farm would be better reserved for expansion of the business park which, it has been suggested, will be at capacity by 2008. A contained area of about 3 hectares to the

97 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

south-east corner could perhaps be allocated for housing but there could still be a risk that this would proceed prior to site B(b).

2.325 Brechin has an usually elongated plan form to the west having been extended by 2 kilometres to the Brechin Castle Centre. Additional development along only one side would exacerbate the imbalance whereas development at Crookston East/Unthank Farm would constitute rounding-off.

2.326 Land east of Crookston Road has been previously allocated for development but suffered from sewerage constraints. The major constraints have now been removed. Should the land be allocated as required, an area of community woodland would be provided adjacent to the A90 to provide screening and noise reduction. There is an existing shelter belt to the north-east which marks the extent of a pipeline consultation zone.

2.327 A phased development is intended with an acknowledged requirement to provide off- site sewer connections. There is a capacity of some 154 houses over 11 hectares at 14 per hectare. This would provide the required total to 2011 and make a substantial contribution to the following period. Potential for a further 80 houses exists if required in the longer term. A full range of house types could be provided, including affordable housing. There is easy access to the northern junction with the A90. A new pedestrian/cycleway could be provided to the north of the B966. The land is well-located in terms of the town centre, particularly the main supermarket, and schools.

2.328 The cost of land is higher to the west of the town and this would reduce the range and choice of housing that could be provided at that location.

2.329 Although the overall strategy of the previous local plan directed development to the west of the town, the current local plan review provides an opportunity to re-assess the position and consider alternative options.

2.330 Site B1 should be deleted at Dubton Farm and the settlement boundary extended to include a new residential allocation on land at Crookston East/Unthank Farm. Appendix 2 should be adjusted accordingly.

The council’s response

2.331 The previous local plan inquiry considered the appropriate direction for Brechin to expand and confirmed that this should be to the west, including the residential allocation at site B(b), Bearhill/Rosehill, the business park and the reservation of a site at Dubton Farm for future town expansion. The Reporter considered that the fundamental difference between the chosen direction of development and development to the north-east lay in the fit in the landscape and the quality of residential environment which could be offered. Land to the west offers scope for development which would be unobtrusive in the wider landscape and, at the same time, provide an excellent environment, free from obtrusive traffic noise.

98 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.332 Adopted in November 2000, the current Angus Local Plan provides development guidance up to 2006. The policy framework remains valid but needs to be rolled forward. In so doing, the development strategy for Brechin has been reviewed and there are no overriding reasons why the current strategy should be changed. Accordingly, the local plan review maintains the strategy and allocates the land at Dubton Farm for housing. This and other allocations provide a choice in terms of type of site and location. There is no reason why a range of dwelling types and sizes to meet a variety of needs and affordability cannot be achieved. In this latter respect there is a specific requirement to provide affordable housing.

2.333 Legal issues involving an agricultural tenancy delayed development at Bearhill/Rosehill but these matters have been resolved. The site has been designated as effective in the housing land audit with an anticipated yield of 30 units in the period June 2006/2007. A development brief has been approved and an application for roads construction consent has been submitted. There is no reason to believe that the site will not come forward within the anticipated time period.

2.334 The business park is intended to meet the long term employment land needs of the town. The rate of development is monitored and in 2004 some 7.85 hectares remained at the business park with an additional 0.14 hectare at Montrose Road, Brechin. Annual take-up over the past 5 years has averaged 0.8 hectare indicating that there is employment land to meet demand for the next 10 years. Policy SC13, Employment Land Supply, is intended to maintain a 5 year supply of employment land and should supply fall below the requirement, measures would be taken to acquire and service future employment land.

2.335 All-in-all, the long term development strategy for Brechin is well underway with the establishment of the business park and the granting of planning permission for housing at Bearhill/Rosehill. The allocation of land at Dubton Farm is a key element in the continuing strategy.

2.336 In view of the overall housing land situation, the identified supply in the Brechin/Montrose housing market area provides sufficient housing land to meet the structure plan allowance for the period to 2011, and extends into the indicative allowances for the period 2011-2016. On this basis, there is no need to allocate additional land.

2.337 Dalhousie Estates supports the allocation of land for housing under Policy B1. The land is effective in terms of the requirements of PAN38, Housing Land. A masterplan has been prepared to address the issues raised in allocation B1 and deals with the planning background and framework, landscape character, visual amenity, built heritage, townscape character and open space.

Conclusions

2.338 The objector believes the local plan review provides an opportunity to re-assess the strategic situation and consider alternatives. Indeed, the council has confirmed that the

99 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

situation was reviewed but there was no reason to alter the strategic growth direction to the west of the town.

2.339 In my opinion, the direction of strategic growth determined through the adopted Angus Local Plan set the long term pattern for the development of Brechin. Several important elements of that strategic growth have already taken place including, in particular, the establishment and partial development of the business park. The Brechin Castle Centre and the adjacent nursery are other significant elements. Despite the doubts of the objector, the evidence of the council and Dalhousie Estates leads me to believe that development at site B(b), Bearhill/Rosehill, is moving towards implementation. I consider it is not unreasonable to regard the site as effective and to assume that the houses will be constructed as forecast in the housing land audit.

2.340 Whilst I accept that a local plan review does offer an opportunity to consider options, the implementation of the growth strategy agreed through the adopted local plan has reached a position that any change must be overwhelmingly justified. I conclude that such justification does not exist and therefore the strategy should be maintained. Even if progress had been severely limited thereby offering a more practical opportunity to alter direction, I consider that the direction of growth to the west was the correct option. I believe that, when developed in total, the A935 will continue to be an attractive entrance to Brechin with the density of development and urbanisation steadily intensifying from the junction with the A90. The rural nature of the land to the south of the road will be retained and add to the character of the approach to the town. This I believe to be more important than concern about any perceived imbalance in the urban form and character of the town.

2.341 Notwithstanding the lack of any structural planting in the meantime I believe that, in physical terms, the residential development of site B1 as a whole is capable of integration within the landscape setting of Brechin without detriment to the character of the town. I am therefore not persuaded that a smaller site of 3 hectares should be considered as an alternative. The site has been shown to be effective and a master plan has been prepared. I therefore see no reason to doubt that a contribution of 100 houses could be made in the period to 2011.

2.342 Although it is clear that house completions in Brechin have been very limited in recent years, I believe that, taking into account my conclusions in respect of sites B(b) and B1, the level of development envisaged in the local plan review will be achieved. In a wider context, I also accept the council’s evidence that the structure plan allowance for the Brechin/Montrose housing market area will be fulfilled without the need for further housing land allocations.

2.343 I have noted the objector’s claim that the development of site B1 will generate traffic to the extent that congestion will occur at the junction with the A90 and in the town centre. This claim has not been substantiated and I give it little weight. Similarly, although it is suggested that few residents would work in the neighbouring business park, no statistical evidence has been provided in this respect. Even though it may be that few local people were to be employed in the business park, the opportunity for working close to home would exist

100 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

and, indeed, increase as the business park is further developed. Despite the concern of the objector, the council has explained that, on the basis of past years, there is land available to meet demand for 10 years. In any event, Policy SC13 makes provision for the review and, if necessary, the securing of additional employment land. I therefore do not consider that the allocation of site B1 as a reserve site for employment land is a suggestion that has merit.

2.344 Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of the direction of strategic growth, I agree with the previous Reporter’s opinion and believe that development in the vicinity of East Crookston/Unthank Farm would not fit easily into the landscape setting of the town. Notwithstanding the proposed community woodland and the existing shelter belt, the generally higher elevation of the land would emphasise the unnatural urban impact. I conclude the land is not suitable for residential development and housing should not be encouraged.

2.345 I have noted the comparative assessments of this land with site B1, and even taking into account the location of the main supermarket in the town, I find that, in total, these considerations do not over-ride my foregoing conclusions that site B1 is suitable for residential development or that the land at East Crookston/Unthank Farm is inappropriate for housing.

2.346 Taking all these matters into account, I endorse the terms of the local plan review in respect of B1, Housing – Dubton Farm, and, in turn, I am unable to support the objection seeking an alternative housing land allocation at East Crookston/Unthank Farm.

Recommendation

2.347 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.

101 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Brechin: B9 – Community Woodland, Cookston

Objector Reference

J Mather 610/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.348 Proposal B9, Community Woodland, Cookston, allocates approximately 7.3 hectares of land adjacent to the A90 for community woodland and recreational open space.

2.349 The A90 dual carriageway adjoins the northern boundary on an embankment.

Basis of the objection

2.350 The land has previously been allocated for housing purposes and an element of housing is required in addition to the community woodland.

The council’s response

2.351 The previous local plan inquiry considered the possibility of housing on the site but this was rejected in favour of alternative sites as the proximity of the A90 would not provide a good quality residential environment. Although any residential proposal would require a noise impact assessment in terms of PAN56, Planning and Noise, it was considered unlikely that the problem could be dealt with satisfactorily due to the topography of the site and the height of the A90 embankment.

2.352 Scottish Water has indicated that there is no spare sewer capacity to allow even a limited number of houses.

Conclusions

2.353 I have noted the terms of the report of the previous local plan inquiry and concur with the conclusion that practicable and visually acceptable measures to mitigate the impact of the A90 would not be possible. I have considered particularly whether a limited housing development could be achieved in conjunction with community planting but I have concluded that even this would be undesirable in view of the proximity and disposition of the dual carriageway. In any event, the lack of capacity in the sewer is a further significant constraint.

102 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Recommendation

2.354 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

103 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Key Issues – caravans and camping

Objector Reference

Carnoustie Business Association 509/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.355 Policies SC17, Tourism Development, and SC18, Caravan Sites and Holiday Chalets, and associated text are contained in the tourism section of Part 2 of the local plan review. The Key Issues in the Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement refer to the promotion of Carnoustie as a holiday location with an international golfing reputation.

Basis of the objection

2.356 Clear direction is lacking in respect of tourism development in the Carnoustie area.

2.357 A reduction in parking sites for touring caravans and the loss of a camping site is detrimental to tourism development, a situation which must be remedied well before the British Open golf championship is played at Carnoustie in 2007. The local plan review does not allow for increased caravan and camping sites in the town.

The council’s response

2.358 The demand for caravan and camping pitches was taken into account when assessing the proposal for a new primary school at Queen Street (Proposal C9). The caravan site itself is under-utilised for most of the season but could be reorganised to provide an attractive facility to meet demand at all but peak times.

2.359 When the British Open was last played at Carnoustie, planning permission was granted for temporary caravan sites. This option remains available. Proposals for permanent facilities would be considered under Policy SC17, Tourism Development, and Policy SC18, Caravan Sites and Holiday Chalets.

Conclusions

2.360 The Key Issues facing Carnoustie and Barry include “How to develop opportunities that sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location, including its international golfing reputation…” Although there is no specific reference to caravans or camping the list of key issues is necessarily relatively generalised. I believe it is reasonable to regard the promotion

104 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review of Carnoustie as a holiday location, with emphasis on the importance of golf, as encompassing all related matters including caravans and camping. Equally, the development strategy supports the development of golfing facilities which, in my opinion, provides implicit support for related caravan and camping provision.

2.361 I understand that the new primary school site at Queen Street utilised part of the adjacent caravan site (see objection C9 below). However, it is clear that thought was given to the level of supply and it was considered by the council that, for the most part, adequate provision would remain.

2.362 The British Open is an exceptional event and, at best, Carnoustie will be the venue on relatively infrequent occasions as the championship is played on various courses throughout the country. The council has said that provision was made for temporary sites at the time the Open was last played at Carnoustie and that this remains an option for 2007. I believe this is a pragmatic and suitable approach.

2.363 The council has also drawn attention to Policies SC17 and SC18. The associated text recognises that caravan and camping sites form an important part of the local tourist industry, particularly along the coast and in some parts of Strathmore. I consider that these policies and the text provide a balanced basis on which to assess tourism development and, in particular, caravan sites and holiday chalets. I do not consider it necessary for specific reference to be made to Carnoustie.

Recommendation

2.364 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

105 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Development Strategy – Carnoustie seafront

Objector Reference

E J Oswald 172/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.365 The Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement identifies the development of opportunities to sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location as a key issue.

Basis of the objection

2.366 Serious consideration should be given to including proposals for environmental improvements at the seafront prior to the 2007 British Open golf championship.

The council’s response

2.367 Work on the seafront has been ongoing for several years including constructing coastal defences and providing a coastal cycle route. A further extensive programme of improvements to the seafront has been approved and it would be appropriate to recognise the role of Carnoustie seafront as a recreational resource. It is therefore proposed to modify the local plan as follows:

Settlement statement, introduction, paragraph 5; amend as follows:

The beach, seafront and golf links provide…

Key Issues: add a further bullet point as follows:

the development of Carnoustie seafront as a tourism and recreation asset;

Development Strategy: add a further bullet point as follows:

continued enhancement of the seafront area including foot and cycle paths:

2.368 As a consequence the objection was conditionally withdrawn.

106 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.369 The proposed modification is appropriate and meets the terms of the objection. I see no reason to dissent.

Recommendation

2.370 I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby the settlement statement, Key Issues and Development Strategy are amended as indicated above.

107 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: C6, Working – Clayholes, Carnoustie (proposed amendment) and Omission - Panbride North/Carlogie Road, Carnoustie

Objector Reference

D J Laing Contracts Ltd 934/1/1 (per Montgomery Forgan Associates & Voight Partnership) Mr Henderson (owner of Pitskelly Farm) Supporter (per Ian Kelly)

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

Written Submissions Lodged on: Policy C6; Panbride North; or related topics:

(a) Carnoustie Community Council 163/1/2 (b) Residents Group Carnoustie 915/1/4 & 915/1/5 (c) Mr Joseph Carr 693/1/1 (d) Charlton Smith Partnership 844/1/1 (e) Dr Peter Shaw 234/1/1 (f) Mrs AS & Mrs M Franklin 190/1/1 (g) Susan McMahon 164/2/1 & 164/1/5 (h) Mr & Mrs Galloway 144/1/1 (i) J Ryan & A M Ryan 146/1/1 & 599/1/1 (j) Mr I Foggie (Supporter of C6) 950/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.371 The allocation of employment land to serve the needs of Carnoustie and Monifieth has been the subject of on-going assessment and review by the council, which led to the allocation of land at Clayholes for industrial, business and related employment uses in Policy C6 of the FALPR published in February 2006. The allocation of that site has been the subject of some objections, mostly relating to access and proximity to residential properties. A number of alternative sites have been explored to provide employment land, although in general options to the west of Carnoustie are more difficult/costly to implement because of drainage constraints. Since FALPR was published the closure of the former Maltings on Victoria St has prompted interest in possible wider renewal for non-business uses of the Panmure industrial area between the railway, Kinloch St, Brown St and the new housing at

108 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Taymouth Terrace. This would require suitable land and premises elsewhere in or around Carnoustie for existing businesses wishing to relocate from that area.

2.372 On this basis, approximately 12ha of employment land, which is larger than originally thought, would be required to meet both the relocation needs of existing businesses on the Panmure Industrial Estate and the approved structure plan requirements for 5 years supply of marketable employment land. The council acknowledges that this is significantly more than the originally allocated site at Clayholes could satisfactorily accommodate (5ha). Accordingly, it considers that the development boundary for Carnoustie should revert to its previous position. Following the completion of the A92 upgrading and improvements to associated roads, a reassessment of possible sites in and around Carnoustie for employment uses has taken place (based on visibility, potential for landscaping, accessibility, relationship with Carnoustie and Monifieth and future development pressure). This has led to the proposal in the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications for a 12ha site north of Pitskelly Farm to be proposed as the new industrial development land allocation for Carnoustie, which would replace the C6 site at Clayholes.

Basis of the Hearing objections

DJ Laing

2.373 In the above context the proposals in the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications for a larger industrial land allocation of 12ha for Carnoustie are welcomed in principle. In the objector’s view, however, the site at Pitskelly Farm now put forward by the council is not appropriate and would not be deliverable within the required timescales. It is also argued that as it is an open site which is devoid of any landscape features, industrial proposals on the Pitskelly Farm site would be incongruous, even with new landscape planting.

2.374 It is pointed out that sites that had been short-listed previously by the council for industrial land allocations at the western side of Carnoustie faced servicing difficulties, which proved critical in the case of sites investigated at Barry and Pitskelly. It is argued that similar difficulties with foul and surface water drainage will mean that the new Pitskelly Farm site now proposed by the council would be either insurmountable or at best would lead to significant delays and costs in implementation such that it would not be available in time for relocation of existing businesses from the Panmure Estate. Furthermore, the objector contends that the landowner of the Pitskelly Farm site has not welcomed the council proposal to purchase the land in question for industrial use and points out that compulsory purchase would take time.

2.375 Against this background the objector argues that a 24ha site at Panbride, east of Carlogie Road is both appropriate and deliverable to meet the short and long term needs for industrial and business expansion to serve Carnoustie. It refutes the contention made by the council that the Panbride site is too visible and unsuitable as it is on the route for golfers heading to Carnoustie. It is pointed out that the objector, together with the landowner, has made an on-going commitment to deliver a planned employment and business park on the Panbride site. A Masterplan has been prepared which shows how this business park and

109 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

adjoining industrial park development would provide a ‘gateway’ feature for Carnoustie, with landscaping exploiting the screening opportunities presented by the natural landforms and existing trees. It is argued that the illustrative layouts, which take special care to incorporate bunding and landscaping to complement the existing landform and utilise the mature woodland features of the site, would address the concerns previously raised by the council regarding development at that location being visible over the ridge line and encroaching into open countryside. It is pointed out that the shortcomings of Pitskelly and the benefits of Panbride were highlighted in the council’s own assessment of short-listed site options in 2003.

2.376 It is stated that the Carlogie/Panbride Masterplan, prepared on behalf of the objector, illustrates how the existing link road from the A92 into Carnoustie would be realigned at Carlogie, as part of the development package, in accordance with what is being sought by the council for that link road. As well as improving the access into Carnoustie this new link would provide a gateway feature and a division between the proposed business park to the west and the industrial area to the east of the link road, both of which would be landscaped, as well as making additional land immediately to the east of that available for future expansion, if required. The council’s suggestion that the Panbride site would be more visible than the Pitskelly site is refuted by the objector and this matter was explored from different viewpoints at the site inspection.

Mr Ian Kelly: agent for the Pitskelly site landowner (supporter of the council)

2.377 Speaking on behalf of Mr Henderson, the owner of Pitskelly Farm (including the 12ha of land now proposed by the council for allocation for employment uses), Mr Kelly stated that Mr Henderson had not yet had detailed discussions with council officials about their proposals for the site concerned. Nevertheless he indicated his support for the council proposals in the 3rd Round Modifications, stating that he wished it to be known that as the landowner he would be a willing partner in the development or seller of the land required at Pitskelly Farm to enable it to be promoted for business and industrial uses, as now proposed by the council. He also stated that Mr Henderson recognises the important roles of himself as the local landowner, the council as planning authority and of the objector Mr Laing in the development of industrial and business sites in Carnoustie. He also recognises, however, the challenges in terms of the design and cost of infrastructure to implement the proposal at Pitskelly Farm and is willing to explore these challenges with the council in the context of a development brief for the site concerned.

Summary of the Written objections

Objectors (a), (b), (c) & (d)

2.378 Object to allocation of the C6 site for employment land on the grounds that:

* there will be visual, noise and traffic impacts for local residents; the site would be very visible from the A92;.

110 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

* Balmachie Road/A92 junction will/may be permanently closed and heavy traffic would use Carlogie Road/Newton Road and Barry Road/West path. This would be unacceptable given school pedestrian access along both routes. Only solution would be the reinstatement of the direct connection of the A92 with Balmachie Road. * site has poor access and Balmachie Road would need to be upgraded. * this site can only be accessed through existing and new housing areas and could generate high volumes of HGV traffic along Newton Road and Balmachie Road. This could well include 24 hour flows.

2.379 In the view of the Residents Group there are potentially better sites at Barry and Pitskelly, as advertised in the Draft 2003 ALP.

Objectors (e) and (f)

2.380 Object to the allocation of 12 hectares of farm land at Pitskelly for a Business and Industrial site, for the following reasons:

* Location will spoil an area of rural beauty and prime agricultural land. * This development will not enhance the promotion of Carnoustie as a golf/holiday destination and no amount of structural landscape planting would screen it effectively as the site is exposed – making it visible from a considerable distance. * The existing industrial site at the maltings site in Carnoustie would be available when demolished. * Hatton Airfield was designated as an industrial site some time ago. * Would extend 'ribbon development' and disrupt/spoil an area used recreationally by walkers, cyclists, joggers and riders

Objector (g)

2.381 Feels that a Business Park at Batties Den would be more appropriate than the C6 site. It is also pointed out that a business park just south of Batties Den to the west of the road would have direct access to the A92 but would not be visible from it.

Objector (h)

2.382 Objects to the Proposed Modification to allocated at Pitskelly Farm, as the owners of Ravensby Farm which adjoins the 12ha site at Pitskelly. It is argued that the proposal at Pitskelly would despoil an area of rural beauty which is on the main route into Carnoustie and so would conflict with the promotion of the town for golf and holidays. Industrial users should re-use the Maltings site or Hatton Airfield which was designated for industrial use some time ago.

Objectors (i) & (j)

2.383 Object to any housing or commercial development north of Panbride Road, stating that all development should be accordance with the Angus Local Plan Review. It is argued

111 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

that the land north of Panbride Road is prime agricultural land which performs a green belt function along the boundary of Carnoustie.

The council’s response

2.384 While Dundee and Arbroath will continue to be the major employment centres, the council points out that there is a need to provide for at least the level of employment land identified in the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan (page 12, paragraph 3.7 and Employment Policy 1 Employment Land Supply) to provide land for the local employment needs in Carnoustie. Throughout the Local Plan Review process, Angus Council has considered various options in and around Carnoustie to meet future needs for employment land. It points out that its site search process revealed that there are no sites within the town which can meet the employment land requirements for a modern business park.

2.385 As stated above, the allocation of employment land to serve the needs of Carnoustie and Monifieth has been subject to ongoing assessment and review. The adopted Angus Local Plan and Consultative Draft Review identified approximately 4.2ha land at Barry for employment use. Development proposals for that location, however, proved not to be viable, largely due to drainage constraints. On the basis of Scottish Planning Policy 7 Planning and Flooding (SPP7), published in February 2004, as that site is in a medium to high risk flood area and comprises undeveloped land in the flood plain, the council concluded that the Barry site should not be developed.

2.386 The Consultative Draft Angus Local Plan Review also identified land (approximately 6ha) for possible employment use at Pitskelly Farm, north-west of the town [but on a different part of the Pitskelly Farm land to that now being considered]. The inclusion of that site raised some objections to the Consultative Draft Plan. Whilst there were issues associated with servicing this site, including drainage and electricity supply, the council considered that these could be addressed.

2.387 After further assessment of potential sites around Carnoustie, land at Clayholes was finally allocated for employment use in the FALPR. The Clayholes site is adjacent to existing and proposed development by Heather Pre-Packs; has both water and drainage available; and could accommodate local demand over the plan period. A number of objections to the Clayholes site allocation have been received, mostly relating to access and proximity to other uses. An alternative site adjacent to Carlogie Road was submitted for employment use and Batties Den was also suggested as a possible employment site.

2.388 Since publication of the FALPR, the closure of the former maltings on Victoria Street has prompted the requirement for a larger area of land (approx 12ha) to meet the Structure Plan requirement for a five year supply of marketable employment land and to accommodate relocating and expanding companies and to provide for new employment opportunities, as outlined above. The council now acknowledges, firstly, that the site at Clayholes could not satisfactorily accommodate this increased scale of development required and, secondly, that it has access problems, as well as being the subject of objections from nearby residents. Whilst the earlier 6ha site at Pitskelly, identified at the consultative draft local plan stage, had

112 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

raised some objections and had some associated difficulties with drainage and electricity provision, the council thought these could be addressed. It concluded, however, that the site previously identified there would be too small to provide the 12ha now required. Similarly, other sites considered at the consultative draft plan stage, in particular a 4.2ha site at Barry, proved not to be viable due to drainage constraints - and would again be too small, in any event. Other potential sites investigated included the one now preferred at Pitskelly Farm, as well as other sites adjacent to Carlogie Road and one at Batties Den.

2.389 The council points out that, in terms of accessibility, the 12ha site now proposed at Pitskelly Farm is well located, having excellent road linkages with the A92 and the town via the link road. The site is within one kilometre of the town and approximately 750metres from the A92, and can be connected to footpath, cycle and public transport linkages. This site is not visible from the A92, being screened by the landform and existing woodland. It will be visible from the Upper Victoria access road, one of the main accesses to the town, and so the requirement for structural landscaping and design issues will be central to the development and will mitigate potential impact. Light emissions (street lights etc) will generally be seen against a background of light from the town, and can be addressed through the development brief. It should be noted that major development proposals will normally require a development brief to establish principles of landscaping, access, drainage, design, phasing etc. In terms of land quality, Carnoustie is surrounded by prime agricultural land and the proposed sites at Pitskelly, as well the other sites considered at Clayholes and Carlogie are all Class 1 agricultural holdings. Policy ER29 of the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review allows for development proposals when the use prime quality agricultural land is required to meet the strategy of the Local Plan.

2.390 In its written submissions, the council did not comment directly on the alternative site at Panbride/Carlogie being put forward for consideration by the objector DJ Laing. When invited to do so at the hearing, the council summarised its perception of the positives (strengths) and negatives (weaknesses) of the Panbride/Carlogie site:

Strengths:

• It is serviceable with no drainage constraints • It is accessible strategically (via the A92 Carlogie junction nearby) and locally (including being on an existing bus route) • It could provide a new link road (which already has planning permission) improving the route from the A92 junction into Carnoustie • It is available for development immediately • The 24ha of land available more than meets the 12ha now being sought and could offer scope for future expansion, if required

Weaknesses:

• The development here might result in existing woodland being lost

113 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• The development would be on a raised beach and hence visible from the A92 and minor roads creating a negative landscape impact – the council has resisted development to the north of the ridge line at Carlogie for this reason • The development would be visible from Panbride Conservation Area (to the south- east of the site) and would produce light pollution evident from this vantage point • It would be situated in close proximity to the hotel at Carlogie • The development might present problems of access onto the existing road network

2.391 For comparison purposes, the council suggested that the Pitskelly Farm site offers the following strengths (and associated weakness, pointing out how some of these could be addressed):

• It is serviceable – arguing that the drainage problems evident here could be solved at a cost of £750,000 • The questions regarding the local electricity substation were not major and could be addressed at reasonable cost, it was argued • The site is accessible strategically (via the new Upper Victoria Link junction onto the A92) and is linked to the foot and cycle network – although it is not convenient for bus routes, being 800-1000m from the nearest services • It is available (noting the agreement and co-operation of the landowner concerned) • It meets the requirement to provide 12ha of land • Its landscape setting is positive, in the council’s view, being over the ridge line, making it less visible (than the Panbride site) from the coastal parts of the town – but it is acknowledged that the Pitskelly site is open in the landscape and outside the urban envelope, as well as being further from the town centre, compared with the Panbride site

2.392 In summary, having considered all of the potential options, including the Panbride site, the council remains of the view that the 12ha land identified immediately north of Pitskelly Farm would be suitable for employment land / business park use to serve Carnoustie and Monifieth. It states that development of this site could take advantage of a landscape setting that contains the site at an important entrance to Carnoustie. It points out that the 3rd round modifications re-draft Policy C6 and associated text, as set out below, to provide an allocation to this effect and make reference to a development brief to be prepared for this site.

“Delete and replace paragraph 16 and Policy C6 : Working – Clayholes as follows:

16. The investigation and identification of a suitable site to meet the needs of new, expanding and relocating businesses in the Carnoustie and Monifieth area has involved a number of sites in and around Carnoustie being assessed by the Council for employment use. This has included consideration of issues relating to servicing, access and environmental impact.

17. The recent closure of the former maltings on Victoria Street has prompted interest in a possible wider renewal for non-business uses of the area between the railway,

114 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kinloch Street, Brown Street and the new housing at Taymouth Terrace. Such a scheme would require the provision of suitable land and premises elsewhere in Carnoustie to accommodate the relocation of existing businesses which may wish to move from this area. Angus Council will seek to work in partnership with the local business community and other interested parties to promote this redevelopment and renewal opportunity in Carnoustie.

18. As a result of this, a larger area of land (approximately 12 ha) than initially sought will need to be identified to meet the Structure Plan requirement for a five year supply of marketable employment land, to accommodate relocating and expanding companies and to provide for new employment opportunities. A new site will need to be located to meet the demands of a range of modern business, whilst being located and designed to minimise potential detrimental effects on the built and natural heritage.

19. A site on the Upper Victoria Link at Pitskelly Farm provides an opportunity to address issues of accessibility within Carnoustie, the impact of some business activities on surrounding amenity and to provide a modern facility for the long term business needs of Carnoustie and Monifieth with good access to the A92. It also takes advantage of the landscape setting which contains this site, and opportunities to reduce the wider environmental impact of development on an important entrance to Carnoustie.

C6 : Working – Pitskelly Farm, Upper Victoria

Approximately 12 ha of land at Pitskelly is located for Class 4* (business), Class 5* (general industry), and Class 5* (storage and distribution) uses.

Proposals should be in accordance with the development brief which will be prepared for this site and will include details of the following requirements:- • road access and access by foot, cycle and public transport; • foul and surface drainage; • site layout and design to accommodate a range of business uses; and • landscaping and other boundary treatment.

Structural planting and landscaping within and around the site should take place at an early stage. Given the location of this site, landscaping, boundary treatment and building design will require to be to a high standard.

An archaeological evaluation may be required and any development proposals will require to incorporate relevant recommendations.

* As defined in the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997

Amend paragraph 2.45 bullet point 4 to read:

115 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie – land allocated at Pitskelly Farm.

Re-number following paragraphs accordingly, and amend Carnoustie Proposals Map to illustrate modified Development Boundary and location of site C6.”

Conclusions

2.393 There appears to be no disagreement that the site originally allocated at Clayholes, which I note already has some adjoining employment uses, is now not considered appropriate and is no longer the council’s preferred location for industrial expansion. This follows the objections lodged, primarily regarding its access difficulties and its proximity to existing residential properties and takes into account the limited scale of the land available at Clayholes. There seems to be widespread acknowledgement, including from the council, that there would be benefits for Carnoustie as a whole if the land allocated in the local plan review for employment uses was large enough to accommodate existing businesses which could be relocated from the Panmure Industrial Area near the town centre, as well as catering for new industrial and business uses - in line with the requirements of the approved structure plan regarding maintaining a 5 year supply of marketable land for these purposes. I note that the Clayholes site would be too small and could not be expanded to provide the 12ha of land now required to meet these anticipated needs, including relocation requirements of existing businesses. I also note from my site inspection that the Clayholes site is highly visible from the A92 road. In particular, the sheds of the existing industrial premises at Clayholes are prominent in the landscape when viewed from that newly dualled road, even with the bunding that has been introduced to provide some screening.

2.394 In this context, a number of possible alternative sites around Carnoustie have been explored by the council to provide employment land to meet existing and future requirements. I note that most of these sites have now been ruled out, generally because they are either too small and/or they have flooding or drainage constraints that would be costly to overcome, particularly in the case of sites to the west of Carnoustie. Accordingly, based on the evidence presented, as summarised above and reported elsewhere in respect of Batties Den, it appears that there remain only two site options to consider as ‘contenders’ to provide the necessary employment land at this time – the Pitskelly site put forward by the council in its 3rd Round Modifications (and now supported by the landowner) or the Panbride/Carlogie (the ‘Panbride’) site. In support of the Panbride site, a local plan objector (in co-operation with the owner of that land) has put forward detailed arguments together with a Masterplan layout and associated documentation to illustrate why that site should be preferred to the Pitskelly one for inclusion as the allocated site to replace C6 Clayholes in the local plan review. Based on the available evidence as well as accompanied and unaccompanied site inspections from different viewpoints, I have the following observations on the comparative merits of the two sites, Pitskelly and Panbride, as put forward by the council and the objector supporting that alternative site, respectively.

116 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Size:

2.395 In my view, both of the sites would be able to provide the necessary 12ha meet future needs, including satisfying the requirements of the approved structure plan for a 5 year supply of marketable employment land. In my view, however, the Panbride site has a more clearly defined opportunity for future enlargement beyond that (up to 24ha in total), with land (immediately to the east of the proposed 12ha site) already earmarked by the objector to meet that longer term need, if required.

Site Configuration:

2.396 Whilst the Pitskelly Farm site is a simple, flat rectangular field layout, the illustrative proposals for Panbride show how the landform, existing mature trees and the proposed realignment of the link road from the A92, through a new cutting, would be used in combination to provide a division between the proposed business park at Carlogie (to the west of the new link road) and the proposed industrial park to be established in a woodland setting to the east of that new road link.

Strategic location:

2.397 Both of the proposals would be on routes linking junctions of the A92 with Carnoustie – via the Upper Victoria Link in the case of Pitskelly and via the Carlogie junction in the case of Panbride. I note that the latter is regarded by the council as the primary approach route for golfers and other visitors arriving into Carnoustie. There is no dispute that the Pitskelly site is situated more distant from the town of Carnoustie than the Panbride site.

Road access:

2.398 Both of the sites are conveniently situated for road access via new grade-separated junctions on the A92, as detailed above. The Panbride site offers an added advantage of enabling one of the main road links from Carnoustie to the A92 to be realigned, and funding for this as part of a development package. This link is one that the council has identified as a project but has no funds to implement itself in the near future, apparently.

Access to public transport, footways and cycle routes:

2.399 There is no disagreement that whilst the Pitskelly site is close to footways and cycle routes it is relatively remote from existing bus services – the nearest being 800m and 1,000m from the site. The Panbride site has equally good footway and cycle access but has the added advantages of being situated on an existing bus service route and being closer to the town centre of Carnoustie.

117 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Visibility in the landscape (from the A92 and other vantage points):

2.400 The Pitskelly site is described by the council as “taking advantage of the landscape setting which contains the site and opportunities to reduce the wider environmental impact of development on an important entrance to Carnoustie.” I do not regard the landscape setting as containing this particular site - which in my view sits in open landscape with no definition beyond its field boundaries which are insubstantial. Furthermore it appears as an island within agricultural fields and is openly visible from sections of the A92 road. Its open aspect when viewed from the A92 and when approaching from the north, on the link road from the A92 Upper Victoria, would make it highly difficult to screen effectively. Accordingly, I am concerned that standard industrial or business units on the Pitskelly site would be highly visible and would detract markedly from the attractive rural setting in which it is situated. I accept, however, that the Pitskelly site is not visible from the town of Carnoustie, because it is situated north of the ridge line which runs from east to west, broadly parallel with the coastline. Nevertheless I agree with the objectors who are concerned that development of this open field to provide an industrial estate would spoil an area of rural beauty - and unnecessarily in my view, for the reasons given below.

2.401 The Panbride site, whilst north of the same ridge line has the benefit of a belt of existing mature trees, many of which could be retained and supplemented to provide effective screening when viewed from the south and from the north. The existing views of the site from the A92 are already very limited and fleeting - due to the intervening undulating landforms, cutting of the main road and existing trees. I note that the promoters of the Panbride site propose to use the existing landform together with levelling/sculpting and bunding of the site and further landscaping in order to ensure that standard height industrial units would not be prominent, even when viewed from below the ridge line immediately to the south. From the illustrated layouts and my site inspections I was able to confirm that there would not be any significant views of the Panbride site from the Panbride village conservation area, as suggested by the council. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the proposed new alignment and cutting of the link road from the A92 to Carnoustie, whilst welcome in itself, would also provide a useful opportunity to act as a divide between the proposed new business park alongside the Carlogie House Hotel to the west of that realigned road and the proposed industrial park to the east of it, with proposals for further screen planting and berms to the north and south of the site to supplement existing trees and the natural landform which contain the site. The illustrative proposals also offer the prospect of a providing new gateway to the town at the proposed entrance roundabout to the development. Such potential benefits are not apparent in the Pitskelly site location.

Landscape features and scope for mitigation/screening:

2.402 For the reasons outlined above, linked to the open aspect of the Pitskelly site, I am concerned that there would be insufficient opportunities for mitigation to offset the open aspect of the Pitskelly Farm site through mounding or screen planting. Given the long time required to provide an appropriate height of trees through new planting, I consider that adequate screening of that site would entail excessive bunding, which would not be in keeping with the surrounding rural landscape in my view. I am satisfied, however, that the

118 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

illustrative drawings produced to support the Panbride proposals demonstrate how the existing landforms and mature trees there already can be utilised and supplemented by other measures - including site levelling, berms and further planting and the new link road, as outlined above – to provide satisfactory screening for a business park and an industrial park which does not detract from its gateway location at the entrance to Carnoustie.

Servicing:

2.403 There is no disagreement that in common with most sites to the west and north-west of Carnoustie there are servicing difficulties associated with the Pitskelly site, in particular with respect to foul and surface water drainage. I note that the council and the landowner of Pitskelly Farm recognise these difficulties but remain confident that they can be technically addressed - at a cost estimated at £750,000 by the council. I also note that this assessment is disputed by the objector who thinks the costs would be substantially higher, if they could be satisfactorily addressed at all within acceptable costs and time limits. There is no dispute that the Panbride site does not present any servicing constraints and could be developed without any abnormal servicing costs, with easy connections to the trunk sewer and other service providers.

Local Objections

2.404 I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by objectors and accepted by the council that:

• there is now a requirement for approximately 12ha of employment land to meet relocation needs of existing businesses on the Panmure Industrial Estate as well as meeting the structure plan requirements for a 5 year supply of marketable employment land • the Clayholes site is too small and cannot be expanded to provide 12ha of employment land and is in any event situated unacceptably close to existing residential development to be acceptable for large-scale industrial development.

2.405 As the Clayholes site is too small to provide sufficient employment land and the council is already proposing to replace that site by another allocation elsewhere in the finalised plan review, through the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications, the objections to the allocation of the site at Clayholes do not require further consideration. I note that there are objections (146/1/1 and 599/1/1) which are conditionally withdrawn if the Panbride site is not allocated, as well as one other objection lodged which also seeks to resist development north of Panbride Road, based on the fact that this is prime agricultural land. I also note, however, that there are no potential sites of a suitable scale within the built-up area of Carnoustie available for industrial or business park development and many sites investigated in the surrounding area have severe drainage constraints and are therefore not viable options. In this context the remaining short-listed sites for consideration, in particular those at Pitskelly Farm and at Carlogie/Panbride Road, are generally on prime agricultural land beyond the main built up area of Carnoustie. Given these particular local circumstances, in my view the fact that it is prime agricultural land is not a valid reason for excluding land at

119 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Pitskelly Farm or at North of Panbride Road from any shortlist of possible sites to provide the required employment land to serve the needs of Carnoustie. All of the other matters of concern raised by objectors have been taken into consideration in my overall assessment above and dealt with under other topic headings, as appropriate.

2.406 Based on all of the above considerations, whilst I endorse the abandonment of the C6 Clayholes site allocation, I do not support the council’s proposed replacement of that by an allocation of 12ha of employment land at Pitskelly Farm, for the reasons outlined above. In summary, I consider that the council’s proposed allocation of the 12ha site north of Pitskelly Farm would set an unfortunate precedent encouraging further development in open countryside which is not justified, particularly when there is an alternative option at Carlogie/ Panbride Road. In any event, unlike the Panbride site, in my view the Pitskelly site could not be adequately screened, given its open countryside setting. I have come to this conclusion taking account of the various documents submitted and my site inspections. Based on the available evidence, and for the reasons stated above, I am persuaded that, on balance, the Panbride site offers a better option for development of employment uses than the Pitkselly site proposed by the council in the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications. I have considered the arguments put forward against the Panbride proposals, including those put forward by local residents concerned about the views of that site – but, for the reasons outlined above, I find that their concerns, whilst understandable, do not outweigh the various benefits of development of that site in the manner proposed.

2.407 Accordingly, I conclude that the council should amend the local plan allocation for employment land for Carnoustie, in particular to replace the C6 text and associated wording set out in those modifications with a new policy and associated supporting text to promote in its place the site at Carlogie/Panbride Rd - along the lines set out in the drawings, illustrative Masterplan and other supporting documentation put forward on behalf of D J Laing Contracts Ltd (Objection 934/1/1).

Recommendation:

2.408 For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the local plan review should be amended. In particular, as set out in my conclusions, the modified policy C6 and associated paragraphs in the 3rd Round Modifications should be deleted and replaced by an equivalent policy, supplemented by associated background and supporting text, to promote the 12ha Carlogie/Panbride site for employment use, in particular to provide a business park and industrial park as well as an improved link road and a gateway entrance feature to the town, with land to the east of that being earmarked for potential future expansion if required.

120 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: C8 - Primary School Site, Thomas Street

Objector Reference

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) 227/1/9

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.409 The Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement indicates under C8 that 2.4 hectares at Thomas Street is allocated for a new two stream primary school.

Basis of the objection

2.410 There is an unacceptable flooding risk associated with the site.

The council’s response

2.411 Outline planning permission for a primary school at Thomas Street was granted on 26 May 2005. The matter was referred to the Scottish Ministers as SEPA maintained an objection to the proposed development on the grounds of flooding risk. On 27 October 2005 the Scottish Ministers indicated that it was not intended to intervene in the application and the council was authorised to deal with the matter. The decision not to intervene was reached on the basis that the council would attach previously notified conditions, and on the understanding that:

• ground levels are no lower than 6.1m AOD, floor levels no lower than 6.6m AOD and that the school is located in a suitable manner on the site; • the council is willing to discuss with SEPA the nature of the works involved in reducing flow velocities; and • an emergency response plan will be prepared prior to the occupation of the school.

2.412 The certificate of outline planning permission was issued on 29 December 2005 subject to 21 conditions including 5 related to flooding matters and incorporating the measures required by the Scottish Ministers.

2.413 The Forfar/Carnoustie Schools Project, which includes the school at Thomas Street, has subsequently progressed. In November 2005 the council appointed approved bidders for the project. A reserved matters application for the new school at Thomas Street was submitted and will be progressed through the development control process. It is expected that the new primary school at Thomas Street will be occupied in August 2007.

121 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.414 To a large extent, events have overtaken the plan-making process. I recognise the concern of SEPA in respect of flooding but the situation has been considered by the Scottish Ministers and outline planning permission has been issued. I am satisfied that the conditions applied to the outline planning permission ensure that adequate flood prevention and emergency response measures can be secured. In any event, SEPA requires to be consulted and I note that it is a condition of outline planning permission that any agreed measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the school and shall be maintained thereafter.

2.415 All-in-all, I conclude that the basis for a satisfactory development has been achieved.

Recommendation

2.416 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

122 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: C9 - Primary School Site, Queen Street

Objector Reference

Carnoustie Community Council 163/1/4 Susan McMahaon 164/1/6 James Cook 177/1/1 George F Rohan 755/1/1 & 1/2 Mrs S M Barnett and Mr K M Barnett 821/1/1 & 1/2 and 822/1/1 & 1/2 Daniel Hood 824/1/1 Alistair W M Paul 893/1/1 Alan Kattenhorn 895/1/1 & 2 Mr & Mrs Alexander Hyslop 907/1/1 & 1/2 George O’Donnell and Ethel O’Donnell 908/1/1 & 909/1/1 Residents Group, Carnoustie 915/1/1, 1/2, 1/3 & 1/7

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.417 Proposal C9 allocates 1.2 hectares at Queen Street for a new single stream primary school as part of the programme for upgrading school facilities in Carnoustie. The site was formerly part of a caravan park and is adjacent to a public park.

Basis of the objections

2.418 The objectors express general concern about the standard of consultation.

2.419 The proposal is contrary to several environmental objectives of the local plan review. Policy ER6 seeks to protect from development trees, woodlands and hedgerows that have a landscape, amenity and/or nature conservation value. It would be appropriate to promote a tree preservation order to protect trees in the adjacent Carnoustie House grounds and in the caravan park. Similarly, valued parts of the open space network, such as the site, are to be protected with a general presumption against development. In general terms the council has a commitment to conserving and enhancing the historic and cultural heritage of Angus and the local characteristics of towns and villages. Brownfield sites should be given precedence and in this respect there is potential for the refurbishment of Kinloch Primary School which the plan indicates will be surplus to requirements. Other alternative sites suggested involve land at Shanwell Road and Clayholes allocated for a sports ground and employment land. All-in- all, the proposal undermines the credibility of the council in respect of environmental protection. As a recognised recreational area and civic amenity, it would be more appropriate to incorporate the land into the adjacent park or use it for community-based purposes.

123 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.420 Loss of part of the caravan site is contrary to Policy SC17, Tourism Development and undermines the objective of sustaining and promoting Carnoustie as a holiday location.

2.421 In any event, the site is unsuitable in safety terms and would involve a main road crossing for many children, a problem exacerbated by poor sight lines at the entrance to the site. Congestion would occur when children were being dropped-off and collected. A primary school would not be compatible adjacent to an area of quiet residential uses.

The council’s response

2.422 The new school is intended to replace Kinloch Primary School and is an essential element in the measures being promoted to improve educational facilities in Carnoustie and Forfar. Consultation went beyond the statutory requirements and changes to the site were made in response to comments. An outline planning application was submitted in August 2004 and included a traffic assessment. Traffic management has been proposed and a planning brief has been prepared to guide design, form and layout taking into account the sensitive nature of the site. The matter was referred to the Scottish Ministers who subsequently authorised the council to deal with the application. Outline planning permission was issued on 17 May 2005.

2.423 It is proposed to refer to the issue of outline planning permission in the local plan review by means of a modification.

2.424 The situation continues to progress: approved bidders for the overall project have been appointed and a reserved matters application has been submitted. It is anticipated that the new Queen Street Primary School will be occupied in August 2007.

2.425 The Community Council objected to the modification on the basis that the consultation process referred to by the council was inadequate, that the claimed public support was exaggerated and that, in effect, the community has been presented with a fait accompli. The outline planning permission was issued in the absence of any provision in the draft local plan. The local plan review should be altered to indicate that a more suitable site is to be identified for the location of a new central primary school.

Conclusions

2.426 It is sometimes the case that an ongoing project will run parallel to the local plan preparation process. Indeed, as in this instance, the project has outpaced the local plan review. I believe it is necessary to take a pragmatic view of the situation and recognise the inevitability of the construction of the new primary school. Despite the concerns expressed by the objectors, particularly the community council, I have no reason to doubt that the various statutory procedures were undertaken and, in this respect, the council has stated that the consultative measures taken exceeded the basic requirement.

2.427 Although the community council suggests that there was a lack of opportunity to object to the proposal through the local plan preparation process, this was not the case as the

124 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

site is shown in the finalised local plan review. Objections to that document were invited and are considered in this report.

2.428 Concern has been expressed about the proximity of residential development but I consider that it is entirely appropriate to locate primary schools close to housing. Despite misgivings in terms of environmental impact, I believe that the site has the capacity to accommodate a well-designed single steam primary school. Indeed, in recognition of the sensitive nature of the site, the council has prepared a development brief and undertook a transport assessment as part of the outline planning application. Notwithstanding suggestions for an alternative location, I conclude that the site at Queen Street is a suitable primary school site location.

2.429 I understand that the council has more recently approved the application for reserved matters. Although the issue of detailed planning permission does not guarantee implementation, I believe it is not unreasonable to anticipate that the project will proceed. I do not dispute that some of the alternative uses suggested for the site would be worthwhile in themselves. Similarly the alternatives suggested may not in themselves be inappropriate although the merits of the various options have not been argued in detail. Under the circumstances, however, and taking a pragmatic approach, I conclude that C9, Primary School Site, Queen Street, Carnoustie, should be retained in the local plan review and the current situation should be indicated.

Recommendation

2.430 I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby C9, Primary School Site, Queen Street, Carnoustie, as amended as follows:

1.2 ha of land at Queen Street, Carnoustie is reserved for a new single stream primary school. (Planning permission for the development was granted on 17 May 2005)

125 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Carlogie

Objector Reference

Hermiston Securities 724/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.430 The objection site is an extensive area of countryside surrounding Carlogie Farm to the north of Carnoustie, generally between Carlogie Road to the east and Balmachie Road to the west.

2.431 The Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement indicates that the beach, sea front and golf links provide an excellent base for the holiday and tourism market and the championship golf course enjoys an international reputation with the return of the British Open in 2007. Key Issues include developing opportunities to sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location, including its international golfing reputation. The Development Strategy includes supporting the development of golfing facilities, where appropriate, to further strengthen this internationally recognised asset.

2.432 The text explains that the consultative draft local plan review suggested investigating the feasibility of establishing a new 18 hole golf course with ancillary facilities. This resulted in significant interest including some preparatory studies. Such a major development requires clear evidence that it will fully meet the qualitative demands which underpin the international golf tourism market. There remain some significant uncertainties as to how and whether a course of the exceptional quality sought can be provided at the optimum location.

2.433 In these circumstances, it is suggested that further work and consultation is required before arriving at an informed view. In the event that proposals are subsequently advanced which meet the high expectations and requirements for a new golf course, these would most appropriately be considered and progressed as part of a future alteration or review of the local plan. Account would be taken of the scale and type of housing and other development which may be required to financially support the development of the new golf course.

2.434 C12, Golf Course Development, confirms that the scope and opportunities for creating a new high quality golf course with ancillary facilities on a suitable site on the periphery of Carnoustie will be kept under review for potential further consideration in a future review or alteration of the local plan.

126 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Basis of the objection

2.435 Evidence exists that a golf course of international quality can be developed broadly in accordance with the aspirations of the finalised local plan as set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement and C12, Golf Course Development, and with the proposal promoted at Clayholes/Carlogie in the consultative draft local plan. That proposal involved a combination of golf and housing. That proposal should therefore be reinstated in Inset Map 3, the Carnoustie development boundary should be extended to embrace the site and paragraphs 19 and 20 should be altered accordingly.

The council’s response

2.436 Such a significant development requires clear evidence that the proposal would fully meet the qualitative demands, which underpin the international golf tourism market and which has itself been subject to downturns and variations in demand. It has been clearly indicated by those involved in golf in Carnoustie and in the international golf tourism industry that the type and quality of any new course needs to meet the highest standards in order to attract golf interest from home and abroad. To date neither a detailed development proposal nor sufficient supporting information has been presented to enable a full assessment of the prospects for a further golf course in Carnoustie. In the meantime, therefore, significant uncertainties remain as to how or whether a course of the exceptional quality sought can be provided in the optimum location.

2.437 In these circumstances and recognising the potential risks to existing golf and related facilities in Carnoustie of falling below the standard required, a precautionary approach is necessary, with further work and consultation required before an informed view can be taken.

2.438 The level of ancillary development is also important, particularly in relation to the scale, location and type of housing and other development which may be required to financially support the development of a major golf course. Existing housing land allocations, approved development sites and the potential that can come from opportunity sites throughout the Carnoustie, Monifieth and the Sidlaws section of the wider Dundee and South Angus housing market area already meet the approved structure plan housing requirements. The 2005 housing land audit indicates an increasing land supply in housing market area. Potential for 1,325 houses has been identified compared to 1,216 in the finalised local plan review.

2.439 The finalised local plan review therefore makes no land allocation for a new golf course or further greenfield housing land release. The scope and opportunity for creating a new high quality championship golf course with ancillary facilities on a suitable site on the periphery of Carnoustie will be kept under review for potential further consideration in a future alteration or review of the local plan.

127 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.440 The text of the local plan review recognises the possibility of providing a further golf course at Carnoustie but, equally, sets out the need for clear evidence that all qualitative demands will be fully met.

2.441 This requirement is echoed by the council in response to the objection with a confirmation that neither a detailed development proposal nor sufficient supporting information has been provided to make a full assessment.

2.442 In support of the objector’s case it is simply stated that there is evidence to support a golf course of international quality in terms of the proposal brought forward at the time of the consultative draft local plan. A combination of golfing and housing was proposed but no details have been made available to this inquiry.

2.443 I share the opinion of the council that a precautionary approach is the most appropriate. The qualified support for a new golf course offered by the local plan review strikes a reasonable balance along with the recognition of the likelihood of accompanying housing, the scale, location and type of which would be a matter for consideration. In particular, Policy C12 indicates the matter will be kept under review for future consideration in a future alteration or review. The reference to promoting an alteration, especially, is an indication of the importance the council places on the prospect of a new golf course of suitable quality in an appropriate location.

2.444 Although I note the consultative draft of the local plan review identified the objection site under designation C2, Golf Course Feasibility Study, the limited contents of the objection do not persuade me that this or a similar allocation should be reinstated.

Recommendation

2.445 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

128 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land north of Newton Road playing fields, west of Carlogie Road

Objector Reference

Angus Estates Limited 570/2/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.446 The objection site lies to the north of Carnoustie adjacent to housing sites C(c) and C1, where development is well-advanced.

2.447 The land lies outwith the Carnoustie settlement boundary which is immediately to the south.

2.448 Carnoustie is within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.

Basis of the objection

2.449 The land was part of the long term housing supply identified in the consultative draft local plan. The allocation should be re-instated as it would provide a natural extension to the current housing development at Newton Road. There is easy access to both the town and the A92, particularly once the proposed Carlogie Road improvement is completed. The site could provide a development opportunity in its own right or it could form part of a larger town expansion scheme.

The council’s response

2.450 A wide range of greenfield and brownfield sites in the Dundee and South Angus housing market area have been promoted by developers and/or landowners as housing sites.

2.451 Notwithstanding site location, landscape setting, infrastructure, and accessibility, a key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective land supply in terms of the provisions of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan which requires 1,045 houses in the South Angus area in the period to 2001-2011. The supply of 1,216 houses identified in the finalised local plan review in the housing market area already meets the housing requirement in full for the period to 2011. The range of allocated sites and the existing supply of windfall sites currently under construction or with planning permission are distributed across the housing market area. This total does not include the potential yield from any brownfield opportunity

129 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

sites or any further windfall sites which may come forward. On this basis, there is no requirement to allocate any further greenfield housing land.

2.452 The performance of housing land continues to be monitored through the annual housing land audit. Should a shortfall in the five year effective land supply become apparent, alternative sites for development should then be identified through additional allocations. However, the 2005 housing land audit indicates a rising land supply in the housing market area with an increase to 1,325 houses. This total not only provides housing land to meet the allowance for the period to 2011 but also contributes significantly to the indicative requirement for the period 2011-2016.

2.453 Additionally, planning permission has recently been granted for the development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie involving the redevelopment of a 2.3 hectare site at the former maltings in Victoria Road (in outline) and 78 flats on the site of the former Dalhousie Golf Clubhouse in Links Road (detailed).

Conclusions

2.454 I note that the consultative draft local plan review allocated land to the north of sites C(c) and C1, including the objection site, “for 150 houses up to 2011 plus longer term housing.”

2.455 Objections to the strategic land supply were considered under Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, and, in particular, it was concluded, in terms of the structure plan target for the South Angus housing market area, that the finalised local plan review provides for a surplus of 132 houses in the period to 2011. As explained by the council, the 2005 housing land audit has demonstrated an increased supply and that, as a consequence, a significant indicative contribution can already be made to the structure plan period beyond 2011. Additionally, the council points out that planning permission has been granted for substantial brownfield development on two sites in Carnoustie. In these circumstances, and taking into account the conclusions in respect of the consideration of objections to Policy SC1, I conclude that there is no strategic justification for the release of the objection site for residential development.

2.456 It is clear from the terms of the consultative draft local plan review that the council considered the land is suitable for residential development and this has not been disputed in the response to the objection. I can accept that in terms of location the objection site has merit for residential development. However, whether or not the land will ever again be brought forward for housing purposes will depend on future reviews of the local plan and the housing land requirements at the time.

Recommendation

2.457 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

130 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land at Clayholes (Newton Farm)

Objector Reference

Heather Pre-Packs Limited 548/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.458 The objection site lies to the north of Carnoustie between Carlogie Road to the east and Balmachie Road to the west adjacent to housing sites C(c) and C1, where development is well-advanced, and a recreation ground.

2.459 The land lies outwith the Carnoustie settlement boundary which is immediately to the south.

2.460 Carnoustie is within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.

Basis of the objections

2.461 The housing land supply in the South Angus housing market area is very restricted and the structure plan strategy of directing the majority of housing land release to areas within the Dundee city boundary is proving to be unsuccessful. Alternative housing land requires to be identified to make good the shortfall.

2.462 The objection site was allocated for housing in the consultative draft local plan and has been deleted because the council believes the structure plan requirement has been met. The principle of the use of the land at Newton Road for housing has not been questioned by the council. In any event, despite the possibility of windfall sites coming forward, SPP3, Land for Housing, seeks to provide choice for the house purchaser and recognises that there will always be an element of greenfield release.

2.463 The objectors have contributed significantly to bringing balanced developments to the Carnoustie area including the current house building at Newton Farm, the relocation of industrial operations to a more suitable location at Clayholes Farm on the outskirts of the town and the provision of land for playing fields. Further land is being brought forward for industrial and business use to assist employment levels.

2.464 The release of the land as required would pre-empt the anticipated problems which will arise through the non-delivery of housing land in terms of the structure plan strategy and ensure the plan-led approach required by the council. Additional development at Newton

131 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Farm would maintain the strategy of expanding Carnoustie towards the A92 in association with the site at Clayholes Farm for economic development.

The council’s response

2.465 A wide range of greenfield and brownfield sites in the Dundee and South Angus housing market area have been promoted by developers and/or landowners as housing sites.

2.466 Notwithstanding site location, landscape setting, infrastructure, and accessibility, a key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective land supply in terms of the provisions of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan which requires 1,045 houses in the South Angus area in the period to 2001-2011. The supply of 1,216 houses identified in the finalised local plan review in the South Angus housing market area already meets the housing requirement in full for the period to 2011. The range of allocated sites and the existing supply of windfall sites currently under construction or with planning permission are distributed across the housing market area. This total does not include the potential yield from any brownfield opportunity sites or any further windfall sites which may come forward. On this basis, there is no requirement to allocate any further greenfield housing land.

2.467 The performance of housing land continues to be monitored through the annual housing land audit. Should a shortfall in the five year effective land supply become apparent, alternative sites for development should then be identified through additional allocations.

2.468 The 2005 housing land audit indicates a rising land supply for the housing market area with an increase in supply to 1,325. This total not only provides sufficient housing land to meet the allowance for the period to 2011 but also contributes significantly to the requirement for the period 2011-2016.

2.469 In addition planning permission has recently been granted for the development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie involving the redevelopment of a 2.3 hectare site at the former maltings in Victoria Road (in outline) and 78 flats on the site of the former Dalhousie Golf Clubhouse in Links Road (detailed).

Conclusions

2.470 I note that the consultative draft local plan review allocated land to the north of sites C(c) and C1, including the objection site, “for 150 houses up to 2011 plus longer term housing.” In the belief that the merits of the objection site for housing have been established, the objector’s case is limited to strategic considerations related to the housing land provisions of the structure plan, especially in terms of the South Angus housing market area.

2.471 Objections to the strategic land supply were considered under Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, and, in particular, it was concluded, in terms of the structure plan target for the South Angus housing market area, that there is a surplus of 132 houses in the period to 2011. As explained by the council, the 2005 housing land audit has demonstrated an increased supply and, as a consequence, a significant contribution can already be made to the structure

132 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review plan period beyond 2011. Additionally, the council points out that planning permission has been granted for significant brownfield development on two sites in Carnoustie. In these circumstances, and taking into account the conclusions in respect of the consideration of objections to Policy SC1, I conclude that there is no strategic justification for the release of the objection site for residential development.

2.472 It is clear from the terms of the consultative draft local plan review that the council considered the land is suitable for residential development and this has not been disputed in the response to the objection. I can accept that in terms of location the objection site has merit for residential development. However, whether or not the land will ever again be brought forward for housing purposes will depend on future reviews of the local plan and the housing land requirements at the time.

Recommendation

2.473 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

133 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Panbride/Westhaven

Objector Reference

Angus Estates Limited 570/1/2 & 936/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.474 The settlement boundary to the east of the Carnoustie and Barry inset map is formed by a minor road that adjoins a residential area to the west. To the east the land is in agricultural use, sloping gently towards the sea. A road runs from the south-east extremity of the built-up area parallel to the coast with an intervening open area through which the railway runs. A minor road also runs eastwards from the north-east edge of the built-up area towards and beyond the hamlet of Panbride. Land to the north of this road and the built-up area is in agricultural use and with a very gentle upward slope.

2.475 The local plan review settlement statement indicates that the beach, sea front and golf links provide Carnoustie and Barry with an excellent base for the holiday and tourism market and the championship golf course enjoys an international reputation with the return of the British Open in 2007. Key Issues include developing opportunities to sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location, including its international golfing reputation. The Development Strategy includes support for the development of golfing facilities, where appropriate, to further strengthen this internationally recognised asset.

2.476 The text explains that the consultative draft local plan review suggested investigating the feasibility of establishing a new 18 hole golf course with ancillary facilities. This resulted in significant interest being expressed including some preparatory studies. Such a major development requires clear evidence that it will fully meet the qualitative demands which underpin the international golf tourism market. There remain some significant uncertainties as to how and whether a course of the exceptional quality sought can be provided at the optimum location.

2.477 In these circumstances, it is proposed that further work and consultation is required before arriving at an informed view. In the event that proposals are subsequently advanced which meet the high expectations and requirements for a new golf course, these would most appropriately be considered and progressed as part of a future alteration or review of the local plan. This would also have regard to the scale and type of housing and other development which may be required to financially support the development of the new golf course.

134 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.478 Policy C12, Golf Course Development, confirms that the scope and opportunities for creating a new high quality golf course with ancillary facilities on a suitable site on the periphery of Carnoustie will be kept under review for potential further consideration in a future review or alteration of this local plan.

Basis of the objection

2.479 Initially the objection sought the allocation of land at Westhaven and Middleton of Panbride, respectively east and north of Carnoustie, to be allocated for a golf course and associated development including housing.

2.480 The future expansion of Carnoustie should be linked to the complementary provision of a golf course. This would build on the town’s international reputation for golf and generate related benefits from the leisure and tourism market. At present, Carnoustie does not fully harness the economic benefits as most golfers simply visit on a day trip basis. A second course would provide an incentive to stay in the town and Carnoustie would become a golfing base. The land at Westhaven is the only suitable location at the edge of the town capable of providing a links course of the quality and style to attract the international market.

2.481 Although Policy C12 acknowledges the scope for a golf course, the text refers to “significant uncertainties”. Despite the key issues emphasising the international golf reputation of the town and the development strategy supporting the provision of golfing facilities, the overall content of the local plan review represents a missed opportunity.

2.482 In terms of the golf course, the seaside location meets the needs of the target customer – the overseas golf visitor. A leading designer and developer of golf courses has confirmed the site of some 58 hectares is suitable and fulfils all the criteria for links golf course design. The gentle slope would allow a layout which would focus visual awareness on the sea, the view of the intervening railway and road being obscured by landscaping and earthmoving. The club house, driving range and practice area would be located away from existing buildings. Effective golf course investment would involve the phased release of land for housing at Middleton of Panbride. Easy access is possible and there are no significant drainage constraints. All the required land is in one ownership. Development would encourage greater use of the underused rail halt.

2.483 The land for housing is effective and could provide a range of house types including high quality, low density development appropriate for association with the golf course, mid- market housing and affordable housing. A gentle slope up to a ridge line excludes the land from longer views of the town and therefore provides the optimum landscape setting for the residential boundary of the town. A wide landscape buffer would be planted along the northern boundary to further enhance the ridge line. Other landscaping would be provided to protect the amenity of existing residents.

2.484 Limited very high quality housing is proposed at Panbride village related to the golf course environment. This would also enhance the character of the hamlet.

135 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.485 The golf course would provide a defensible boundary and protect against future piecemeal expansion to the east. Links would be provided to other services and facilities in the town with an emphasis on public transport, footpaths and cycleways. Schools are convenient. There is access to the A930 which is to be re-aligned to improve the link to the A92 which itself has been upgraded.

2.486 Insofar as the council has indicated that no significant housing land releases can be supported in terms of the structure plan requirement, it is acknowledged that the local plan review could not be adopted as being in conformity with the structure plan should a substantial housing allocation be put forward in association with the golf course.

2.487 Similarly, the council’s concerns in respect of financial viability and the need to deliver the required quality of golf course are recognised. However, in terms of the high level of investment involved, and on the basis that Westhaven is accepted as being the optimum location for a links golf course of an appropriate standard, greater locational preference should be included in the local plan review.

2.488 An inter-related allocation in the local plan review will ultimately be required in terms of both the golf course at Westhaven and the associated housing to enable sufficient funding. At this time however, recognising the possible strategic difficulties in respect of new housing, it is believed that the objection should be pursued on the basis that the local plan review should maintain support for a high quality golf course in Carnoustie with a reference to the preferred location being at Westhaven, subject to the terms of Policy C12. The local plan review strategy for Carnoustie should emphasise the international golfing reputation and the desirability for a second links course to build on the latent potential derived from the championship course. The proposed modifications are as follows:

insert an additional second sentence in paragraph 19 as follows:

From this, it has been concluded by the council that land to the west of the town at Westhaven is the preferred location for a new high quality championship standard 18 hole golf course on the basis that it offers a complementary links course to the existing championship course and fulfils the characteristics required for an international golf venue.

amend Policy C12 as follows:

insert “at Westhaven” between “on a suitable site” and “on the periphery of Carnoustie”

The council’s response

2.489 The council re-iterates the terms of the local plan review insofar as such a significant development requires clear evidence that the proposal will fully meet the qualitative demands which underpin the international golf tourism market. During the consultation process, it was clearly indicated by those involved in golf in Carnoustie and in the international golf tourism

136 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

industry that the type and quality of any new course needs to meet the highest standards in order to attract golf interest from home and abroad. Significant uncertainties still remain as to how or whether a course of the exceptional quality sought can be developed in the optimum location. Neither a detailed development proposal nor sufficient supporting information has been provided to enable a full assessment of the prospects for a further golf course in Carnoustie. Consequently the uncertainty surrounding such a project remains.

2.490 In these circumstances and recognising the potential risks to existing golf and related facilities in Carnoustie that would result from falling below the high standard required, it is proposed to maintain the precautionary approach previously adopted, with further work and consultation required before an informed view can be taken. The level of ancillary development also remains a central issue, particularly in relation to the scale, location and type of housing and other development, which may be required to financially support the development of a major golf course. Existing housing land allocations, approved development sites and the potential that can come from opportunity sites throughout the Carnoustie, Monifieth and the Sidlaws part of the housing market area already meet the housing requirements of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. The local plan review therefore makes no land allocation for a new golf course or further greenfield housing land release. The scope and opportunity for creating a new high quality championship standard 18 hole golf course with ancillary facilities on a suitable site on the periphery of Carnoustie will be kept under review for potential further consideration in a future alteration or review of the local plan.

Conclusions

2.491 The objector states a clear requirement for residential development to provide financial support for the golf course project. Whilst this is not an uncommon feature and the construction of houses may be regarded as an appropriate and necessary adjunct to the provision of a new golf course, the scale of the housing proposed in this instance has strategic significance. In this respect, in considering objections to the overall level of housing land supply (Policy SC1) it was concluded that the local plan review does not require additional allocations to meet the terms of the structure plan. I therefore conclude that there is no strategic justification for an additional housing land allocation at Carnoustie and Barry and that the potential scale of the housing land release envisaged in the objection would be contrary to structure plan allowances.

2.492 Potential problems in respect of the strategic housing land situation have been acknowledged by the objector who, in the event of no further allocations being required, has amended the objection to identify Westhaven in the supporting text and Policy C12 as the preferred location for a new golf course and ancillary facilities. The council has given no indication that this approach would be acceptable and has maintained the precautionary stance included in the local plan review whereby no specified location is identified or preferred.

2.493 In my opinion, the modification required by the objector would not only indicate a preference for the Westhaven location in terms of the development of a new golf course and

137 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

ancillary facilities, it would also implicitly suggest that residential development must be anticipated. In terms of the level of such development referred to by the objector, it is inevitable that there is potential for a significant impact to result. Although reference has been made to the local landform reducing the impact on longer views to the town and the intended provision of tree planting, I believe the level of detail provided is not such as to convincingly demonstrate that the landscape setting of Carnoustie would be protected. Similarly, although there is reference to links to services and facilities and the provision of schooling and drainage, these matters are not analysed in any depth. Again it is my opinion that the extent of the information provided is insufficient to justify the significant scale of housing that would be envisaged should the golf course proceed.

2.494 Much research has been undertaken in terms of the golf course itself and the objector explains that the new facility would provide a links course with sea views. I have little doubt that a golf course of high quality could be constructed on the site at Westhaven. However, I consider that certain aspects of the proposal require further clarification. Although close to the sea, there is a significant intervening area to the south through which pass the coast road and railway line. No part of the course would therefore be immediately adjacent to the sea. In this respect, I do not believe that it has been shown conclusively that the golf course turf would be of true links quality. Although the objector states that the view of the road and the railway could be obscured by earthmoving and landscaping, it seems likely that, in so doing, the view of the sea would be similarly obscured therefore eroding the fundamental attraction of the new golf course. The traffic generated by the development and the scope for additional use of the rail halt have not been quantified. I consider that these are matters requiring further investigation.

2.495 In view of the foregoing, I share the opinion of the council that a precautionary approach is the most appropriate. The local plan review offers qualified support for a new golf course and recognises the likelihood of accompanying housing, the scale, location and type of which would be a matter for consideration. In particular, Policy C12 indicates the matter will be kept under review for consideration in a future alteration or review. The reference to promoting an alteration, especially, is an indication of the importance the council places on the prospect of a new golf course of suitable quality in an appropriate location.

Recommendation

2.496 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

138 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – site for “superloo”

Objector Reference

Mr E Oswald 172/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.497 The local plan review does not make any reference to particular facilities to be provided in or adjacent to Carnoustie Station.

Basis of the objection

2.498 The local plan review should include a proposal for a superloo in the railway station yard, finance having previously been included in the council budget.

The council’s response

2.499 The provision of individual public toilets is beyond the scope of the local plan in view of the scale of the proposed land use, particularly as a site has not been identified.

2.500 In any event, the provision of public toilets at the railway yard is being addressed with finance included as part of the Angus Rail Interchange Project. There are ongoing negotiations with Network Rail in respect of providing additional car parking and toilet facilities.

Conclusions

2.501 An increase in modern facilities, including “superloos” is generally to be welcomed. It is clear that the council is supportive of this proposal and has been actively involved in negotiations with Network Rail. However, I agree with the council that the scale of a public toilet is not such as to warrant inclusion in the local plan review. Equally, of course, the omission of the required reference would not preclude the provision of a superloo should the negotiations have a successful outcome, particularly as it appears that finance is available.

Recommendation

2.502 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

139 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - proposals map – road closures

Objector Reference

Residents Group, Carnoustie 915/1/6

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.503 The Carnoustie and Barry inset map shows three improved links between the town and the upgraded A92/A930. These are simply shown as bold red lines without detail. The map is relatively small scale although it is possible to discern streets and buildings in the town. There is no further detailed map for the town centre. The line of the upgraded road and the three Carnoustie links are also shown on the main proposals map which is at a scale of 1:100,000.

Basis of the objection

2.504 The proposals map does not indicate all road closures in connection with the A92 upgrade, nor does it show proposed amendments to the local roads system as it relates to Queen Street, Newton Road, Holyrood Street and Balmachie Road.

The council’s response

2.505 Detailed amendments to the local road network and road closures are not shown on the local plan maps as these are a matter of traffic management. As road layouts are amended the maps will be updated in due course.

Conclusions

2.506 A balance must be struck on the level of detail shown in the proposals map. The scale must be such that the maps are manageable and yet remain legible. The level of detail shown must retain a reasonable degree of clarity. I believe that the emphasis in a local plan should be on identifying land uses and, in particular, areas where land use change is anticipated. In this respect, it is my opinion that the balance achieved by the council is appropriate in both the settlement inset maps and the main proposals map. I do not consider a more detailed town centre map for Carnoustie is required.

2.507 Whilst it would be of interest to show road closures on the proposals map, I do not believe this to be an essential requirement in terms of the land use issues associated with the local plan review. The links to the upgraded A92 are clearly shown and the council has

140 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

undertaken to amend the maps as they are updated. It is possible for the updating process to take place without any formal procedures in respect of modifications or alterations to the local plan.

2.508 I therefore conclude that it is not necessary for the proposals maps to indicate road closures.

Recommendation

2.509 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

141 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, south

Objector Reference

John Gray 896/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.510 The roughly triangular site extends to some 4.6 hectares to the immediate south of the eastern end of the Barry by-pass. The south-western boundary is adjacent to the Barry Burn whilst the eastern boundary is formed by a road beyond which is residential development. The site is set down below the level of the adjacent by-pass and the vegetation has marshy characteristics.

2.511 The site is outwith the development boundary which is marked by the eastern boundary of the objection site.

Basis of the objection

2.512 The site was allocated for employment purposes in the previous local plan. A compulsory purchase order was promoted by the council but this did not proceed as it was decided that development would not be viable because of a high water table. A local building company has now offered to increase the level of the land using inert material and development is now believed to be viable. There is very little other land for business/employment use.

The council’s response

2.513 Following allocation of the site for employment use in the Angus Local Plan, further site investigation was undertaken and compulsory purchase proceedings were initiated. However, the CPO was not pursued in the light of uneconomic development cost and continuing resistance to the proposal by the owner.

2.514 It was found that the cost of foul drainage and land raising was higher than anticipated. Surface drainage was also a problem because of the high water table. However, in view of an interest expressed by a developer the allocation was included in the consultative draft local plan review.

2.515 The guidance contained in SPP7, Planning and Flooding, is relevant to the potential development of the site. As a greenfield site within the flood plain of a watercourse identified

142 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

as being of medium to high risk, that is, having a flood probability greater that 0.5% (1:200), the site is classed as generally not suitable for development. In this respect, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has intimated the likelihood of objecting to any proposed greenfield development within the flood plain of the Barry Burn.

2.516 An alternative location that can be serviced and developed at reasonable cost has been identified in the local plan to meet local needs. The ability to relocate existing firms as part of a wider rationalisation of employment land in Carnoustie also requires a larger allocation of land than was initially proposed. This is in accordance with the requirements of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan whereas the objection site would be too small to meet current needs.

Conclusions

2.517 The council has proposed a modification to the local plan review whereby an additional 12 hectares of land was proposed for employment purposes as site C6, Working – Pitskelly Farm, Upper Victoria. There were objections to this site and an alternative was proposed at Clayholes. It has been recommended that the alternative site should be included in the local plan review in place of Site C6. Both sites (Site C6 and Clayholes) are capable of ensuring the structure plan target for an effective 5 year supply of employment land can be maintained. On this basis, whichever site is allocated C6, the objection site is not required to make good any strategic shortfall.

2.518 The council has explained that the objection site lies within the flood plain of the Barry Burn. Development at this location would represent a medium to high risk with the flooding probability being greater than 0.5% (1:200).

2.519 SPP7, Planning and Flooding, sets out the risk framework and identifies medium to high risk areas as those with an annual probability of watercourse, tidal or coastal flooding greater than 0.5% (1:200). This guidance is reflected in the local plan review where Policy ER27, Flood Risk Assessment, indicates that undeveloped or sparsely developed areas in the 1:200 category are generally not suitable for additional development.

2.520 I have noted that the possibility of raising the level of the ground has been suggested and that the site is now believed to be viable. SPP7 explains that land raising which permanently elevates a site above a functional flood plain may have a role but there are implications in terms of the provision and maintenance of compensatory flood water storage, and the impact on other areas. Details in these respects have not been provided. Similarly, I have no evidence to indicate that a flood risk assessment has been undertaken or that any threat could be mitigated in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances it is necessary to take a precautionary approach and withhold any support for the development of the site.

2.521 Overall, I conclude that in view of the availability of alternative employment land and the potential flood risk implications, the land should not be allocated for employment purposes.

143 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Recommendation

2.522 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

144 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, north

Objector Reference

John Gray 896/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.523 The objection site extends to about 3.3 hectares north of the eastern end of the Barry by-pass between buildings on the southern and western side of the road passing through the village and Station Road to the west. The Barry Burn flows along the objection site side of Station Road. The southern and western parts of the site are in agricultural use.

2.524 The local plan review places the site outwith the settlement, the boundary of which is adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site.

2.525 The site lies within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.

Basis of the objection

2.526 On the basis that the land to the south of the by-pass is allocated for employment use (see objection 896/1/1 above), the land to the north of the road provides a classical infill opportunity. It lies adjacent to the primary school and would be ideal for housing. The site has defensible boundaries with roads to the north and south. It would be more suitable than other sites proposed in the local plan review.

The council’s response

2.527 A wide range of greenfield and brownfield sites in the Dundee and South Angus housing market area have been promoted by developers and/or landowners as housing sites.

2.528 Notwithstanding site location, landscape setting, infrastructure, and accessibility, a key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective land supply in terms of the provisions of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan which requires 1,045 houses in the South Angus area in the period to 2001-2011. The supply of 1,216 houses identified in the finalised local plan in the South Angus housing market area already meets the housing requirement in full for the period to 2011. The range of allocated sites and the existing supply of windfall sites currently under construction or with planning permission are distributed across the housing market area. This total does not include the potential yield from any brownfield

145 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review opportunity sites or any other windfall sites that may come forward. On this basis, there is no requirement to allocate any further greenfield housing land.

2.529 The performance of housing land continues to be monitored through the annual housing land audit. Should a shortfall in the five year effective land supply become apparent, alternative sites for development should then be identified through additional allocations. Indeed, the 2005 housing land audit indicates a rising land supply for the housing market area with an increase to 1,325. This total not only provides sufficient housing land to meet the allowance for the period to 2011 but also contributes significantly to the requirement for the period 2011-2016.

2.530 In addition, planning permission has recently been granted for the development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie involving the redevelopment of a 2.3 hectare site at the former maltings in Victoria Road (in outline) and 78 flats on the site of the former Dalhousie Golf Clubhouse in Links Road (detailed).

2.531 In terms of site specific considerations, the site is subject to a network drainage constraint imposed by Scottish Water as there are constraints in the pipe network and at the Barry pumping station. The land is within the undeveloped floodplain of the Barry Burn at a location identified by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the 1:100 year flooding map. In terms of SPP7, Planning and Flooding, such areas are not suitable for additional development.

2.532 Development would extend Barry to the by-pass, changing the nature and character of the village and the entrance to Carnoustie.

Conclusions

2.533 My conclusions in respect of the land to the south of the by-pass (see objection 896/1/1) led to the recommendation that the land should not be allocated for development. In turn, the argument that the land to the north represents an infill opportunity does not remain valid.

2.534 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the council has drawn attention to the wider context for assessing the need for additional housing land allocations. In terms of objections to Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, it was concluded that there is no requirement for further housing land release in order to meet the structure plan targets. This applies to the South Angus housing market area where allocated housing land will provide a surplus in the period to 2011. The council has explained that the 2005 housing land audit has shown an increased supply. Additionally, planning permission has been granted for the residential development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie. The objector has stated that the site is more appropriate for housing than land which has been allocated for residential purposes. This claim has not been substantiated other than to highlight proximity to the primary school, and, all-in-all, I conclude that there is no strategic requirement for the allocation of the objection site for residential development.

146 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.535 The council has also indicated that the site lies within the flood plain of the Barry Burn.

2.536 SPP7, Planning and Flooding, sets out the risk framework and identifies medium to high risk areas as those with an annual probability of watercourse, tidal or coastal flooding greater than 0.5% (1:200). This guidance is reflected in the local plan review: Policy ER27, Flood Risk Assessment, indicates that undeveloped or sparsely developed areas in the 1:200 category are generally not suitable for additional development.

2.537 I have no evidence to indicate that a flood risk assessment has been undertaken or that any threat could be mitigated in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances it is necessary to take a precautionary approach and withhold any support for the development of the site.

2.538 Although the objector has referred to the containment of the site by existing roads, the council has drawn attention to the extension of development to the by-pass and the impact on the entrance to Carnoustie. In my opinion, the by-pass enhances the character of Barry and the land between the village and the road, which is largely undeveloped, plays an integral part in retaining local character. I therefore agree with the council that the release of the objection site would have an adverse impact on the character of Barry. I also accept that the roundabout at the eastern end of the by-pass provides a suitable entrance to Carnoustie.

2.539 Overall, I conclude that in terms of both strategic and local considerations, the objection site should not be allocated for residential development.

Recommendation

2.540 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

147 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Greenlaw

Objector Reference

John Gray 896/1/3

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.541 The site of about 1.4 hectares lies to the north-east of Barry and comprises agricultural land adjacent to the recently constructed link road between Carnoustie and the A92. The land lies outwith the settlement envelope

Basis of the objection

2.542 The site lies between land to the west allocated for housing (site C4) and the new link road to the A92 to the east. Infill development would be appropriate, the new road providing a definable and defensible edge to the settlement. The road provides an excellent link to the A92.

2.543 Development would accord with the guidance contained in SPP15, Planning for Rural Development, in terms of encouraging small-scale rural housing developments in close proximity to settlements.

2.544 Drainage has been seen as an obstacle to development in Carnoustie but a new treatment works now provides ample capacity for further housing. The allocation of a reasonable area of land would allow a contribution to improve the sewage pumping station and outflow pipe to the new sewer.

The council’s response

2.545 A wide range of greenfield and brownfield sites in the Dundee and South Angus housing market area have been promoted by developers and/or landowners as housing sites.

2.546 Notwithstanding site location, landscape setting, infrastructure, and accessibility, a key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective land supply in terms of the provisions of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan which requires 1,045 houses in the South Angus area in the period to 2001-2011. The supply of 1,216 houses identified in the finalised local plan in the South Angus housing market area already meets the housing requirement in full for the period to 2011. The range of allocated sites and the existing supply of windfall sites currently under construction or with planning permission are distributed across the

148 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

housing market area. This total does not include the potential yield from any brownfield opportunity sites or any other windfall sites that may come forward. On this basis, there is no requirement to allocate any further greenfield housing land.

2.547 The performance of housing land continues to be monitored through the annual housing land audit. Should a shortfall in the five year effective land supply become apparent, alternative sites for development should then be identified through additional allocations.

2.548 The 2005 housing land audit indicates an increasing land supply for the housing market area with an increase in supply to 1,325. This total not only provides sufficient housing land to meet the allowance for the period to 2011 but also contributes significantly to the requirement for the period 2011-2016.

2.549 In addition, planning permission has recently been granted for the development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie involving the redevelopment of a 2.3 hectare site at the former maltings in Victoria Road (in outline) and 78 flats on the site of the former Dalhousie Golf Clubhouse in Links Road (detailed).

2.550 In terms of site specific considerations, the land is outwith but adjacent to the Carnoustie development boundary and is therefore contrary to Policy S1 (Policy ENV4 in the adopted local plan), Development Boundaries.

2.551 Development of the site would extend the built-up area to the new road line. Currently the edge of Barry is defined by the boundary of Greenlaw Farm which is set back from the road. This maintains the rural context of the village which is screened from view by the landform and woodlands. Housing on the land would bring the built-up area into open countryside with high visibility from the link road as it approaches Carnoustie. The impact would be quite out of proportion to the proposed scale of development.

2.552 This site does not meet the definition of infill in terms of the countryside housing policies of the local plan review insofar as only one house is permissible and the maximum plot size is 0.2 hectare.

Conclusions

2.553 Although the objector has not argued strategic need for the allocation of additional housing land, the council has rehearsed the case for no further releases in the South Angus housing market area. As concluded in the consideration of objections to Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, there is surplus potential in the housing market area, and the council has stated that the 2005 housing land audit has shown the supply to have increased. Furthermore, planning permission has been granted for the residential development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie.

2.554 The council argues that the site is outwith the settlement boundary and development would therefore be contrary to Policy S1, Development Boundaries. The local plan review is an opportunity to assess land use allocations and therefore, should it be considered that the

149 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

objection site is appropriate for residential development, the settlement boundary should be adjusted accordingly. Clearly, this would overcome any policy conflict between land use allocations and the position of the boundary.

2.555 The objector believes the infill of the site would be appropriate and that the road itself would provide a suitable edge to the settlement. It is suggested that development would be in accordance with the provisions of SPP15. On the other hand, the council asserts that the land maintains the rural setting of Barry and that development would also have a significant impact on the approach to Carnoustie along the new link road.

2.556 The allocation of the land for housing and the consequent movement of the boundary would bring the land within the settlement and therefore, in my opinion, the terms of SPP15 would not be applicable. Development would generally be supported under the terms of Policy SC1(a).

2.557 Although Barry and Carnoustie are linked in the local plan review through inclusion on a single inset map, I am of the opinion that Barry retains a distinctive character as a separate village set in a rural context. Access to the village from the north-east via the minor road leading from the new link road maintains this rural context, at least to some extent. I therefore agree with the council that the release of the objection site for development would have an adverse impact on the setting of Barry.

2.558 The link road provides an important approach to Carnoustie which has open land to each side until within a short distance of the town. I believe this provides a pleasing impression which, to some extent would be lost should development take place on the objection site. Again I agree with the council that the impact of new houses would not be acceptable.

2.559 I have noted the claim that drainage constraints have been overcome but, overall, I conclude that there is no strategic basis for allocating the site for housing and that, in local terms, there is merit in maintaining the open nature of the site to protect the setting of Barry and the approach to Carnoustie.

Recommendation

2.560 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

150 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry Road west

Objector Reference

Mr A Clark and Mrs Yule 635/1/6

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.561 The objection site comprises about 0.7 hectares of agricultural land to the south of the main street in Barry, a village that has recently been by-passed. The village is generally linear with most development to the north of the main street (formerly the A930) and much of the land to the south, between Barry and the by-pass, remaining undeveloped and open. There is limited development to the south of the road both east and west of the objection site. To the west, development comprises two recent small residential culs-de-sac to the south of which, standing in treed grounds, is the former manse, a large property that appears to have suffered serious fire damage.

2.562 The land lies outwith the settlement envelope which, at this point, follows the village main street to the immediate north of the objection site.

2.563 Barry lies within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.

Basis of the objection

2.564 The Barry by-pass has severed the objector’s land and caused much disruption.

2.565 A small sustainable mixed-use development would enhance Barry socially and economically. The site lies within the village envelope. Four new houses using appropriate materials along with the conversion of a traditional building are envisaged. This would not involve ribbon development. Access would be facilitated by the recent construction of the by-pass. Planting would provide a natural settlement boundary. There are nearby local services.

2.566 Proceeds from the houses would fund an office development, making good some of the shortfall of employment land in Carnoustie which is recognised in the local plan review. Local people would be employed and increased walking, cycling and bus use would contribute to sustainable travel. This element of the development would accord with the guidance on diversification contained in SPP15, Planning for Rural Development.

2.567 Private drainage facilities would be provided.

151 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.568 The land between the housing and the office development would be offered to the council for amenity purposes. Barry lacks this type of use and, as well as providing a buffer between the two uses, the amenity land would retain the shape of the village and prevent further development to the south.

The council’s response

2.569 The site is extends 190 metres along the road frontage between two existing groups of houses.

2.570 The proposal is outwith but adjacent to the Barry development boundary and would comprise ribbon development. It is therefore contrary to Policy ENV 4, Development Boundaries, in the adopted Angus Local Plan (Policy S1 in the finalised local plan review) which seeks to protect landscape setting and to prevent uncontrolled growth. There is continuous development on the north side of the old A930 but on the south side there is only scattered development until Carnoustie is reached. This proposal would change the character of Barry by creating more continuous development along the roadside to the south.

2.571 There is no demonstrable demand for office accommodation in this area and employment land is identified in the local plan to meet the needs of the area; there are office premises within the town.

2.572 This part of Barry and Carnoustie is subject to a drainage constraint both in relation to the pipe network and the pumping station at Barry. Non-mains drainage would not be acceptable.

2.573 The proposed site would block the field access and no alternative is illustrated.

Conclusions

2.574 The objector states that the construction has caused much disruption due to severance. However, the impact of this disruption and, in particular, its relevance to the land use issues related to the objection has not been elaborated.

2.575 The council believes development of the site would be contrary to Policy ENV4 in the adopted local plan (to be replaced by Policy S1 in the local plan review) as the land is outwith the settlement boundary. However, the local plan review provides the opportunity to assess land use and, in turn, to adjust settlement boundaries as appropriate. Accordingly, in itself, the position of the settlement boundary in either the adopted local plan or in the finalised local plan review is not, at this stage, an impediment to the allocation of the land for development.

2.576 The objector and the council disagree on whether the proposal would constitute ribbon development. Four new houses are proposed and, although no layout has been provided, it is not unreasonable to assume that the development envisaged would reflect that to the west with two houses to the front and two to the rear served by a cul-de-sac. To some

152 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

extent this approach would overcome the concern about ribbon development (which involves a single strip of development along a road frontage). More importantly, the site is located within the central part of the village with existing development to each side. Again I believe this offsets the fear of ribbon development as the proposal would not extend the limits of the village in an unacceptable manner.

2.577 Notwithstanding, my opinion in respect of ribbon development, I consider that the proposal should be assessed in the context of the structure of Barry. The village is essentially linear with the majority of development on the north side of the road and a significant amount of open, agricultural land adjoining the south side of the former A930. This generally open outlook to the south provides the essential character of the village. There is a limited degree of development to the south of the road to the west but this is beyond the boundary of the village itself. The development immediately to the west of the objection site lies between the road and the treed site of the former manse, thereby not significantly interfering with the open aspect to the south. The development south of the road to the east is at the central part of the village where there is a crossroads and the linear concept gives way to a group of buildings including the church.

2.578 I share the view of the council that additional development along the south side of the road through the village, even if limited to either end of the objection site, would adversely alter the character of Barry through the reduction of the open outlook that currently exists.

2.579 In terms of employment land, the council has proposed a modification to the local plan review whereby an additional 12 hectares of land is proposed for employment purposes as site C6, Working – Pitskelly Farm, Upper Victoria. There were objections to this site with alternative land proposed at Clayholes. It has been recommended that the alternative site should be included in the local plan review in place of Site C6. Both sites (Site C6 and Clayholes) are capable of ensuring the structure plan target for an effective 5 year supply of employment land can be maintained. On this basis, whichever employment site is chosen, the objection site is not required to make good any shortfall. I note the prospect of providing a local employment opportunity but this potential benefit does not outweigh my conclusion in respect of the adequacy of the employment land supply.

2.580 The council has not responded to the suggestion that an area of amenity open space could be made available but this possibility does not lead me to set aside my conclusion in respect of further development residential and commercial to the south of the road.

2.581 The objector has stated that private drainage would be provided and the council has responded to the effect that a non-mains solution would not be acceptable in an area where there is a drainage constraint. Guidance on drainage is contained in the local plan review under Policies ER21, Public Drainage Systems, and Policy ER22, Private Drainage Systems, and I do not consider this to be an issue that should influence the underlying land use considerations.

153 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.582 Similarly, although the council has expressed concern about continued access to the adjacent field, I believe this is a matter which should not be incapable of resolution in the event of development proceeding.

2.583 Overall, I conclude that the impact of residential and employment uses on the objection site would not be acceptable in terms of the character of Barry.

Recommendation

2.584 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

154 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Waterybutts

Objector Reference

Dr Finlay G McLaren 403/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.585 The objection site is a level, rectangular area to the immediate south-west of Carnoustie. The eastern boundary and part of the northern boundary are adjacent to existing housing. The southern boundary is adjacent to the railway line whilst the remainder of the site abounds open land. The site lies within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area and is not contained within the defined Carnoustie and Barry settlement boundary.

Basis of the objection

2.586 Land that was previously allocated for housing should be re-instated. Alternatively, a smaller area of about 2 hectares within the eastern part of the larger site should be designated for residential development. This would form a complementary and concluding phase of housing developments in the vicinity and create a definitive edge to the built-up area.

2.587 There would be a relatively small number of houses, the site is close to a proposed primary school and the new health centre and the nearby development of 81 houses at Taymouth Terrace indicates that drainage and flooding problems can be overcome. In any event, there is a large flood plain to the west and south. The site is close to a new cycleway.

The council’s response

2.588 A wide range of greenfield and brownfield sites in the Dundee and South Angus housing market area have been promoted by developers and/or landowners as housing sites.

2.589 Notwithstanding site location, landscape setting, infrastructure, and accessibility, a key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective land supply in terms of the provisions of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan which requires 1,045 houses in the South Angus area in the period to 2001-2011. The supply of 1,216 houses identified in the finalised local plan in the South Angus housing market area already meets the housing requirement in full for the period to 2011. The range of allocated sites and the existing supply of windfall sites currently under construction or with planning permission are distributed across the housing market area. This total does not include the potential yield from any brownfield

155 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

opportunity sites or any other windfall sites that may come forward. On this basis, there is no requirement to allocate any further greenfield housing land.

2.590 The performance of housing land continues to be monitored through the annual housing land audit. Should a shortfall in the five year effective land supply become apparent, alternative sites for development should then be identified through additional allocations. Indeed, the 2005 housing land audit indicates an increasing land supply for the housing market area with an increase in supply to 1,325. This total not only provides sufficient housing land to meet the allowance for the period to 2011 but also contributes significantly to the requirement for the period 2011-2016.

2.591 In addition planning permission has recently been granted for the development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie involving the redevelopment of a 2.3 hectare site at the former maltings in Victoria Road (in outline) and 78 flats on the site of the former Dalhousie Golf Clubhouse in Links Road (detailed).

2.592 In terms of site specific considerations, the council indicates that the site is subject to a network drainage constraint imposed by Scottish Water as there are constraints in the pipe network and at the Barry pumping station. The land is within the undeveloped floodplain of the Barry Burn at a location identified by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the 1:100 year flooding map. In terms of SPP7, Planning and Flooding, such areas are not suitable for additional development.

Conclusions

2.593 Objections to the strategic land supply were considered under Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, and, in particular, it was concluded, in terms of the structure plan target for the South Angus housing market area, that there is a surplus of 132 houses in the period to 2011. As explained by the council, the 2005 housing land audit has demonstrated an increased supply and that, as a consequence, a significant contribution can already be made to the structure plan period beyond 2011. Additionally, the council points out that planning permission has been granted for significant brownfield development on two sites in Carnoustie. In these circumstances, and taking account of the conclusions in respect of objections to Policy SC1, I conclude that there is no strategic justification for the release of the objection site for residential development.

2.594 The council has stated that the site lies within the undeveloped flood plain of the Barry Burn and has been identified by SEPA as a 1:100 year flooding potential. SPP7, Planning and Flooding, sets out the risk framework and identifies medium to high risk areas as those with an annual probability of watercourse, tidal or coastal flooding greater than 0.5% (1:200). This guidance is reflected in the local plan review: Policy ER27, Flood Risk Assessment, indicates that undeveloped or sparsely developed areas in the 1:200 category are generally not suitable for additional development. Notwithstanding the construction of 81 houses in the vicinity, I have no evidence to suggest that a detailed flood risk assessment has been undertaken or that any threat could be mitigated in a satisfactory manner. In these

156 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

circumstances it is necessary to take a precautionary approach and withhold any support for the development of the site.

2.595 Overall, I conclude that in view of the available housing land supply in the housing market area and the potential flood risk implications, the land should not be allocated for residential development. In reaching this conclusion I have noted the attributes of the site referred to by the objector but, irrespective of any individual merit, my concerns over strategy and flooding remain as the determining issues.

Recommendation

2.596 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

157 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - land north of Barry

Objector Reference

G & R Galloway (per McCrae & McCrae) 920/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

Written Submission on the same topic but for land immediately to the west of the above objection site:

Linlathen Developments Ltd 918/3/1

______

Background

2.597 There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. The objection sites are opposite one another, on either side of the same minor road to the north of Barry.

Basis of the objections

920/1/1

2.598 It is argued on behalf of the objector that there is a shortage of retirement homes in the area and that the 1.9ha site identified by the objector at Barry North, near Barry Mill (to the east of the minor road between Woodside Cottages and Ravenside) could accommodate:

• 14 low density, single-storey affordable houses (retirement homes), together with • 5 holiday homes, a community hall, a bowling green and associated parking and landscaped areas.

2.599 It is contended that such as proposal would accord with FALPR Policy SC6 on affordable housing as well as SPP15 paras 16-17, concerning planning for rural development. It is suggested that this high amenity proposal would meet an unfulfilled niche market demand in the area in an environmentally friendly development. The site is contained, being bounded to the east and west by The Den woodland and a public road respectively and by existing houses immediately to the north and south. Whilst the site is separated from Barry it

158 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

is argued that there are local services nearby. The development would be served by a private drainage system as there are acknowledged capacity constraints within the public system.

918/3/1

2.600 Whilst it is acknowledged that the local plan is required to comply with the approved structure plan, it is noted that there is very little housing land allocation in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus HMA - the vast majority being allocated in the Western Gateway part of Dundee where there are constraints and no immediate prospect of development. It is argued that this has a knock-on effect compromising delivery on other sites in South Angus that are available. On this basis it is argued that the structure plan is fatally flawed and alternative housing land releases are required to address the housing land supply issues. It is in this context that land is put forward for residential development at Barry North, (on a site immediately to the west of and directly across the road from the other objection site detailed above). It is argued that development of this particular site would extend the choice for house purchasers in the housing market area, as advocated in SPP3 – Land for Housing, and would help to support local services in the area. It is pointed out that the site concerned is available for development and it has attracted developer interest. It is suggested that the land here could be developed in whole or part for housing development.

The council’s response

2.601 The wide range of objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review by developers and/or landowners relating to the omission of greenfield and brownfield sites for housing in the South Angus area indicates there is considerable pressure for additional housing land release. Prior to consideration of factors such as location, landscape setting, infrastructure, and accessibility, a key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective land supply that would require modification of the Finalised Local Plan Review.

2.602 Dundee and Angus Structure Plan 2001-2016 (approved in October 2002) establishes guidance for local plans including defining 4 housing market areas (HMAs) for the structure plan area. In the Dundee and South Angus HMA, DASP Policy 1 and Schedule 1 set out a requirement of 1045 houses for the South Angus area in the period 2001 - 2011. In the council’s view the supply of 1216 houses in the South Angus part of the HMA identified in finalised local plan (comprising 401 completions June 2001 -2004, 552 on existing sites with planning permission and 263 on allocated sites) already meets the full housing allowance to 2011 for the area as set out in the structure plan and this does not include potential yield from brownfield opportunity sites or any other windfall sites that may come forward.

2.603 Accordingly, the council contends that there is no requirement to allocate any further greenfield housing land within the HMA at present, and to do so would bring the local plan into conflict with the approved structure plan. It is not permitted to adopt a local plan that does not conform with the approved structure plan. It notes that the range of allocated sites and the existing supply of windfall sites currently under construction or with planning permission are distributed across the HMA. In the Monifieth, Carnoustie and Sidlaw area additions to the effective housing land supply will be focused on the main settlements of

159 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Monifieth and Carnoustie. The performance of housing land is monitored through annual Housing Land Audits undertaken by Dundee City Council and Angus Council in conjunction with the housebulding industry and Communities Scotland. Analysis of the South Angus HMA in the 2004 audit indicates that for the 5 year period 2004 - 2009 the effective land supply exceeds the DASP allowance by 380. This provides sufficient housing land to meet the full structure plan allowance for the period to 2011 and for the first 2.4 years of the indicative allowance for the period 2011 - 2016 and so provides an effective housing land supply well beyond the local plan period.

2.604 Were it to be demonstrated that there is a shortfall in the five year effective land supply, alternative sites for development should be identified through additional local plan allocations rather than planning applications. However, at this stage identification of reserve land for future housing development in the South Angus HMA is unnecessary in the council’s view.

2.605 Angus Council does not accept the contention that the DASP strategy is flawed. Any alteration to the DASP strategy would require a review of the structure plan and subsequent endorsement of Scottish Ministers. At this stage there is no evidence to suggest that the housing allowances set out for the Dundee and South Angus HMA cannot be met from the existing planning permissions and land allocations established by the both the Angus Local Plan Review and the Dundee City Local Plan Review.

2.606 In summary, the council considers that there is no justification in terms of either the structure plan strategy for the Dundee and South Angus HMA or the effective housing land supply in the South Angus area that would require the allocation of further major greenfield housing land in addition to the land supply already provided for by the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review.

2.607 Since publication of the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review consideration of local plan objections and publication of pre-inquiry modifications, Angus Council and Dundee City Council (the Structure Plan authority) have jointly prepared and published the Draft Dundee and Angus Housing Land Audit 2005. The 2005 Audit indicates that the land supply for the South Angus (Monifieth, Carnoustie & Sidlaws) area has increased to 1325 (compared to the 1240 detailed in the Finalised Local Plan). The current figure comprises 605 completions in the period from June 2001 to June 2005, 635 existing sites with planning permission and 85 sites allocated in the Local Plan. This indicates that for the 5 year period 2005-2010 the effective housing land supply in the South Angus HMA exceeds the structure plan allowance by 383 and provides sufficient housing land to meet the full structure plan allowance of 1045 for the period to 2011 and also for the first 4 years of the indicative allowance (350) for the period 2011 – 2016. Angus Council therefore remains of the opinion that there is currently no justification that would require the allocation of additional land over and above that provided for by the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, as modified.

2.608 Of particular concern to the Council is the potential impact that further housing land release in the South Angus area could have on the implementation of the approved structure plan strategy for housing land in the wider Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area.

160 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Similar concerns have been expressed by Dundee City Council who jointly prepared the structure plan. Based on all of these factors, Angus Council considers that the release of additional housing land in South Angus would undermine the recently approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan strategy, which is to be implemented through the local plan reviews (the Dundee Local Plan Review was adopted in 2005).

2.609 The council points out that the site of Objection 920/1/1 at Barry North is located in open countryside, well outwith the established boundary of Carnoustie and Barry - as defined in FALPR. In addition, the site is in close proximity to Barry Mill, a category ‘B’ listed building and visitor attraction owned and operated by the National Trust. Furthermore, it points out that this particular site is subject to a Network Drainage Constraint imposed by Scottish Water in 1990 and amended in 2002, with known capacity constraints in both the pipe network and at Barry pumping station. The council makes no specific comments on the setting or development potential of the site put forward in Objection 918/3/1, which is on the opposite side of the road and adjoins the first site referred to above.

Conclusions

2.610 There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the HMAs, including for the South Angus (Monifieth, Sidlaw and Carnoustie) area which has a specified requirement within the wider Dundee and South Angus HMA. For the reasons given earlier in this report (in the conclusions section relating to Policy SC1: Housing Land Supply) I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan, including those specified for South Angus, should be reflected in the local plan review.

2.611 Whilst South Angus is a popular area for housing, it forms part of the wider Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area which also contains parts of and Perth and Kinross. Despite pressures for the release of additional housing land here, South Angus should not be regarded as an automatic choice to make up any perceived shortfall within the wider HMA. This would be contrary to the structure plan strategy, having regard to the regeneration of Dundee, and would not be in accord with the guidance set out in PAN 38 regarding housing land allocations. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the potential for providing more affordable housing, including retirement housing, should additional land be released. As stated earlier in this report “whilst to some extent seductive in view of the large unidentified need for affordable housing in South Angus, we share the council’s opinion that the provision of affordable housing is a subservient requirement to the broader structure plan strategy.”

2.612 I conclude that in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocation of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceed the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provides scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes in to account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South

161 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

2.613 In this context I now turn to consider whether either or both of the housing allocations at Barry North proposed by the objectors should be accepted on an exceptional basis.

920/1/1

2.614 No evidence has been presented on behalf of this objector to substantiate the assertion that the proposed development on this particular site would provide a unique opportunity to satisfy a perceived market need for additional retirement housing provision and associated holiday/visitor accommodation. Whilst the objection site is relatively flat and has a degree of containment afforded by the Den to the east and by a few houses and a road to the north, south and west, respectively, I consider that it is isolated from the settlement of Barry. In addition, a hill climb would make the intervening journey particularly difficult for retired people seeking to access shops, bus networks and other local services. Furthermore, there are acknowledged constraints on the local sewerage network and waste treatment capacity which would result in a private treatment system being required to serve the site, which is not the preferred solution for new developments of this type and scale. Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment and conclude that there are no local circumstances to warrant an exceptional allocation of this site for housing development or holiday/visitor accommodation.

918/3/1

2.615 Whilst no evidence has been presented by the council specifically related to this objection site, I consider that the same concerns it expressed about the objection site on the opposite side of the same minor road would apply equally to this site, in terms of its:

• Use of open farmland. Indeed its elevation and undulations and very limited containment by natural or other features combine to make this site even more prominent in the landscape in my view • Isolated location and remoteness from Barry which is accessed via a steep hill • Lack of local services and facilities for residents if housing was developed here.

2.616 It is also likely that drainage constraints affecting the first site would also apply to this site, although this issue has not been highlighted and so I have not relied on this in reaching my conclusions. Nevertheless, based on the information available and my site inspection, I conclude that are no local circumstances to warrant an exceptional allocation of this particular site within the local plan review.

Recommendation

2.617 I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in these cases.

162 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - land at Victoria Link, A92

Objector Reference

G & R Galloway (per McCrae & McCrae) 920/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.618 The objection relates to land at one of the junctions along the recently dualled section of the A92 road and seeks a site to be allocated here for the provision of a new petrol service station and associated traveller facilities. The finalised local plan review in Policy SC43 Roadside Facilities on the A92, provides policy guidance on the location of new roadside facilities along the A92 corridor and is intended to deal with developments including planning applications of this nature.

Basis of the objection

2.619 It is argued on behalf of the objectors that the proposed site - being situated above and adjoining a grade-separated junction on the recently completed dual carriageway section of the A92 road - would be ideal to provide a new roadside petrol service station, with 24 hour operation, together with other traveller facilities. The latest proposals for these ancillary uses comprise a small farm shop promoting local products and a ‘travel hotel’ (motel/travel lodge style) offering accommodation, together with perimeter planting and other associated landscaping. Apart from the petrol filling station, the precise mix of uses being put forward for the site have changed since the objection was first lodged and it was stressed that this is still a ‘concept scheme’ at this stage. In the objectors’ view the proposal would serve an important role to support the local economy by meeting the needs of regular local and visitor/holiday traffic heading along the A92. The site is strategically situated at the Barry/Carnoustie road junction half way between Arbroath and Dundee. The objector states that projected traffic flows along this section of the A92 are estimated to be around 25,550 per day in the year 2015, with 12,200 vehicles per day using this particular junction.

2.620 It is noted that there are no petrol stations between Dundee Kingsway and Arbroath along this important road corridor and the existing 24 hour filling station at Arbroath is rumoured to be closing. Furthermore, whilst Carnoustie is trying to promote itself as a tourist centre there is a shortage of family accommodation here which the proposed motel would address. It is suggested on behalf of the objectors that the scale, type and mix of proposals envisaged would complement each other and would be in accordance with national planning policy on diversification outlined in SPP15, in particular paragraphs 1 and 17. According to the objectors, the development would also meet the requirements of structure

163 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

plan and local plan policies concerning the promotion of coastal towns of Angus with appropriate developments and boosting rural employment. With very few grade separated junctions along the A92, the current proposal would provide a rare opportunity to offer the proposed range of much needed new facilities to serve travellers along this corridor, without adding to the congestion of Carnoustie, and it would not set a precedent in the objectors’ view. Whilst appreciating the concerns about visual impact in the open landscape, the objectors believe that the site and its development components could be suitably designed and screened and sensitively landscaped to ensure that potentially negative impacts would be avoided.

The council’s response

2.621 The council points out that whilst Policy SC17 of FALPR generally permits and encourages development proposals that will provide new or improved tourist facilities, attractions and accommodation, the last bullet point of that policy states that such proposals need to accord with other relevant policies of the local plan. In this context it acknowledges that the proposal for a shop specialising in local produce from farms in the area would appeal to local people and travellers and could be acceptable in principle as a form of diversification of the rural economy. It has concerns, however, about the proposals for a petrol filling station and travellers’ motel accommodation at this location. In particular it points to Policy SC43 of the finalised local plan review (FALPR) which states that “any new roadside facilities serving the A92 should be accommodated within the existing development boundaries and no new provision will be permitted within areas of open countryside.” The council notes that this policy seeks to protect open countryside and points out that the objectors’ site, whilst adjoining the road junction, is located in open countryside. The council is particularly concerned because the site in question is immediately to the north side of the A92 where the council is striving to maintain the open countryside and protect this corridor from any new development outwith existing development boundaries. In the council’s view, any major development at the site proposed by the objectors would be visually prominent in the landscape and would require lighting which would have a further adverse visual impact. These concerns would not apply if the proposal was limited to a small farm shop operation.

2.622 It acknowledges that since Morrisons took over the Safeway supermarket in Arbroath, there has been no 24 hour petrol filling station in the town. It also notes that there have been closures of local filling stations serving the Angus coastal towns. Nevertheless, the council prefers to see any new petrol stations, along with other developments such as motels, located in communities rather than on isolated sites. Whilst there is no petrol station situated along the dual carriageway section of the A92, there is a travel lodge style motel and garden centre/leisure complex located at Bishop’s Cross, Monifieth developed within the last 10 years. To date there has been no commercial interest in developing the petrol station component there, which was granted planning permission and, in principle, could still be implemented as far as the council is concerned - notwithstanding the fact that the permission has lapsed. In the council’s view travellers passing along the A92 can find fuel and a range of other facilities in Arbroath and Dundee or by turning off and heading into one of the nearby coastal settlements such Carnoustie, where planning permission has recently been

164 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

granted to re-open and refurbish a former petrol filling station. In this context, in the council’s view the proposal by the objectors would set an unfortunate precedent for futher development pressures at potential sites alongside each of the junctions along the A92 road.

2.623 The council notes that the objectors have not investigated drainage, access and safety aspects of developing and operating the proposals at the site in question and have provided no evidence to indicate the level of developer or operator interest in their ideas for the site. In any event, the council contends that, as the site in question is located in open countryside, the principle of a petrol filling station and motel accommodation would be contrary to Policy SC43 of the finalised plan and would set an unfortunate precedent.

Conclusions

2.624 There is no dispute that the concept of a farm shop of limited scale at the site in question would accord with national, regional and local planning policies and guidance concerning rural diversification. I conclude that in principle this would be an appropriate land use at this location, subject to the proposed scale and form of development being sensitive to its countryside setting and suitably screened and landscaped in order to minimise the visual impact on the surrounding area. On that basis I note that a farm shop at this location would accord with Policy SC17 of the FALPR which encourages tourism developments where they meet specified criteria.

2.625 I now turn to consider whether or not the other proposals - for a petrol filling station and for a motel style of traveller accommodation - would meet the same policy requirements, at least in principle. There has been no evidence presented to suggest that the proposals would not be in accordance with national policy guidance and structure plan principles of rural diversification, subject to environmental issues being addressed satisfactorily. In respect of Policy SC17 of the finalised local plan, I am persuaded that the provision of a petrol filling station and a motel would improve the range and quality of visitor attractions and tourist facilities, which is the first requirement of that policy. The second requirement is that proposals should have no unacceptable detrimental effect on the local landscape or rural environment. I note that the main concern raised by the council in this regard is that the site concerned is in open countryside. I consider that the fact that it now adjoins the new dual carriageway A92 road has materially changed the context of this location. In particular the land concerned abuts a newly constructed grade-separated junction as well as being in close proximity to an existing residential dwelling. In this context, whilst recognising the concerns about visual impact in the landscape, I am persuaded that some limited, small-scale development components at this location if well designed, suitably screened and sensitively landscaped to ensure that potentially negative impacts would be avoided.

2.626 On the same basis, whilst noting that the current proposal is at a conceptual stage only, I am satisfied that in principle a scheme for some strictly limited development of the site could be drawn up which meets the second requirement of Policy SC17 by being in keeping with the scale and character of the adjacent buildings and the surrounding countryside. In my view this would require the built development to be of very limited scale, carefully designed and supplemented by suitable screen planting and other hard and soft

165 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

landscaping. The next criterion requires compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The fact that the site utilises agricultural land that adjoins a grade separated junction on the newly dualled A92 road makes the proposals for a farm shop together with a petrol filling station highly compatible with the surrounding land uses in my view. I do not consider that there is any justification, however, for the motel component of the proposals, for a number of reasons. Firstly this particular section of the A92 corridor is already well served by existing travel lodge style hotel facilities close by, which are situated on the either side of the dual carriageway. Secondly, I consider that such a hotel development on an elevated site at Victoria Link would be too large, obtrusive and therefore out of keeping with the surrounding scale of developments in this rural area. On this basis I conclude that the motel or hotel component should be rejected in principle at this location.

2.627 The final requirement of the policy is to accord with other relevant policies of the local plan. The only concerns of the council in this regard appear to relate to a wish to support local towns in the area and to avoid setting a precedent by allowing a development that is not within existing development boundaries, which is a stated requirement of Policy SC43 of the finalised local plan concerning roadside facilities on the A92. I note that this particular policy goes on to state that no development will be permitted in areas of open countryside. Having already covered the particular issue of open countryside above, I now consider whether it is reasonable to prohibit development of any roadside facilities outwith existing development boundaries. I note that there have been closures of petrol filling stations in Carnoustie and a lack of market demand to take up planning permissions granted for others in the area, although some new interest is now being expressed. In this context I am not persuaded that it would be reasonable to completely reject the site in question in the hope that this would protect existing businesses and encourage take-up of petrol filling station permissions that have been remained unimplemented, for almost 10 years in one case. The fact that the objectors have not demonstrated a commitment from a petrol filling station operator for the site in question is not sufficient to reject the principle of locating such a facility at this strategic location, particularly given the volumes of local and visitor traffic passing the site.

2.628 I note that the site at Victoria Link is strategically positioned approximately half way between Arbroath and Dundee and is situated at one of the few grade-separated junctions along the new dual carriageway, where it can provide safe and easy access for through-traffic and local customers. I conclude that Policy SC43, whilst well intentioned, sets an unreasonable requirement by prohibiting all developments outwith development boundaries. I reach this view partly on the basis that the corridor of the A92 road now passes through no development boundaries between Monifieth and Arbroath, which is the majority of its length. Furthermore, the council through the local plan review has not identified any particular sites along the corridor of the A92 to provide new roadside facilities - apart from having expressed a positive attitude to any revival of the unimplemented petrol filling station element of a lapsed permission adjoining the Dobbies Loan development by Monifieth. Accordingly, I conclude that the objectors’ proposals for a farm shop and petrol filling station could, in principle, satisfy Policy SC17, being situated at a grade separated junction which represents, more or less, the mid-point along the dualled section of the road. As such it is therefore

166 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review strategically well located to serve those motorists passing along that road, as well as others in the surrounding rural area which is not currently well served with such facilities.

2.629 Based on all of these considerations, I endorse in part the objection lodged in this particular case and conclude that, in principle, there are exceptional circumstances to warrant an allocation of the site at Victoria Link for a farm shop and petrol filling station within the local plan review and a modification of paragraph 2.109 and Policy SC43, to enable this to be consistent with local plan policy within the adopted plan. I also conclude, however, that given the changes of level of the site and reasonable concerns about safeguarding the countryside setting, any development there would need to be carefully designed; be of limited scale and bulk; and demonstrate satisfactory screening and associated landscape treatment, in order to minimise its visual impact. This would also involve careful design of the lighting used on the site, in my view. Finally, I conclude that a hotel or motel accommodation on the site would not be appropriate, for the reasons outlined earlier.

Recommendation

2.630 I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case, in particular Paragraph 2.109 and Policy SC43, to enable a farm shop and a petrol filling station to be promoted on the site concerned, subject to a suitable scheme being put forward which meets detailed design and landscaping criteria, along the lines outlined above in my conclusions. The wording of Policy SC43 could be adjusted marginally to insert the phrase “Unless there are exceptional local circumstances … ” at the beginning of the policy wording (or by the use of other amendments to the wording to achieve the purpose stated above).

167 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Residential Development - General background

Land allocated in the finalised local plan review which is the subject of objections

Site F4 - Wester Restenneth Site F5 - Whitehills Nursery Site F7- Westfield

Omissions

Land at Gowanbank Land at Suttieside Land at Turfbeg Land at Slatefield

Other related objections

Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area F14 – Primary School, Whitehills Nursery Paragraph 15, Primary Schools, Forfar Omission – Land at North Mains

2.631 Forfar lies within the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area for which the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan requires land for 1,610 houses for the period 2001-2016. The effective supply in 2001 was 585 and additional allowances of 500 and 525 houses are required for the periods 2001-2011 and 2011-2016 respectively, the latter figure being subject to review.

2.632 Structure plan Housing Policy 4 states that local plans should allocate land to meet the additional allowances, the majority in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area being directed to Forfar. The finalised local plan review allocates land with a capacity of 530 houses to Forfar in the period to 2011.

2.633 Key issues in Forfar identified in the local plan review include:

the need to identify appropriate sites to accommodate new housing development, in support of the structure plan strategy; whilst safeguarding the form and setting of the town;

the promotion of brownfield redevelopment sites for housing where appropriate; the protection of the landscape quality and recreational resources of open spaces and associated path network around the town including Balmashanner and Forfar Loch Country Park.

168 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.634 The aims of the development strategy include:

identifying a range of effective housing land allocations, including a long term development strategy for development in the west of the town;

safeguarding important landscape from inappropriate development, including Balmashanner and Forfar Loch Country Park.

2.635 The text states that the local plan allocates a range of sites for housing development including the establishment of a new neighbourhood in the west of the town within which a range of developments can be accommodated in the period to 2011 and beyond.

The finalised local plan review identifies the following housing sites in Forfar:

Sites with planning permission at June 2004

F(a), Montrose Road 25 units F(b), Slatefield Farm 12 units F(c), Dundee Road 6 units F(d), Turfbeg Farm 21 units F(e), Victoria Street 6 units F(f), Roberts Street/Prior Road 25 units F(g), Service Road 2 units F(h), Prior Road 1 5 units F(i), Prior Road 2 3 units F(j), North Street 6 units F(k), Manor Rise 7 units

Total 118 units

Sites previously identified in the first Angus Local Plan

F2, Beechill Nursery 5 units F3, Green Street 10 units

Total 15 units

Allocated sites (up to 2011)

F4, Wester Restenneth 70 units (70 beyond 2011) F5, Whitehills Nursery 15 units* F6, Dundee Road 100 units F7, Westfield 300 units**

Total 485 units

169 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

* A further 6 hectares may have potential for housing, subject to satisfactory access arrangements, and will require to be confirmed by a future local plan. **Additional land is safeguarded at Westfield, which is described as a new neighbourhood, for further development, including housing, a primary school and land for business employment development.

2.636 Modifications to the finalised local plan review have been proposed by the council as follows:

Site F4, Wester Restenneth

20 hectares of land at Wester Restenneth, between Montrose Road and Brechin Road, is allocated for around 250 dwellings. A first phase of around 100 dwellings will be permitted in the period to 2011.

A comprehensive development scheme will be required for the whole site which should address the following:

• A full remediation statement will be required for the site. • 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing.

Foul drainage arrangements for this site should not cause the drainage situation in other parts of the town to get worse.

2.637 The inset map has also been proposed for modification whereby areas shown as open space within the overall F4 allocation have been deleted and the entire site has been designated for residential development.

Site F5, Whitehills Nursery

6.5 hectares of land at Whitehills Nursery is allocated for around 100 dwellings with a requirement for 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing. Vehicular access for a limited number of houses will be permitted from Fyfe Street, and the remainder of the site will be accessed from a new junction on to Prior Road. No through route for vehicles will be permitted between Fyfe Street and Prior Road, although emergency access should be provided.

In terms of the modifications the allocated sites for the period to 2011 are as follows:

F4, Wester Restenneth 100 units F5, Whitehills Nursery 100 units F6, Dundee Road 100 units F7, Westfield 300 units

Total 600 units

170 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.638 The safeguarded land at Westfield (Site F7) and 150 units at Wester Restenneth will contribute to housing in the period 2011-2016.

2.639 Site F7 has not been the subject of modification and is as follows:

Site F7, New Neighbourhood – Westfield

Approximately 107 ha of land on the western edge of Forfar between the Road and the Dundee Road is identified for the development of a new neighbourhood, including major areas of open space. Proposals should be in accordance with the development brief which will be prepared for this site which will include details for the following phases of development.

Land is allocated for an initial phase of development in the period to 2011 comprising:-

(a) approximately 28 ha of land for up to 300 dwellings, with 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing; a new distributor road linking Dundee Road/Westfield Loan and the Glamis Road; open space/park facilities; and an area of land for possible community facilities; (b) the provision of approximately 37 ha of land for open space/recreational use which is required to ensure the long term maintenance of a green buffer between development and the A90(T). Within this area only built development that is ancillary to the use of the land for open space/recreational purposes will be acceptable.

An area of land is safeguarded for further development in the period beyond 2011. Development proposals will require to be confirmed by a future local plan and may comprise:

(c) land for residential development, including affordable housing; (d) a site for a new primary school; (e) an area on the south side of the Glamis Road for business/employment development.

171 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Site F4 – Wester Restenneth

Objector Reference

Wester Restenneth Company Limited 835/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.640 Site F4, Wester Restenneth, was proposed for modification as set out in the general background.

Basis of the objection

2.641 Objections to the terms of the finalised local plan review were lodged in respect of both the text of the Forfar settlement statement and the Forfar inset map. The objections required the capacity of the site to be increased to 240 with no phasing restrictions. The reference to a full remediation statement should be deleted, a statement having previously been submitted. The unnecessary and restrictive condition concerning foul drainage arrangements should also be deleted. The inset map should allocate the land for housing in its entirety, the matter of open space provision to be dealt with at an appropriate later date. The proposed modification is therefore supported insofar as it increases the capacity of the site to around 250 houses with a first phase of around 100 houses in the period to 2011. The deletion of specific areas of open space within the boundary of Site F4 is also supported. However, as the council has indicated that a remediation statement is a significant matter of public interest and merits special mention, a similar requirement should be applied to all allocated housing sites.

2.642 The initial objection to foul drainage references pointed out that other sites were not subject to similar dictates and that this matter should be dealt with at the time of a planning application. It was suggested that, when designed, the drainage system could lead to improvements beyond the site boundary. In response, the council indicated, despite improvement works, that Scottish Water had not formally confirmed drainage capacity had increased. Scottish Water subsequently explained that there was a continuing restriction in part of the system but also offered to confirm to the council that additional capacity for foul drainage could be made available for over 300 houses at Wester Restenneth. It was understood that a drainage impact assessment for Wester Restenneth had been commissioned by Scottish Water.

172 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.643 Although Scottish Water has still not provided the council with a conclusive statement, the reference to drainage should be amended to:

Foul drainage arrangements for the site should be agreed in writing with Scottish Water.

The council’s response

2.644 In responding to the objections to the finalised local plan review, the council explains that a remediation statement was submitted as part of a previous outline planning application. The situation has undoubtedly changed since that time and a full remediation statement for Site F4 must be submitted to ensure the site is suitable for the proposed use. This procedure is in terms of Scottish Executive guidance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

2.645 The existence of made-up ground within the site is the principal reason the land has not been previously allocated for development. The ground condition is a significant matter of public interest which merits specific mention in the local plan review. On this basis, it is appropriate to retain a reference to the requirement for a remediation statement. Other sites are not known to have a similar requirement.

2.646 Foul drainage arrangements were specified because the site is located in part of Forfar which has been subject to a drainage constraint for many years. When the local plan review was prepared there was no timescale for resolution of this constraint. The council was concerned that a scheme to drain the site into another part of the drainage network could sterilise potential future development and lead to an enlarged area of constraint. Works have now been completed which, it is understood, will overcome the drainage constraint. However, Scottish Water has informally indicated that the results of the Forfar Drainage Area Plan are still awaited. These results will allow an assessment of the available capacity for new development and identify any necessary off-site improvements which may be required to permit connection to the public sewerage network. At this time it appears that drainage capacity will be available in the Montrose Road sewer. However, until a formal statement is received from Scottish Water there is a continuing concern about the capacity of the drainage system in various parts of Forfar.

Conclusions

2.647 The proposed modification is acceptable to the objector other than in respect of the required remediation report and drainage.

2.648 I accept that the increased capacity better reflects the size of the site. I consider below the level of allocation in the housing market area under objection 953/1/1 and conclude that the local plan review does not conflict with the structure plan. I therefore accept that the level of around 250 houses at site F4 can be accommodated in strategic terms. The revised level of release prior to 2011 is reasonable and has not been questioned by the objector.

173 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.649 The comprehensive development scheme required will provide the opportunity to consider the disposition of open space within the site. The scheme will be prepared in the context of the revised capacity of the site and I therefore conclude that it is appropriate for the entire site to be designated for housing and shown as such on the inset map.

2.650 Insofar as the need for a remedial report is concerned I note that there is an element of made-up land within the site. There is no dispute that a report is required and, indeed, the objector points out that a remedial statement has previously been prepared and submitted to the council. The council argues that the situation is likely to have changed since then. To some extent this is immaterial as a full and relevant report will be required in due course, be it the statement previously prepared, perhaps in an amended form, or an entirely new document.

2.651 The objector suggests that all housing sites identified in the local plan review should require a full remediation report. The council says that this site requires a report because of the made-up nature of the ground and that this is in accordance with standard procedures. Other sites are not known to have similar characteristics. I share the view of the council in this respect and believe it is proper to draw attention to the need for the comprehensive development scheme to address the requirement for a full remediation statement because of the known circumstances at the site.

2.652 Where there are no known conditions involving potential remediation measures, there is no point in the local plan review requiring a report. In any event, the council is in a position to require such information as is considered necessary to determine any particular planning application and this might include a remediation report. I therefore conclude that the proposed modification should not be altered in respect of the requirement for a full remediation statement.

2.653 There appears to be little between the parties in respect of the provision of foul drainage. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the wish of the council to draw attention to this matter in the absence of a formal statement from Scottish Water. I believe that, in effect, the stipulation that the drainage situation in other parts of Forfar should not worsen, represents a requirement to obtain a confirmation from Scottish Water that the drainage arrangements for Wester Restenneth are satisfactory. In this respect I prefer the objector’s suggestion that the drainage arrangements should be agreed in writing by Scottish Water. This is a more straightforward approach related specifically to the suitability of the drainage arrangements for the development site itself.

2.654 I therefore conclude that the modification should be further modified to include the objector’s suggested wording in respect of foul drainage.

174 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Recommendation

2.655 I recommend the finalised local plan review is modified as proposed by the council in respect of Site F4, Housing, Wester Restenneth, other than for a further modification whereby the proposed reference to foul drainage is deleted and replaced as follows:

Foul drainage arrangements for the site should be agreed in writing with Scottish Water.

175 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Site F5, Whitehills Nursery

Objector Reference

Mr & Mrs T Meldrum 630/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.656 Site F5, Whitehills Nursery, was proposed for modification as set out in the general background.

Basis of the objection

2.657 The objection to the finalised local plan review required the whole site to be allocated with immediate effect. Incremental development is proposed commencing with a primary school (Site F14) and the housing land component identified in the finalised local plan review. The remaining 5.8 hectares would be developed progressively taking access from a mini-roundabout on Prior Road. The site is fully serviceable, accessible and immediately available.

2.658 The proposed modification is generally supported.

The council’s response

2.659 The council agrees it is possible for an acceptable junction to be constructed on Prior Road in order to access the larger area of land to the east of the site thereby overcoming the outstanding concern about the effectiveness of the site.

2.660 Accordingly, it is proposed to allocate the entire site for around 100 units with access for a limited number from Fyfe Street and the majority of the site accessed from Prior Road. The increase in the expected yield from the site during the plan period has been considered in the context of the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area.

2.661 The objection was conditionally withdrawn on the basis of the proposed modification.

Conclusions

2.662 I note that the council has taken account of housing land allocations throughout the housing market area. In this respect, I consider below the objection to the level of allocation in the housing market area under objection 953/1/1 and conclude that the local plan review

176 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

does not conflict with the structure plan. I accept that the contribution of around 100 houses at Site F5 can be accommodated in strategic terms. The location of the site within the urban framework is, in any event, a persuasive consideration.

2.663 In view of the acceptance by the council that access to the site is possible from Fyfe Street and Prior Road, and noting the conditional withdrawal of the objection, I believe that the proposed modification is worthy of support.

Recommendation

2.664 I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby Site F5, Housing, Whitehills Nursery, is allocated for development in its entirety as set out in the general background to the Forfar housing land objections.

177 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Site F7, New Neighbourhood, Westfield

Objector Reference

Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited 69/1/2 The Forfar Truss Company Limited 204/1/1 Brogan Fuels 252/1/1 LSR Engineering 275/1/1 Simon Urquhart Limited 289/1/1 Macarron Electroplaters Limited 307/1/1 Wester Restenneth Company Limited 835/1/2

Supporters

The Muir Group 76/1/1 Webster Contracts Limited 202/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Formal (Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited & Richard Dent The Muir Group/Webster Contracts Limited) and written submissions ______

Background

2.665 The site is to the south-west of Forfar, bounded to the north by the A929, to the east by Westfield Loan and to the south by the A932, Dundee Road. Details of the content of the local plan review are set out in the general background to objections to housing land allocations in Forfar.

Basis of the objections

Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited

2.666 Elite Homes requires the deletion of site F7, New Neighbourhood – Westfield.

2.667 Westfield is not well located in respect of existing services including the town centre and educational provision. Development is likely to encourage car use, contrary to sustainable principles. Development is compromised by or would compromise ancient monuments. Development may compromise current and future potential on the Orchardbank Industrial Estate, a concern voiced by several other objectors. There is a more sustainable alternative at Turfbeg.

2.668 The structure plan strategy for Angus is to consolidate the role of the main towns as accessible centres, guiding and encouraging the majority of development towards the larger

178 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review settlements which have the capacity to accommodate new development, well integrated with the transport structure. It is important that the amount and distribution of housing land within each housing market area provides sufficient flexibility and allows for a range and choice of sites. Local plans should have regard to the natural, built and historic environment, including landscape character and capacity to accommodate development, siting and design, as well as a range of more detailed matters.

2.669 Forfar is recognised as the largest settlement in the housing market area where recent and planned investment in both infrastructure and economic development enhance the role of the town for future growth. Modifications to the finalised local plan review substantially increase the allocations in Forfar (from 485 to 600 in the period to 2011) on the basis that allocations in Kirriemuir are considered to be non-effective. This approach may have some merit up to 2011 but the continued safeguarding of a large area of land at Westfield with a potential for a further 300-400 houses after 2011 is contrary to the structure plan strategy of providing a range of sites and locations in Forfar and Kirriemuir.

2.670 In summary, Forfar is allocated 600 houses up to 2011. In the period after 2011 there is land for 300-400 houses reserved at Westfield (which must be regarded as virtually committed as the development has clearly been considered as a whole), and 150 at Wester Restenneth. This total of 1,050-1,150 compares with the structure plan requirement for 1,025 for the entire housing market area, including Kirriemuir. The post 2011 requirement is “subject to review” but insofar as Westfield is intended to be a new neighbourhood, any review is likely to have little practical meaning. In effect, of the maximum of 1,150 houses in Forfar, 700 are in the one location at Westfield contrary to structure requirements for a range and choice of sites.

2.671 On the basis that land in Forfar (600 houses – or almost 85%) and Kirriemuir (120) can accommodate 720 houses up to 2011, a decision on future housing land allocation in the housing market area should await the review of the structure plan allocations and any final solution to the waste water treatment plant situation in Kirriemuir. In this latter respect it is recognised that additional capacity could be created. This would allow the large potential imbalance to be properly addressed in a future local plan review.

Note: the matter of the waste water treatment plant in Kirriemuir is considered in more detail as part of the objections to residential land allocations in Kirriemuir. In effect, some 270 house unit equivalent capacity could be created subject to contributions from developers.

2.672 The situation has altered significantly since the Forfar allocations were made by the council particularly as it is apparently intended to bring forward further development in Kirriemuir.

2.673 There is no requirement for a new neighbourhood at Westfield and an allocation of land at Turfbeg would satisfy the need for an additional 300 houses in a sustainable location which does not commit the development plan to major future expansion in Forfar. The expansion at Westfield is also not required because of the increased contribution from other sites in Forfar (Wester Restenneth and Whitehills Nursery), particularly as there is a need to

179 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

achieve an appropriate balance of allocations between Forfar and Kirriemuir in the period to 2016.

2.674 At the time the Angus Local Plan 2000 was under preparation the council had considered three options for greenfield release: Westfield, Turfbeg and Suttieside. It was claimed that development at Suttieside would extend the town into countryside away from the natural direction of growth and would have limited potential. Turfbeg, although large enough to support a long term supply was said to be not well-related to the built form of the town. Westfield was therefore the preferred option of the council as it had the potential to accommodate a neighbourhood extension and justified developer expenditure on infrastructure and community facilities. Following a local plan inquiry, the Reporter concluded that there was no pressing need to identify further greenfield allocations in Forfar and that the shift in direction of the growth of the town was a strategic issue, best dealt with in the replacement structure plan which, at that time, was soon to be published. The council disagreed that the direction of the growth of the town was a strategic issue but accepted there was no need for the release of land in terms of housing land supply.

2.675 The local plan review provides no reasoned justification for the strategic decision to develop to the west of Forfar. As the council has stated that the current evidence is similar to that presented at the previous inquiry, it could well be considered that the Reporters at that time were entirely correct in concluding that it was impossible to reach a definitive opinion on the merits of the Westfield site relative to sites in the east of the town. No further justification has been provided in the meantime and the council has simply adopted an obdurate attitude.

2.676 Although there is now a need to release land in Forfar for housing, a number of matters remain unchanged including the location of Westfield relative to the rest of Forfar. The scale of the release is not such as to warrant the commitment to such a fundamental alteration to the pattern of growth. A new neighbourhood would be visible from a considerable distance and yet an environmental assessment has still not been undertaken. The site still suffers from problems in respect of impact on ancient monuments and a landscape of historical importance. The possible threat to the Orchardbank Industrial Estate remains. Overall, there is still a threat to landscape setting and a question over sustainability.

2.677 Forfar is a historic town and grew from the core of what is now the town centre although growth to the west was constrained by Forfar Loch. Western expansion has therefore occurred to the north and the south of the loch and, as a result, particularly to the south-west, development has become increasingly isolated from the town centre.

2.678 As the council did not undertake a detailed study at the time of the preparation of the Angus Local Plan, the Reporter stated that he was not able to venture a definitive opinion on the relative merits of Westfield. An assessment of possible development areas was undertaken as part of the current local plan review but this is not a detailed analysis. It does not refer to or explore issues set out in PAN44, Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape. PAN44 defines landscape capacity as “the measure of the degree of acceptable modification that the landscape can absorb.” This is crucial in decisions relating to the

180 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review release of greenfield sites. There is no consideration of the effect development would have on the setting of Forfar or the proximity of the industrial land. Neither is there is a strategic comparative review of the capacity of the landscape around Forfar to absorb change.

2.679 The land at Westfield slopes upwards from the north from a relatively flat area at 61 metres AOD to 110 metres AOD in the south-east part of the site, high in the context of Forfar which is generally between 60 and 80 metres AOD with a high point at Balmashanner Hill which is a 170 metres AOD. The site can be approached in two directions from the Forfar by-pass: via the A932 from the south by means of a non-grade-separated junction and from the west via the A929 using a recently completed grade-separated junction. The whole site is visible from the A932. The A929 is arguably the least attractive approach to Forfar.

2.680 Several prominent tree groups are scattered throughout the site, generally along field boundaries but these are sporadic and there is no clear landscape framework. There is some attractive stone dyking along Westfield Loan. Two scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs) are fenced off in the northern part of the site.

2.681 The Westfield site is not protected by any local plan policies in respect of environmental assets or built and historic heritage. Whilst this does not imply a lack of landscape quality, the site is not among the most valued in Angus. Policy ER17, Archaeological Sites of National Importance, indicates that priority will be given to preserving archaeological sites in situ. Approved development must comply with a list of 4 criteria although the local plan allocation makes no reference to the SAMs within the area of Site F7a. The background paper simply states that the archaeological sites require to be investigated. Historic Scotland may well request a buffer of at least 20 metres beyond the scheduled areas to be left clear of development. In any event, development around the SAMs would affect the integrity of the setting. As the development need could be met elsewhere in Forfar, the SAMs should be preserved within their setting.

2.682 In any event, the retention of open areas around the SAMs would detract from the overall layout and probably require a higher density of development to compensate for the effective loss of this land.

2.683 In terms of the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment, Westfield lies within the “broad valley lowlands” where new development should follow and reinforce the existing settlement pattern and new residential development should respond to the morphology of existing settlements. The council itself believes, in respect of landscape character, that sites selected should be capable of absorbing the proposed development to ensure it fits into the landscape. Despite this, much of the allocated land at Westfield falls within an area which the TLCA shows not to be appropriate for development in landscape terms.

2.684 In terms of visual analysis there are relatively few receptors to the south of the site. This view shows the horizontal extent of Forfar from the lower parts of the valley to the sides of Balmashanner Hill. The broadness of the valley is enclosed by long distance views of the highland summits and glens to the north. Westfield Loan forms a robust, but not stark, edge

181 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

to Forfar and the main urban form can bee seen to sit comfortably within the landform, benefiting from the containment of Balmashanner Hill.

2.685 The view from the A932 shows the site to be particularly visible with only a limited degree of screening. Although views from main roads have a low impact value, much of the site would be highly visible from the A90. Tree planting would assist in screening the site. The proposed development boundary does not relate to any boundaries which are discernable on the ground thereby casting doubts on the ability of the site to create a robust new settlement edge.

2.686 Views from Westfield Loan are open and panoramic, extending from north to south. There are further panoramic views from the A929, Glamis Road, incorporating the western urban fringe of Forfar which is reasonably well integrated with the vegetation structure in the landscape. The site can be viewed from Balmashanner Hill itself. Forfar is the dominant element but the distance and disconnection of the site from the town centre is starkly evident.

2.687 Westfield is less accessible than Turfbeg in terms of walking to local amenities. Indeed, numerous of these amenities are beyond the recommended maximum distance of 1,600 metres. It is likely that cars would be used to access the main shops although it is accepted that there are local facilities, including a post office, relatively close to Westfield. Similarly, it is accepted that Orchardbank offers the potential for local employment opportunities although the town centre provides some 61% of employment in Forfar. Both sites have satisfactory cycle access to all facilities but many cyclists from Westfield would need to travel along the A929, a district distributor leading to and from the town centre. There are satisfactory bus services with a greater level of services adjacent to Westfield.

2.688 Increased traffic from the Westfield development would have an impact on the junctions along Glamis Road, particularly the Dundee Road junction, Westport, which is a constrained point in the Forfar road network. New car trips to Forfar Academy would be generated adding to pressure on the sub-standard junction at Taylor Street and Brechin Road in addition to the Westport junction. Some traffic from the development would use the at- grade junction between the A932 and the A90 thereby raising safety concerns.

2.689 A traffic analysis was undertaken on behalf of the Muir Group and Webster Contracts Limited which indicates that the provision of a distributor link road through Westfield would help to redistribute traffic along the A932 and A929 should the right turn from the A90 to the A932. The analysis suggests that the link road would relieve pressure on the Westport junction. However, a review of the junction model has revealed that there were errors in the analysis of the revised layout resulting in an over-estimate of capacity for the right turn from Glamis Road to Dundee Loan. Traffic queuing to turn right would block vehicles wishing to travel straight ahead and cause difficulties in traffic flow. Although the junction is shown to be operating at just less than absolute capacity, it is at a level beyond that considered acceptable. Overall, there is little scope for junction improvement, and so new development which would have a detrimental impact should not be permitted. The benefit of the distributor road would effectively be limited to providing local access.

182 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.690 No accessibility assessment has been produced by the proponents of the site for sustainable transport modes or the relationship between local facilities and amenities.

2.691 There are remains of high cultural value within the Westfield site, including four cropmarks within the two SAMs, and several other cropmarks both within and beyond the F7 allocation. The cropmarks comprise three large, circular, ditched enclosures ranging from 45 metres to 130 metres in diameter. These are not accurately represented on the inset map which suggests that development in the proximity of the SAMs could be more practicable than would be the case. When the anticipated exclusion zone required by Historic Scotland is taken into account, the constraints on development in Site F7a would become even more severe. In this respect it is not uncommon for the required safeguarding zone to extend up to 40 metres beyond the SAM.

2.692 The SAMs have, separately, been identified as ritual sites and, taken together, they form elements of a prehistoric ritual complex to the south of Forfar Loch.

2.693 Although the cropmark sites have been ploughed more or less level with the current land surface, their importance is not diminished. Taken together, the sites constitute part of a cultural landscape in terms of the criteria of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. A cultural landscape has been defined as:

… illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment, and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal. They should be selected on the basis both of their representivity in terms of a clearly defined geographical region, and also for their capacity to illustrate the essential and distinct cultural elements of such regions.

2.694 The proposed development area at Westfield is a central part of the cultural landscape out of which the town has grown. This wider context is essential to allow the various sites to be understood properly with reference to each other and their landscape setting. All are part of the archaeological landscape, the cropmarks in the Westfield site being an indication of the probable archaeological richness of the wider site. In addition to the SAMs themselves and any protection zone imposed by Historic Scotland, the area for protection as a cultural landscape should extend westwards along Glamis Road and southwards almost to the A932 including most of Site F7a and a significant area of land to the west.

2.695 NPPG5, Archaeology and Planning, and PAN42, Archaeology, recognise the importance of preserving archaeological remains in situ, a requirement reinforced in respect of SAMs in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. The local plan explains the responsibilities of owners and occupiers.

2.696 Whenever possible, remains should remain undisturbed. Development that would destroy the landscape in the vicinity should be prevented even though that landscape has been much changed over the years. Despite residential and industrial buildings in the vicinity and the physical separation of the site from Forfar Loch, the conceptual value of the

183 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review landscape remains worthy of protection. Even where development is granted planning permission subject to a condition requiring the protection of known archaeological remains, problems can arise when unknown remains are discovered which have no protection.

2.697 The prospect of development at Westfield should not be taken further until the archaeological situation has been investigated.

Written submissions

2.698 Five companies operating in the Orchardbank Industrial Estate have the following concerns:

• residential development at Westfield is an incompatible land use as this part of Forfar is the traditional industrial area; • new houses would give rise to the potential for complaints in respect of noise, dust etc; • road safety would be threatened through conflict between industrial and residential traffic particularly in the vicinity of the new junction between the distributor road and Glamis Road. • in particular, pedestrian safety on Glamis Road, a route used as an access to Forfar Loch, would be further threatened;

Wester Restenneth Company Ltd

2.699 No justification has been given for an extension of the scale proposed. The basis of the strategy has never been explained.

2.700 The allocation of 107 hectares in Site F7 is contrary to national and strategic policy as the area is designated as prime agricultural land. The structure plan only permits the permanent loss of land in this category when essential for the implementation of structure plan policy. There is nothing in the structure plan to indicate development at Westfield is essential.

2.701 Three hundred houses are proposed at Westfield in the period to 2011. These could be reallocated within the town boundary as follows:

Site F4, Wester Restenneth + 170 Site F5, Whitehills Nursery + 72 Gowanbank + 60

Total 302

2.702 On this basis, the land at Westfield is not required for housing.

2.703 The community facilities should be more clearly specified. In any event, location is questionable in terms of the distance from the town centre. Open space for recreation should

184 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

remain outside the town boundary to reduce pressure for further development. Housing provision beyond 2011 is premature and should be reviewed at a later date. The allocation for a primary school is unnecessary as a study has recently concluded that 3 two stream schools would provide adequate provision in Forfar for the next 30 years. The identification of a site for business development from 2011 onwards is premature and unnecessary as the existing employment land at Site F12 has a capacity of about 30 hectares. This will provide for the foreseeable future particularly as the structure plan requires 10 hectares of business land for the period 2006-2011.

2.704 Overall, the new neighbourhood meets no strategic requirement and should be deleted from the local plan.

The council’s response

2.705 In order to meet the housing land requirements for the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area, the housing sites for Forfar include brownfield land and greenfield sites within the town and greenfield land on the edge of the town. Half the Forfar total has been allocated to Westfield. All housing in the housing market area has been allocated to the town in the period 2011-2016. Although a total of 700 houses are allocated to Site F7, this will allow a long term development in accordance with the guidance in SPP3. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the possibility of land use allocations coming forward elsewhere. Additional provision was made in Forfar because of the uncertain drainage situation in Kirriemuir. However, that problem is capable of resolution and Kirriemuir will feature as a housing development location in the future. Up to 270 houses could be anticipated there.

2.706 The consultative draft local plan identified land to the west of Westfield Loan as good location for new housing, providing a suitable framework to accommodate the scale of development needed in the period to 2011, as well as allowing for potential further development in the context of establishing a future direction of growth for the town. The finalised local plan review retained the allocation for housing and associated development, along with major areas of open space. The land therefore contributes to the housing land requirements of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan and indicates the preferred direction of growth for Forfar in the longer term, providing certainty to the development industry. This direction of growth is not new but has been established through the ongoing development at the Orchardbank business park which creates a gateway to the town on Glamis Road. Although a formal environmental assessment has not been undertaken, the potential development has been assessed in considerably more detail than at the time of the previous local plan inquiry. Despite concerns of the Reporter at that time, the land at Westfield continues to commend itself for allocation.

2.707 The Angus Landscape Capacity Study provided the basis for an assessment of the setting of Forfar.

2.708 The study indicates that the approach to Forfar via the A929, Glamis Road, has restricted views to the south due to roadside trees whilst, on the north side of the road,

185 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Orchardbank Industrial Estate quickly provides an urban character. This is being extended as the new business park is constructed. One-sided development gives an unsatisfactory unbalanced gateway to Forfar and offers a moderately weak visual edge.

2.709 Views of Forfar open up dramatically on turning the sharp bend when approaching the town via the A932. The western edge of Forfar is visible although partly broken by lines of conifers. There is an abrupt distinction between the urban area to the east of Westfield Loan and the agricultural land to the west. The south-western edge of Forfar is visually weak with the houses on the south side of the A932 giving an impression of development marching south-westwards.

2.710 Site F7 is covered by 3 potential land allocation areas in the study: area H, south of Glamis Road and west of Westfield Loan, area I, a large area extending along the A932 and bordering a long length of the A90, and area J, a smaller area in the south-east quadrant of the junction between the A90 and the A929.

2.711 Development of area H would have a neutral impact on landscape setting and would create a more organic and consolidated urban pattern. This would give the impression of natural growth in contrast to the existing sudden edge at Westfield Loan. Visual effect on views out of or across Forfar would also be neutral and, in terms of views into Forfar there would be an opportunity to strengthen the edge. Overall, the views of the site from the A90 are very limited and, even following development, there would be no perception of the town being brought closer to the road. Site 7(b) would provide a clear visual edge to the town and improve the weak boundary at this point. Views from Balmashanner are mainly across the centre of the town and, for the most part, are framed by trees. Parts of the site fall under the lee of the hill but, in any event, would be seen to consolidate the urban form.

2.712 Site F contains hundreds of trees and these already provide a partial landscape framework to form the basis of future structure planting within a development.

2.713 Development of area I would also have a neutral impact on landscape setting but would create an unbalanced settlement pattern to the west. There would be negative visual effects on views from, across and into the settlement. Development would be highly visible from the A90 and A932. Development of much of this area has not been proposed because of the prominence of the land.

2.714 Development of area J would have largely neutral impacts but may appear as urban sprawl from the A90.

2.715 Although Westfield is further from the town centre than Turfbeg, development in either location is as likely to lead to people using cars to make a variety of journeys. Local bus services can be provided to connect new areas of development with services and facilities. Nevertheless, Site F7 is about 800 metres (mid-point of site) from a supermarket, post office and 3 local shops. All-in-all, Westfield meets the four criteria set out in structure plan Policy Transport 4, Development Location.

186 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.716 The presence of SAMs within Site F7 is well known and the required development brief would address this matter. Crucially, no objection to the proposed development was received from Historic Scotland, a statutory consultee. Historic Scotland would also be involved at the time of the preparation of the development brief. It is not envisaged that any problems would arise but, should a larger cultural landscape require to be protected, the situation would be reviewed.

2.717 It is acknowledged that the area is predominantly prime quality agricultural land but the Scottish Executive has not objected to the allocation

2.718 The landform and landscape framework in the area to the west of Westfield Loan is able to accommodate the type and scale of development proposed in preference to other locations around the town, some of which are also prime quality agricultural land.

2.719 An area of open land, possibly for use as a golf course, was included in the consultative draft local plan but it was subsequently decided that there is negligible unmet demand for golf courses. Nevertheless the finalised document allocates a significant area of land for open space/recreational use to ensure a long-term green buffer between the development and the A90. This area is included within the development boundary of the town and will require to be provided as part of the initial phase of development. Leaving the land in agricultural use would not be as strong a protection from development.

2.720 The area identified for possible future business/employment development beyond 2011 will require to be confirmed by a future local plan. The location may be suitable for such uses in view of the adjacent current development at Orchardbank.

2.721 There will be the potential for community facilities or, at least, the reservation of land for this purpose. The facilities would serve the needs of the local population and possibly also provide for currently unmet needs in the wider area. The precise nature of any such facilities has not been established but the situation will be considered in detail as part of the development brief for the overall area.

2.722 The Forfar and Carnoustie schools project involves the provision of schools to meet educational needs based on existing school rolls and projected growth resulting from structure plan housing targets to 2011. The provisional targets for 2011-2016 have also been taken into account. The project is to be financed over a 30 year period. Further development beyond 2011 may require additional school places in specific catchment areas but this will depend on the situation at that time. In the meantime, it would incorrect to provide capacity for potential additional pupils when the outcome of future strategic and local planning is not certain. As the area west of Westfield is identified as a long term area for growth in Forfar, a primary school may be required in response to additional development which may be allocated in a future local plan. It is appropriate to simply identify the potential requirement at this early stage.

187 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.723 The industrial area at Orchardbank has good provision of footways and the new business park to the west has both footpath provision and a cycle/pedestrian track. New housing would not create an undue danger to pedestrian safety.

2.724 The new road junction to serve the housing development would require to be designed to the requisite standards and in a manner which would minimise disruption to the free flow of traffic along Glamis Road. Industrial and residential traffic already uses the junction with Westfield Loan which operates satisfactorily. The introduction of a new junction would not be a traffic hazard but, in any event, a transport assessment of the impact of the development will be required to address any traffic issues. Accident statistics do not suggest that there is currently a traffic problem.

2.725 The development brief would be required to address the relationship between the proposed development area and neighbouring land uses. Specific consideration will be given to the proximity of new housing to the existing Orchardbank Industrial Estate and the new development to the west in order to assess any need for mitigation measures. It is likely there would be a significant distance between houses and businesses. The SAMs would also provide a 300 metre blank frontage opposite the industrial units. Beyond this there is a frontage of 170 metres opposite offices and, in turn, a 100 metre residential frontage. The new business park has a 30 metre buffer area, including planting, next to Glamis Road and contains Class 4 uses which will have no impact on residential amenity.

The Muir Group & Webster Contracts Limited

2.726 No other site in Forfar offers the potential for development provided by the land at Westfield.

2.727 The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment undertaken by Scottish Natural Heritage places the site within an area of “broad valley lowland”. The field structure with hedgerows and trees offers capacity to absorb development.

2.728 A landscape and visual impact assessment of the site has been undertaken and took particular account of the following:

• the large residential area immediately to the east and the industrial and commercial land to the north; • the local pattern of field enclosure with copses and tree belts which reduce the scale of the area; • limited views from the site to sensitive receptors due to slope and existing vegetation; • lack of landscape designations; • landscape value that has been assessed as low to medium and landscape quality assessed as good; • considerable scope for landscape mitigation.

2.729 It was concluded that the affected landscape has a low to very low sensitivity. In turn, the magnitude of the landscape impact is negligible as:

188 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• within the overall context of Strathmore, the development area is relatively small and would be virtually indiscernible from a distance having, for instance, little or no visual impact from Kirriemuir; • the masterplan allocates only 33% of the area for development with 39% for new woodland and landscaped areas and 28% retained in agriculture thereby providing flexibility to plan development around the key aspects of the landscape; • existing woodland would be retained with the route of the access road chosen to minimise impact on trees and landscape features.

2.730 Certain positive impacts would have a bearing on the magnitude of landscape impact including:

• no physical impact on the SAMs, the important settings of which would be either unaffected or enhanced although, depending on the safeguarding required, part of the housing land shown in the masterplan (areas H1a and H2b) could be somewhat reduced; • a large increase in woodland cover with the use of native species; • retention and creation of wetland habitats.

2.731 As Westfield is within the catchment of Forfar Loch, which is itself a component of the River Tay SAC, it would be necessary to take account the possibility of any impact that development may have on the SAC. Similarly, the consequences of a high water table at Westfield must be investigated. In this latter respect there is an opportunity to provide a series of ponds to allow attenuation.

2.732 In terms of the magnitude of landscape change, including changes to landform, land cover, vegetation etc the overall impact would be low.

2.733 The north facing slope of the site rises from 63m to 126m AOD but the development area is limited to that part of the site under 110m AOD. Ground levels to the north, north- west and west are maintained between 50m and 100m AOD for a considerable distance. Although inter-visibility would be anticipated, minor variations in topography, vegetation and other features frequently block long distance views to the site. Boundary trees along the A929 provide a screen from the north. Views from the east are limited by the close proximity of residential property along Westfield Loan and high ground at Balmashanner Hill effectively restricts longer views. Views from the south are restricted due to the north facing slope of the site.

2.734 Public roads provide few distant views of the site due to the flat nature of the valley, vegetation and changes in level. The A90 is in a cutting when adjacent to the site and, to the north and south views are obscured by vegetation and topography. It is proposed to strengthen the tree belt along the A929 and provide a landscape buffer along Westfield Loan where the existing dyke and vegetation could never provide a defensible boundary. Views across the site from Dundee Road reduce in impact as the road falls towards Westfield Loan. In any event, views from roads should be regarded as transient.

189 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.735 Many houses in Westfield Loan have direct views across the site although there are sections where the boundary is heavily vegetated. Planting is proposed on the boundary with Dundee Road but here the site is steeply sloping and therefore existing long distance views would not be compromised. Views from houses on Glamis Road would be reduced by additional boundary planting. This planting would also reduce any impact on the Orchardbank Industrial Estate. There are few recreational locations which offer views of the site. From Balmashanner Hill the development would be absorbed into the wider urban context of the town.

2.736 Overall, the visual significance of the development would be low.

2.737 Approximately 44 hectares of existing and new woodland would be provided within the site which would:

• provide a very significant buffer between the residential development and the A90; • in due course, provide significant shelter and an improved micro-climate; • provide a setting and backdrop to the business/commercial area; • provide community benefit with footways/cycleways and heritage trails; • control further development towards the A90; • eliminate any residual views of the site from the west.

2.738 There would be substantial areas of internal open space, particularly associated with the SAMs, but also throughout the development areas. There would be links to the Forfar Path Network. Biodiversity would increase and the use of native species and local provenance stock would accord with the aims of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan. If necessary, bunding and/or an acoustic living willow fence could be provided along Glamis Road to ensure that residential environment is not compromised by actual or perceived noise from the industrial estate.

2.739 SPP17, Planning for Transport, and PAN75, Planning for Transport, emphasise the importance of considering travel demands and site accessibility by a full range of alternative modes in the interests of promoting sustainable travel patterns and fulfilling the objective of a development strategy guiding development to the most sustainable locations. Westfield had been assessed by the council in terms of this objective and investigations have confirmed that the initial phases of development would be well related to the secondary school, the town centre and future employment opportunities. There is a primary school within 20 minutes walking distance of the site although, in the long term, it is anticipated that a further primary school would be justified at Westfield. The entire site is within 800 metres of bus routes on Glamis Road or Dundee Road with town services also operation along Westfield Loan and serving the Orchardbank development.

2.740 Distance alone is not the only determinant in respect of accessibility: gradients and the need to cross roads are other relevant factors. The basic requirement is to ensure that developments are well integrated into networks for walking, cycling and public transport. These wider issues to secure integration have been taken into account in the allocation of Westfield. In any event, the site is close to local shops.

190 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.741 Although a formal transport assessment has not been undertaken, it was important to assess impact at key junctions and explore the advantages arising from the provision of the proposed distributor road. The traffic analysis was supported by peak period traffic flows provided by the council, the identified implications of the Orchardbank Business Park, and the anticipated diversion potential of the distributor road although the work undertaken by the council was not a comprehensive assessment.

2.742 Insofar as the Westport junction is concerned, a development of up to 300 houses could be adequately accommodated at the present junction subject to signal staging. The full development would result in over-capacity in the afternoon peak taking into account traffic growth to 2016. The construction of the distributor road as part of the housing development would lead to a performance which would be marginally better than if only Orchardbank itself were to proceed. Other improvements at the junction, including road markings, altered signal staging and the relocation of a bus stop, could be undertaken. The road narrows to the west but there is a wide pavement to the north side of the road which would allow minor widening.

2.743 Particular concern has been expressed about problems to traffic flow which would be caused by eastbound right turning vehicles at Westport. A queue of more than 3 vehicles waiting to turn right could be accommodated. Whilst minor delays may be experienced there would be no significant impact on the performance of the junction. However, it may be that there is little demand for right turns as traffic could use the distributor road at Westfield as an alternative. At present there is insufficient detail to draw clear conclusions and it is only possible to make very general assumptions. If necessary right turns at the Westport junction could be prohibited. Overall, the Westport junction should not be regarded as a constraint to prevent the Westfield development proceeding.

2.744 The distributor road could be regarded as a local distributor insofar as it would include numerous access points. Nevertheless, whilst the primary purpose of the road is to serve the Westfield development, it has certain wider functions.. It would be built in phases but not likely to be complete before the construction of 300 houses, that is, at the end of the first phase of development.

2.745 Analysis of the Glamis Road interchange with the A90 demonstrates that the approach roundabouts would continue to operate acceptably following the full development of Orchardbank and Westfield. The use of this interchange would add about 3 kilometres to the journey to Westfield from the south compared with the most southern access to Dundee Road.

2.746 No adverse consequences would arise elsewhere on the Forfar road network due to the Westfield development.

2.747 Concerns about the proximity of the industrial activities at Orchardbank are unfounded because of the substantial intervening landscaped buffer zone. It is beneficial in terms of sustainable travel to locate residential development close to employment land. There

191 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

is already a mix of traffic on Glamis Road with no apparent adverse safety implications. If required, pedestrian crossing facilities could be provided.

2.748 Once it had been decided that a golf course would not be appropriate, it was proposed to provide a community leisure facility with open space catering for equestrians, cyclists, walkers and joggers. Footpaths would link to the wider network. A nature trail and cultural interpretation facility are intended. Future maintenance and management would be by an organisation such as the Scottish Green Belt Company although precise funding details will require agreement with the council. The provision of the green buffer and the distributor road is dependent on 300 houses being allowed in the first 5 years. Should this allowance be restricted both elements of the development could not be afforded. Although it is anticipated that the development would be phased, the masterplan has been prepared to indicate the totality of the project. Development in the period after 2011 could fall as a result of the review of the structure plan and it is therefore necessary to make an argument for total development at Westfield at the outset.

2.749 A precautionary approach has been adopted in respect of the SAMs with at least 30 metre landscaping zones. There is scope for a flexible approach although details would be determined in discussion with Historic Scotland in due course. If there is a need to provide a larger protected area and Site F7a is lost, it would be possible to use Site F7c or, alternatively, increase density. The concept of a cultural landscape is contrived and speculative with no planning status. Historic Scotland would have raised this matter if preservation was required.

2.750 There would be an irreversible loss of agricultural land but there is much prime quality land around Forfar and the degree of protection has weakened over the years. Agriculture has moved towards diversification and set-aside. In terms of SPP15, Planning for Rural Development, the land at Westfield is at the core of the long term settlement strategy for Forfar.

2.751 Although the business/commercial area in the angle between the A90 and Glamis Road had been viewed as a long term prospect, the success of the Orchardbank development has led to the prospect of completion earlier than anticipated. Of the net development area of 21 hectares, by October 2005, almost 5 hectares was committed for development, over 6 hectares was in serious negotiation and nearly 4 hectares was under discussion leaving a balance of about 6 hectares. It is therefore essential that provision is made for continuing business/commercial development.

2.752 There are no technical constraints at Westfield. The land can be serviced without abnormal costs. The owners are able to provide the required housing-led mixed use development both within the plan period and in the longer-term. It offers the prime marketing opportunity in Forfar being an attractive and visually contained site, capable of addressing all housing market sectors.

2.753 Westfield is the only site capable of providing the potential for short, medium and long term development at a single location. There is no structure plan requirement to provide

192 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

a range of sites, this being essentially a local plan matter. The choice required is related to settlements and Forfar should be the dominant housing location. The structure plan requires an indication of where housing land might be allocated after 2011 and the local plan must accord with this requirement.

2.754 Development at Westfield would round off the urban form in Forfar by mirroring the development to the north of Glamis Road. Economies of construction would maximise planning gain to the benefit of the wider community.

2.755 The site is highly accessible with frontages to two key principal radial routes thereby allowing distribution of traffic and minimisation of impact. There is direct access to the A90 via the grade separated junction with Glamis Road. The residential environment at Westfield Loan would be improved by the closure of the junction with Dundee Road. The prohibition of right turns from the A90 to Dundee Road would lead to Glamis Road becoming the main public transport corridor in Forfar. The new distributor road would therefore provide the opportunity to maintain public transport access to Dundee Road.

Conclusions

Structure plan

2.756 Elite Homes and the Wester Restenneth Company question the need for the Westfield allocation in terms of strategic targets. The structure plan requires provision for 500 additional houses in the period to 2011 in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area with a further 525 houses in the following 5 years to 2016. The total for the later period will be subject to review. Forfar is regarded as the focus for future growth and local plans should direct the majority of housing land allowances to the town.

2.757 The modified local plan review allocates sites in the first period as follows:

Forfar 600 Kirriemuir 120 Landward 72

Total 792

2.758 As indicated in PAN38, a margin of flexibility should be built into development plan housing allocations but I believe that the excess of almost 300 houses in the housing market area in the period to 2011 cannot be regarded as marginal. The council has indicated that additional allocations were made at Forfar as sites in Kirriemuir were not considered to be effective because of the drainage uncertainties. However, as explained in the Kirriemuir section of this report, Scottish Water has indicated that, notwithstanding the possibility that recent environmental works may lead to extra capacity, there is the possibility of further increasing the capacity of the waste water treatment plant to accommodate a further 270 house equivalent. I have concluded that drainage is no longer a constraining factor in housing land allocations in Kirriemuir and believe that sites in the town are capable of becoming

193 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

effective during the local plan period. Accordingly, I conclude the level of provision required in the housing market area can be set to more closely accord with the structure plan target.

2.759 The removal of the Westfield allocation of up to 300 dwellings would reduce the total in the period to 492 which is close to the structure plan target. In considering objections to sites that have been omitted in Forfar, I have concluded that land at Gowanbank, which is within the settlement boundary, should be allocated for around 60 houses and that land at Slatefield should be brought within the boundary to allow around 5 houses. Taking into account my recommendations in respect of Kirriemuir, this would bring the total up to 517 providing a small flexibility allowance which I consider to be adequate. The proposed boundary modification at Padanaram also provides the prospect of additional housing which increases the degree of flexibility. In turn, I conclude that the allocation at Westfield is not necessary to secure the structure plan housing land target for the housing market area in the period 2001-2011.

2.760 Should the Westfield allocation be deleted from the local plan review, contributions to the total of 525 houses that is required for the second period would be limited to 150 at Wester Restenneth and, in terms of my recommendations at Kirriemuir, 40 at Site K2, Hillhead, leaving a shortfall of 335. Elite Homes argues that the allocation of land for housing in this period should await the outcome of the structure plan review. However, this suggestion is made on the basis of the level of release in the housing market area during the first period. In view of my belief that there should be a reduced total for the first period, I consider that, in order to conform to the structure plan, additional land should be identified in the local plan review to make provision for the target for 2011-2016. I shall address this requirement in the context of my assessment of the objection sites.

The concept of a new neighbourhood at Westfield

2.761 Elite Homes has expressed concern that the raison d’être for the creation of a new neighbourhood has never been explained by the council. The Wester Restenneth Company similarly points out that the decision to expand to the west of Forfar has not been justified. I note that the Assessment of Possible Development Areas, a background paper prepared by the council in 2003, explains that the scale of the area provides an opportunity for a planned neighbourhood extension enabling the co-ordinated provision of housing, employment land, community facilities and open space. At that time it was considered that a golf course and related facilities could assist in retaining a significant area of open land.

2.762 In itself, the concept of integrated land uses represents a commendable aspiration but I am not convinced that the required degree of co-ordination has taken place. The golf course had a central role and although alternative recreational uses have been proposed, little detail has been provided. Some thought has been given to financing future maintenance, but again nothing has been finalised. Indeed, the Muir Group/Webster Contracts have indicated that the full provision of infrastructure and community facilities would depend on the level of housing undertaken. I can understand that a commercial approach must be adopted but I believe the evidence raises serious doubts about the prospect of achieving the comprehensive neighbourhood development required.

194 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.763 In terms of the second phase of housing, Elite Homes express the opinion that the neighbourhood concept renders the required structure plan review virtually meaningless. I share this view insofar as it seems inconceivable that, once underway, a co-ordinated neighbourhood development would be brought to a stop. It is therefore logical to believe that, should Site F7 commence as envisaged in the local plan review, the safeguarded land would come forward in the period beyond 2011. With a potential capacity of up to 400 houses, this site, along with 150 at Wester Restenneth, would provide the entire structure plan target of 525 for 2011-2016.

2.764 The primary school site is shown in a central location and yet the need for a new school has not been established. The council has explained its thinking in this respect but, should the school not be required in due course, a significant reappraisal of land use would be necessary.

2.765 Although it was stated that the employment land at Site F12 is proving attractive, there was no evidence to indicate that those areas under negotiation or discussion in October 2005 have subsequently been committed to development. Accordingly some 16 hectares appear to remain available. Site F13 provides a further 4 hectares of employment land. On this basis, the structure plan requirement of at least 10 hectares is comfortably exceeded and I conclude that there is no pressing need for the allocation of Site F7e.

2.766 All-in-all, I conclude generally that the benefits of a neighbourhood approach over Site F7 have not been substantiated and that, in particular, allocations F7b, major open area, F7d, possible school site, and F7e, possible business use after 2011, have not been justified.

Landscape and visual impact

2.767 The Landscape Capacity Study undertaken by the council places Site F7 within three areas: area H relates to the northern and eastern parts of the site, area I covers the southern and western parts and area J which lies in the angle between the A90 and A929. In view of my conclusion in respect of Site F7e, area I is not relevant in landscape capacity terms.

2.768 In area H, in terms of landscape setting, development is judged to have a neutral impact and to have the ability to create a more organic and consolidated urban pattern. There would be a neutral visual impact and development would provide the opportunity to strengthen the edge of the town. In area I, development would create an unbalanced settlement pattern and allow extensive views from the A932. Much of the area would be highly visible from the A90 and the north-west.

2.769 Elite Homes believes that the level of work undertaken to assess the landscape impact of the proposed Westfield development is inadequate. The site is visible from the A932 especially, the A929, and also the A90. Views to the north and south are open and panoramic. As the proposed development boundary does not relate to any exiting discernable boundary there is doubt about the capacity of the site to create a robust settlement edge.

195 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.770 The Muir Group and Webster Contracts consider the overall significance of the landscape impact of the proposed development to be low and that a number of benefits would result, including a large increase in woodland cover.

2.771 In my opinion, in view of the scale of the proposed development, it is inevitable that there would be a significant landscape impact. Despite the existing trees on the site, the proposed additional planting and the amount of open space, the construction of at least 600 houses over Sites F7a and F7c would extend the urban area from Westfield Loan along both the A929 and the A932. The current boundary has been described as stark but, whilst I would agree that there is an abrupt edge to the town at this location, I believe Westfield Loan provides a clear and appropriate distinction between urban uses to the east and non-urban land to the west. To some extent the boundary is softened by the curves in Westfield Loan and the stone dykes and trees. Accordingly, I conclude that the construction of new houses is not required to improve the Westfield Loan boundary.

2.772 Development extends along the north side of the A929 to the A90, Forfar by-pass, and it has been suggested that the development at Westfield would consolidate the urban form and provide Forfar with a more balanced structure. Whilst there is single sided development along the A929 on the approach to Westfield Loan, the council has indicated that this is not visually overbearing and, indeed, the new business area has a 30 metre planted buffer area. Trees line much of the southern frontage but there are also attractive longer distance glimpses towards the higher ground to the south and south-east. Although it has been indicated that this is not the most attractive entrance to the town, I believe the overall ambience of this part of Glamis Road is of a reasonable level and will be increased with the completion of the business centre. In turn, I see no reason to provide a more balanced or consolidated urban form and conclude that the Westfield development is not justified on this basis.

2.773 Opinions vary on the degree of visibility from the A90 although it is generally accepted that views from main roads have a low, transient impact value. It is my impression that local topography including the passage of the trunk road, in part, through a cutting, screens the A90 from any overwhelming impact. In any event, although Forfar was once effectively unrelated to the by-pass in visual terms, the development of the new business park has effectively brought the edge of the town to the A90. Any additional impact of the Westfield development would therefore simply increase the existing degree of visibility from the trunk road.

2.774 The Muir Group and Webster Contracts state that the tree screen along the A929 would be augmented but whilst this could be relatively effective, I nevertheless consider that development would provide the south side of Glamis Road with an inevitable urban character particularly when viewed from the junction with the new distributor road.

2.775 Elite Homes points out that the whole site is particularly visible from the A932 although the Muir Group and Webster Contracts believe that the impact reduces as the road falls towards Westfield Loan. The landscape capacity study shows that most of Site F7c lies within area I and that extensive views are possible across this area. However, the council also

196 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

considers the south side of Dundee Road to provide a weak edge to the town and that the Westfield development would strengthen the urban boundary at this point.

2.776 When approaching Forfar along Dundee Road, the bend to the west of the houses on the south side of the road is a crucial point. It is from here that views of the town are first seen in the wider context of the countryside and hills to the north. This is possible because of the topography of the Westfield site and the clear urban boundary formed by Westfield Loan. There are houses on the south side of the road but, in terms of visual impact, I believe these to be subservient to the panoramic vista to the north. In my opinion, notwithstanding the fall of the land to the north and the existing trees, development of Westfield, particularly Site F7c, would have a significantly adverse visual impact and would seriously disturb the landscape setting of Forfar. I do not believe that any benefit gained from any strengthening of the edge of the town at this point, as required by the council, outweighs the landscape setting considerations.

2.777 Site F7a lies within area H of the landscape capacity study and I accept that houses here would have less impact than the development of Site F7c. The least impact would be achieved in the angle of the junction between Glamis Road and Westfield Loan but the statutory protection afforded to the scheduled ancient monuments, no matter how restricted the additional cordon sanitaire might be, would effectively rule out any meaningful development at this location. I have previously concluded that the consolidation of the urban pattern and the need to strengthen the edge of the town along Westfield Loan do not justify the proposed development. I further conclude that, although the landscape impact resulting from building over Site F7a would be relatively less than the impact of development on Site F7c, in landscape terms the settlement boundary should not be extended beyond Westfield Loan.

2.778 In reaching these conclusions I have also noted the impact on views from Balmashanner Hill. I believe the development would be visible and would extend the prospect of the urban area. However, in contrast with the view from Dundee Road where the development would be in the foreground, the impact from Balmashanner Hill would be much reduced by the distance from the site. Important, distant views of Strathmore and the mountains would remain unimpaired.

Accessibility

2.779 Westfield is in a peripheral location and certain facilities are not within the recommended maximum walking distance of 1,600 metres. Nevertheless, there are local shops and a post office relatively close to the site. Bus services are conveniently located and would be capable of passing through the site. Although Orchardbank does not provide the largest concentration of employment opportunities in Forfar, the proximity of industrial and business premises to the site and the potential provided by the new business park, in my opinion, is a clear advantage for the site.

2.780 I have noted the concerns expressed in respect of the alleged incompatibility of existing industrial uses and the proposed new neighbourhood. However, I share the view of

197 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

the council that the disposition of the existing buildings, the layout of the new business park and the careful design of any new housing could reduce any potential impact to an acceptable level. The council emphasises that this matter would require to be considered through the development brief.

Note: this matter is considered in more detail below. The relevance of Policy ER11, Noise Pollution is emphasised in the conclusions.

2.781 In overall accessibility terms I conclude that Westfield is not ideally situated but nevertheless, should not be ruled out in respect of sustainability.

Traffic

2.782 Elite Homes is particularly concerned about the traffic impact at Westport which is generally accepted as being an important junction where lack of capacity would disrupt flows. There are some difficulties in providing a clear cut solution although I believe that limited improvements and amended phasing of the traffic lights would assist.

2.783 I accept the desirability of prohibiting right turns by traffic using the at-grade junction between the A90 and the A932 and consider it is not unreasonable to anticipate this possibility. No mention was made of providing a new grade-separated junction and therefore additional traffic would be likely to approach Forfar via the A929, in turn placing more pressure on the Westport junction. It may be that the new distributor road through the proposed Westfield development would allow some relief at Westport. However, lacking a detailed assessment, I am unable to conclude that the distributor road would assist. The principal function of the road appears to be that of a local distributor but, in any event, some doubt has been cast on the timescale for completion.

2.784 All-in-all, I have reservations about the traffic impact of the development but do not consider it possible to reach a firm conclusion in this respect due to limited information.

2.785 Objections lodged in respect of threats to road safety and pedestrians have not been substantiated but the council points out that the area does not have a poor accident record. In any event, a transport assessment would be required. I accept that there is no apparent reason why road safety and the particular safety of pedestrians should be unduly compromised.

Archaeology

2.786 There is general agreement that the two SAMs would constrain development although the Muir Group and Webster Contracts have proposed a landscaping zone that would extend at least 30 metres beyond the scheduled areas. It is believed that density or site boundaries could be adjusted, if necessary, to achieve the housing targets. Elite Homes is concerned about the impact of the SAMs on the overall layout. I consider that the overall scale of the proposed Westfield neighbourhood is such that any flexibility required in terms of the SAMs could be accommodated without detriment to the wider concept. The master plan prepared on behalf of the Muir Group and Webster Contract shows a comprehensive area of open space

198 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

which incorporates both SAMs and I think that this is a reasonable approach and would allow the undeveloped area to be integrated within the wider urban framework.

2.787 Elite Homes maintains that an area significantly greater that the scheduled extent of the SAMs and the cordon sanitaire requires protection as a cultural landscape. This “archaeological exclusion zone” would effectively preclude development over Sites F7a and F7c.

2.788 No evidence has been provided to refute the concept of a cultural landscape but, nevertheless, it is necessary to examine the credibility of the requirement. In this respect, I can accept that sites should not necessarily be considered individually and that a wider assessment may well be required to obtain a greater understanding of archaeological remains. Equally, I can accept that there could well be other archaeological remains in the vicinity. NPPG5 emphasises that the total extent of archaeological remains is unknown. Indeed, NPPG5 recognises that archaeological remains can, in some cases, form broader archaeological landscapes.

2.789 The definition of a cultural landscape requires selection on the basis of representation in a clearly defined geographical region. In this case it has been suggested that the development area is a central part of the cultural landscape from which Forfar has grown. Even if the town is accepted as being a clearly defined geographical region, I do not believe that the claim in respect of a cultural landscape has been clearly demonstrated. Similarly, the landscape must illustrate the essential and distinct cultural elements of the region. I do not consider that this requirement has been met.

2.790 It is unfortunate that the views of Historic Scotland have not been provided although I note that the agency was consulted and have made no comments in respect of a cultural landscape or any need to preserve the wider context of the SAMs. I conclude that the case for regarding the wider area as a cultural landscape has not been satisfactorily substantiated and, in turn, I further conclude that any development area should not be constrained beyond the extent of the SAMs and any related protection zones as determined by Historic Scotland. I believe it is reasonable, in terms of the master plan to allow for a 30 metre zone.

Summary of conclusions

• In terms of the creation of a new neighbourhood, I conclude the need has not been justified. • Insofar as road safety and particularly the well being of pedestrians is concerned, I conclude there is no reason why the new development should not proceed. • Archaeological constraints are limited to the SAMs and any protected area specified by Historic Scotland which could be accommodated within the overall layout. • Accessibility, whilst not ideal, should not rule out development. • Wider traffic implications could be important, especially if right turns are prohibited at the A90/A932 junction and a detailed assessment would be required. • Visual impact would be significantly adverse and the landscape setting of Forfar would be reduced to an unacceptable extent.

199 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• The deletion of Site F7a, when considered along with my other housing land recommendations would allow for 517 houses in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area compared with a structure plan requirement of 500 for the period 2001-2011. • The deletion of Site F7c for up to 300 houses would leave a significant shortfall in the indicative allowance for the period 2011-2016. This matter is addressed in my consideration of subsequent objections to housing land in Forfar.

2.791 Overall, I conclude that the allocation of Site 7 should not be maintained in the local plan review.

Recommendation

2.792 I recommend that the local plan review is modified by deleting Site F7: New Neighbourhood – Westfield.

200 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Omission – Land at Gowanbank

Objector Reference

Wester Restenneth Company Limited 835/1/3

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.793 The site lies within the settlement boundary of Forfar and is allocated under Policy S1 in terms of development in existing built-up area. The land is a vacant open area with some sharp, localised changes in level. The rear of existing residential property forms the northern, western and southern boundaries. The embankment of a disused railway line provides the eastern boundary beyond which is a large landfill site. Access can be taken from the north- east corner of the site to Montrose Road between residential property to the west and the structure of a former railway bridge to the east. In the south-west corner of the site there is a link between houses on the boundary to Arbroath Road.

Basis of the objections

2.794 Six hectares of land at Gowanbank, which was included in the council’s Assessment of Possible Development Areas, 2003, should be allocated for about 60 houses in the period to 2011. Access is achievable and foul drainage is available following sewer renewal works. Surface water drainage can be provided and no housing would be within the 250 metre cordon around the Restenneth landfill site.

2.795 The site should not be regarded as backland. Sensitive design and layout could achieve a desirable small-scale neighbourhood with access from either Arbroath Road or Montrose Road. The Roads Department has agreed that both junctions are capable of meeting the necessary criteria. Any requirement for land outwith the site to meet these standards should not be a constraint on the allocation of the land for housing.

2.796 As has been agreed at Site F4, Wester Restenneth, the entire area should be included within the housing land allocation, the matter of the landfill site cordon to be addressed at the time of a planning application.

2.797 Availability of alternative sites is not strictly relevant: what is important is the compatibility of sites with plan policies and the ability to be developed in the period to 2011. The location of the site within the settlement boundary is a significant and favourable consideration, particularly by comparison with the proposed new neighbourhood at Westfield under Site F7.

201 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.798 The site is effective in terms of the criteria set out in PAN38, Housing Land.

The council’s response

2.799 The objection site lies behind existing residential development on three sides with the former railway embankment to the east. Although the land is greenfield within the built-up area, it is a backland site with no open aspect. The site is capable of being drained. Access may be achievable subject to land outwith the site boundaries being required for a junction, including the related visibility splays, with Arbroath Road. An extension area for the landfill site lies on the opposite side of the former railway line and a small part of the eastern section of the objection site is within the recommended 250 metre cordon where new development should not be permitted.

2.800 A number of other sites in Forfar are identified for housing, including land at Wester Restenneth and Whitehills Nursery, both in the same general area of the town. Capacity at these sites in the period to 2011 has been increased. Along with Site F6, Dundee Road, and the area identified for the long term growth at Westfield, there is no need for an additional allocation of land. A future local plan review could reconsider the potential of Gowanbank for housing.

2.801 The objection should also be considered in the context of the housing strategy.

Conclusions

2.802 In terms of the wider housing strategy, my conclusion that land at Westfield should not be released for housing ensures there is no structure plan impediment to the allocation of the land at Gowanbank for around 60 houses. Equally, insofar as the local plan review is concerned, development will be generally supported in terms of Policy S1(a), Development Boundaries. Proposals must accord with relevant policies of the local plan although the text sounds the warning in paragraph 1.28 that all areas of ground within a settlement boundary do not have development potential.

2.803 In opposing the allocation of the site for housing the council has drawn attention to sites at Wester Restenneth and Whitehills Nursery which are in the same part of the town and where modifications have increased the capacity in the period to 2011. However, I do not consider, in local plan policy terms, that the proximity of two other sites with a pre-2011 capacity of 200 houses points against the allocation of the land at Gowanbank. To the contrary, I believe that an additional site in the vicinity would add to the range of choice of locations for house purchasers.

2.804 The council has also expressed concern about the enclosed nature of the site which is regarded as backland in character. The objector disagrees believing that it is possible to provide a layout which would create a small-scale neighbourhood in its own right. In my experience, backland development is more usually of a smaller scale and involves development on a site without a road frontage. I recognise that the land at Gowanbank does not itself have a meaningful road frontage but any disadvantage this might imply is offset by

202 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

the scale of development that would be possible. In this respect I agree with the objector that an appropriate layout could provide a good residential environment. Certainly, each individual house within the site would be capable of its own road frontage. I am also of the opinion that the site provides the scope to devise a layout that would respect the amenity of existing houses adjacent to the boundary.

2.805 Reference has been made to the 250 metre cordon around the Wester Restenneth landfill site. Visually, the site itself is effectively screened from the site by the former railway embankment but the cordon extends to the west of the embankment some 50 metres into the site (as scaled). I note from the illustrative layout provided by the objector that a development of 60 houses could be achieved without encroaching into the 250 metre cordon. I also note that the cordon extends northwards across Montrose Road and into housing Site F4, Wester Restenneth. Although the cordon would restrict the extent of built development over the Gowanbank site (as it would, at least marginally, at Wester Restenneth), I am satisfied that the balance of the site could accommodate 60 houses and agree with the objector that this is a matter to be considered in the context of a detailed proposal.

2.806 The objector states that the site is effective in terms of PAN38. One of the criteria in this respect is the need for the site to be either free of infrastructure constraints, or that any required infrastructure can realistically be provided. The council agrees that the site could be drained and believes that access may be achieved although sight lines would extend beyond the site boundary. The objector points out that the Roads Department has accepted the technical standards could be achieved and so access should not be regarded as a constraint to the allocation of the land for housing.

2.807 I note that the minute of the meeting with the Roads Department that took place on 7 October 2007 indicates that the council requested efforts be made to alter the Arbroath Road access to improve visibility but was happy with the Montrose Road access. This has not been confirmed as an accurate record but has not been disputed by the council. The access to Arbroath Road is narrow and angled and, in my opinion could impact on the amenity of the immediately adjacent residential properties. However, notwithstanding the remaining structure of the railway bridge, the Montrose Road access is said to have the required visibility. On this basis I am prepared to accept that access arrangements should not preclude the allocation of the site for housing and that the land can be regarded as effective.

2.808 Although the land is peripheral, it lies within the settlement boundary. The council has not suggested that the site would be unsuitable in terms of accessibility or that development is otherwise precluded under the qualifications contained in paragraph 1.28. Overall, I conclude that Gowanbank should be allocated for housing in the period to 2011.

Recommendation

2.809 I recommend the local plan review is modified to include the land at Gowanbank as a designated site for housing with a capacity of around 60 units in the period to 2011.

203 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Associated text should be inserted as considered appropriate by the council and the housing land allocations modified accordingly.

204 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Omission – Land at Suttieside

Objector Reference

Mr G K Robertson 66/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.810 The site at Suttieside is a large area adjacent to the north-east settlement boundary of Forfar. Much of the land is agricultural and generally open although the southern part of the site is crossed by two former railway lines. Housing encloses the western part of the site. Suttieside Road is a narrow country road to the north side of which is agricultural land.

Basis of the objection

2.811 In addition to 11 sites which have planning permission or are under construction, the local plan review allocates several other sites for housing. Site F4, Wester Restenneth is large but is not effective due to a need for ground remediation. Various additional “opportunity” sites also suffer from development constraints. Overall, the range of choice for house purchasers required by SPP3, Land for Housing, is limited. The land at Suttieside, which is available for development, should be allocated for housing thereby adding to the range of choice.

2.812 Some of the housing sites identified by the local plan review are on greenfield land adjacent to the edge of the town. Suttieside is similarly located with residential development to the west, south and north-west.

2.813 Westfield is identified for major growth but very limited reasons are given for the development strategy of expansion to the west of the town. Proximity to the Forfar by-pass would simply encourage commuting and leisure and shopping journeys to Dundee and beyond. On the other hand, sites more remote from the by-pass would encourage purchasers more committed to Forfar and its local services.

2.814 The site at Suttieside is of a size which could offer the required range of housing. Although the council is concerned that the strong countryside character of the land would be compromised, land to the north of Suttieside Road is owned by the objector who therefore has control over the promotion of alternative developments and is also able to undertake road improvements without constraint.

205 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.815 The site is well-related to the urban form with residential development to three sides. In contrast, Westfield is an exposed site open to long views from major roads. It is questionable whether the advice in PAN44, Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape, was taken into account or whether an environmental impact exercise was undertaken prior to the allocation of Westfield.

2.816 The council accepts that the proposed peripheral road would provide access to Suttieside. If necessary, a more limited area could be allocated for development, with the land to the west providing a first phase. This would provide the required choice of housing land in an area close to the new primary school, employment land, and nearer to the town centre than Westfield.

The council’s response

2.817 Suttieside is greenfield land on the edge of the town which could accommodate a significant level of housing development. The area has a strong countryside character and development here would not be well-related to the existing built form of Forfar. Suttieside Road is an unclassified rural road which would require to be widened thereby significantly altering the rural character of the area. The road at St Margaret's Park is not suitable to provide access for large scale housing development.

2.818 The objection should also be considered in the wider context of the housing strategy.

Conclusions

2.819 I note the council’s landscape capacity study indicates that development of the objection site would extend development over the edge of the bowl in which Forfar lies. The edge in this location is delineated by the line of the former railway and the breach would have a negative impact. The study believes that development would also have a negative impact in creating a strong urban character to this approach to Forfar which is currently stated to provide a strong village environment.

2.820 I share the opinion of the council that Suttieside Road quickly becomes rural in character and that the disused railway line provides a clear settlement boundary to the south. Insofar as I have concluded that there is no requirement to release greenfield land beyond the settlement boundary of Forfar in the period to 2011 and that in the period between 2011-2016 other land should be considered for release, I conclude that there is no strategic reason to allocate the land at Suttieside Road for housing purposes. Notwithstanding this conclusion, I support the objection to the extent that I agree land at Westfield should likewise not be released for development.

2.821 In addition to the foregoing conclusion, I am also concerned about road access to the land at Suttieside. The objector believes he is in a position to undertake any required road improvements as he owns the open land to the north of Suttieside Road. This may be so but there is existing development on both sides of the road close to the junction with Carseview Road and it is not clear to me how any improvements required at this point could be

206 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review implemented. Reference is also made to “the proposed peripheral road” but I have no details of this proposal. The local plan review makes no mention of such a road and I conclude that there is not a realistic prospect of access to the site being provided in this manner.

2.822 Overall, no detailed arguments have been provided by the objector to support the allocation of the site. Assessments in terms of landscape and visual impact and accessibility have not been provided. In this latter respect it has simply been stated that the site is close to a primary school, employment land and “all local services”. In terms of transport, it has been suggested that a site more remote from the by-pass might lead to the purchase of houses by residents with more commitment to Forfar and local services. I can accept the generality of the claim that commuters may well prefer houses close to the by-pass but I have no definitive evidence to indicate that houses at Suttieside would be of more local benefit. I am therefore unable to conclude from this level of detail that the land would be suited to residential development.

2.823 In reaching this conclusion I have also taken account of the suggestion that the western part of the site could form a first phase of development. Although this part of the site lies close to the existing edge of the built-up area, it does not relate well to the settlement, particularly in respect of the local road network. I have no details of the potential first phase and therefore conclude similarly that the land should not be partially allocated for residential development.

Recommendation

2.824 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

207 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Omission – Land at Slatefield

Objector Reference

Select Homes (Tayside) Limited 871/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Formal inquiry Richard Dent

______

Background

2.825 Slatefield is an area of some 2.28 hectares adjacent to but outwith the Forfar settlement boundary to the south of the town. Housing forms the northern, western and southern boundaries with agricultural land to the east. The land rises steadily from west to east across the site and beyond. The land is agricultural although there are spoil mounds associated with residential development in the northern part of the site.

Basis of the objection

2.826 Land at Slatefield should be included within the Forfar settlement boundary and allocated for housing in Table 3, New Allocations, with a capacity in the order of 5-10 houses. The site is suitable for this purpose as it represents a logical extension of, and infill between, two areas of land where high quality housing has recently been built. Although the land is in agricultural use, there is housing on three sides. The proposed rounded-off settlement boundary would consolidate the urban pattern and be defensible in the long term. Although the land is subject to restricted use in terms as an agreement under Section 75 of the 1997 Act, this is not an issue for the local plan preparation process as the agreement should not fetter any decision on land use policies.

2.827 Notwithstanding the reasons for approval, the principle of development on the lower slopes of the hillside has been established by the granting of planning permission on the land to the south Dundee Road and at Slatefield Farm. SPP3, Planning for Housing, recognises the useful contribution that infill sites can often make to housing land supply.

2.828 Although the council does not consider there is a requirement to develop the remaining open space at Slatefield, the site offers a unique opportunity to provide additional high quality housing within an established residential development. This would provide a wider range of housing in the town as the sites allocated in the local plan review do not have a similar character.

2.829 The land rises to the east to a ridgeline marked by conifer woodland with other woods to the north and south. The site lies generally between 120 and 130 metres above Ordnance Datum. The south-east corner possibly rises to about 140 metres but, significantly, is no

208 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

higher than the adjacent the new housing to the south. Balmashanner Hill rises to 170 metres AOD to the north-east offering extensive views to the north and west. Paths north and south of Slatefield link to the wider footpath network

2.830 Development of Slatefield would not break the ridge line to the east and there are several other examples of housing – which are not out of character - extending up the mid- slopes of Balmashanner Hill to between the 120 and 140 metre contours. The site would be visually contained by a backdrop of vegetation with more trees in the background to both the north and south. Views of the site are generally limited to areas to the west/south west, from which direction there are few receptors, and west/north west where there are more receptors, particularly from Westfield Loan although most houses there have views orientated to the west. There are extensive views from the site to the north and west.

2.831 New structure planting would further integrate the new houses. The upper slopes have relatively higher landscape character sensitivity because of their elevation and exposure. However, the landscape character sensitivity of the site itself is low and is not subject to any protective designation.

The council’s response

2.832 Six executive houses were approved on the land to the south of the site, beyond the settlement boundary, to meet a demonstrated need for this type of development which could not be met within the boundary. At that time only brownfield sites were available and were not suited to the type of development envisaged. The balance of the land was to remain open and free from development in order to resist further pressure for development on the slopes of Balmashanner. A section 50 (now section 75) agreement to put this intention into effect was concluded, the terms of which remain valid and relevant. However, the agreement should not fetter the discretion of the council and, should the site be considered appropriate for development, negotiations would be required with a view to discharging or varying the terms.

2.833 Development to the north mainly involved the redevelopment of that part of the vacant Slatefield Farm which was within the settlement boundary. In order to improve local amenity, the permission extended over a limited area beyond the boundary. This was part of the farm, and contained a number of unsightly structures.

2.834 Although the development of the land to the north and south was considered to have no adverse landscape impact, the infill required would not be acceptable because of the cumulative effect on a slope that is visually prominent. In turn, this would have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of Balmashanner Hill. Development would be obvious with rooflines visible from various directions.

2.835 There is no overriding requirement to build on the objection site as the housing sites allocated in the local plan review provide for a significant number of houses and a variety of types. It is accepted that all the allocated sites are large-scale with a capacity in each case of over 100 houses.

209 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.836 I have noted the reasons for granting planning permission for development to the north and south of the objection site and can appreciate that the houses now being completed offered purchasers an alternative that would not be available on brownfield sites within the settlement boundary. The sites allocated in the local plan review, which include significant greenfield release, will undoubtedly allow the provision of houses offering a widened range of choice. However, I share the objector’s opinion that the Slatefield site would further extend that choice in a small but significant manner. To this extent I conclude that the development of the site for high quality houses would accord with the terms of SPP3.

2.837 Whatever the reasons for granting planning permission, there is no doubt that the end result has led to the objection site becoming the subject of development pressure. Development bounds three sides of the site which, in my opinion, is therefore not truly infill in character. However, the south-easterly thrust of the recent development to both the north and south does bring about a significant sense of enclosure and points towards a justifiable rounding-off the settlement boundary. Development within settlement boundary is generally supported by Policy S1 although the text of the local plan review makes it clear that all land within the boundary do not have development potential. The adjustment to the settlement boundary at Slatefield is required by the objector along with an allocation of the land for residential development. Clearly, in this respect, the council and the objector hold opposing views on the visual impact of such development, particularly in terms of the setting of Balmashanner Hill.

2.838 Balmashanner Hill is an important feature, the open character and landscape value of which is protected by Policy F16 (as modified). The extent of the protection is shown on the Forfar Inset map but this does not include the objection site. Indeed, the southern boundary of the protected area is beyond a disused quarry to the north of the Slatefield development. It is therefore clear that the objection site is not within the heart of the area that the council considers worthy of protection or even immediately adjacent to that area.

2.839 In considering the planning application for the development to the south of the objection site, I note account was taken of the offer to enter into a section 75 agreement to ensure no further development on land (including the objection site) between the application site and Balmashanner Hill. The Director of Planning and Transport believed that the development would not affect the setting of the hill and would not have an impact on views from the hill. Although, there is agreement that the terms of the section 75 agreement should not fetter the discretion of the council in land use matters arising from the review of the local plan, I consider that it is necessary to assess, in land use terms, the likely impact on the landscape character of the area that would result from the development of the objection site. Although the objector is of the opinion that the site has little value in terms of landscape character, the council argues that cumulative impact would be unacceptable.

2.840 Balmashanner Hill overlooks Forfar from the south-east. The footpath westwards from the war memorial falls gradually and the aspect of the slope to the urban area below, turns from the north to the west. Nevertheless, the significant wooded areas and the

210 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

topography obscure views of the objection site and I conclude that, even following development, the site would not be visible.

2.841 I agree with the objector that views towards the site are generally limited to west/south-west and west/north-west. In terms of views to the war memorial at the summit of the hill, this is most clearly and directly seen from the west/south-west. However, I accept that there are few receptors in that direction. I also believe that the visual impact of houses on the site, even structures of a size comparable to those nearby, would be very limited and would be framed by the existing housing. The grain of the landscape has a distinct horizontal emphasis and would not be altered by the development of the objection site.

2.842 Moving towards to the west and west/north-west, Balmashanner Hill progressively assumes a less dominant role in views of the objection site. Indeed, for the most part, the backdrop to the site is no longer within the designated protected area. It was suggested that the site rises to up to 140 m AOD, but I agree with the objector that, importantly, this equates with the level of the built development to the south. Although buildings, particularly roofs, would be visible, I believe that the impact would limited, especially if the number of houses were to be at the lower end of the range of 5-10 suggested by the objector. Accordingly, in this view, the development would be acceptable in the context of both the protected area of Balmashanner Hill and also the more localised landscape setting in which the site is located. In this latter respect I share the view of the objector that the upper slopes assume greater importance in terms of landscape character.

2.843 Overall, I conclude that it would be appropriate to allocate the objection site for residential development and adjust the settlement boundary accordingly. The site should be listed in Table 3. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the strategic requirements of the structure plan, but believe that, in the context of the total allocation for Forfar and my conclusions in respect of other housing land allocations, the potential scale of development at Slatefield would not be of consequence. Nevertheless, the houses should be included in the allowance for the period to 2011.

2.844 I note that the site extends to approximately 2.28 hectares. However, an indicative layout has not been provided and, a range of 5-10 having been suggested, I unable to confidently conclude the appropriate capacity for the site. In view claim that the site is required to provide high quality houses on a site unique in Forfar, I believe that the total should be at the lower end of the suggested range. Clearly, the local plan review should emphasise the requirement for a high quality development.

Recommendation

2.845 I recommend that the local plan review is modified by means of an alteration of the Forfar settlement boundary to include the objection site at Slatefield. The settlement statement should include a new “F” site designated as Slatefield and specify a “high quality development of around 5 houses.” Table 3 should be adjusted accordingly.

211 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Omission - Land at Turfbeg

Objector Reference

Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited 69/1/4

Procedure Reporter

Formal Richard Dent

______

Background

2.846 The site extends over 17.6 hectares of agricultural land on the north-west edge of Forfar. There is new housing to the south of the site, Forfar Academy to the east and the A926, Kirriemuir Road, to the north.

Basis of the objection

2.847 It is proposed to use about 15.5 hectares of the site for the construction of 300 houses with the balance of the land donated to the council for community use such as a primary school or swimming pool. Some 78 houses have recently been built on Turfbeg Farm, the western boundary of the objection site continuing the outer line of that development and earlier development. This would provide a clear edge to Forfar as far as the A926, Kirriemuir Road.

2.848 Strategic objections in terms of the structure plan reflect those noted under the Elite Homes objection to Site F7, Westfield – New Neighbourhood.

2.849 At the previous local plan inquiry the council took the position that Turfbeg Farm would represent a “rounding off”. That site has now been developed but this does not preclude the development of the objection site to extend the urban form in an acceptable manner.

2.850 It had previously been proposed to promote the land leading down to Forfar Loch but this is no longer the intention. This land would be donated to the council for visual and recreational amenity thereby enhancing the setting of the loch which the local plan review identifies as a key issue in Forfar. Development at Turfbeg would also meet other aspirations set out as key issues including the identification of housing land which safeguards the form and setting of the town and protects the character and function of the town centre.

2.851 The council has not undertaken an adequate assessment of Westfield and Turfbeg to enable the merits to be compared. Since the landscape capacity assessment was undertaken, the view of the site from the north has changed with the building of the new houses. The site now has a semi-rural appearance.

212 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.852 Turfbeg undulates gently from the ridgeline at the southern edge of the site to the A926. The ridge does not contain Forfar having been breached by the new houses and Forfar Academy, a prominent 4 storey building. There is also development on the north side of the road. Most of the town lies between 60m and 80m AOD, with Forfar Loch at the lowest point, rising to 170m AOD at Balmashanner Hill. The ridgeline to the south of the site is contained within a plateau that includes the academy, development to the east and Turfbeg Farm, culminating in a small knoll - a very important feature - to the west of the site at 80m AOD. Although it has been suggested that Forfar lies in a bowl, this feature dissipates to the north and does not act as a containing landform. On the other hand, development at Westfield would extend higher up the slope on the more prominent side of the bowl. The knoll and the topography limit views of the objection site from the A90 for those travelling north. The bridge at the grade-separated junction between the trunk road and the A926 shield the site from those who are southbound on the A90.

2.853 Access to the site would be taken from two junctions with the A926 with a loop road providing the possibility of routing public transport within the site. Connections are proposed to Taylor Street, Turfbeg Road and Forfar Academy although the design would not encourage through traffic. However, the prospect of a new access to the academy would be a benefit in view of the poor junction between Brechin Road and Taylor Street which currently provides the principal access to the school. Clearly this would require careful consideration and appropriate design and layout to avoid “rat-runs”. The road network provides scope for mixed density development, in turn offering housing choice. Pedestrian and cycling links would be maximised.

2.854 There is no dispute that the site can be serviced. There are no archaeological issues or other impediments to development.

2.855 There are few distinctive landscape elements on the site with some trees along the northern and eastern boundaries and an unscheduled crop mark. No specific landscape planning policies apply indicating the site is not particularly valued for its scenic quality.

2.856 In terms of visual analysis, development of the objection site would provide a link between the recently built housing and Forfar Academy which, in some views, is a very strong element. Approaching from the A90, which is not the most attractive approach to Forfar, there is a semi-rural impression which gradually changes as the town is approached. Development of the site would offer the opportunity to create a feature on the approach to Forfar along the A926 in order to strengthen the development edge. At present arrival at the edge of the town is sensed at Forfar Academy. New houses would not significantly change the character. From the north of the town the site has a minor effect on views. It would have no impact on the landscape quality of Balmashanner Hill.

2.857 Turfbeg lies at a lower elevation than Westfield with less constraint to development. Development would consolidate the settlement pattern by continuing to evenly radiate growth. It is more natural to have growth nearer the town centre, with which Turfbeg has good connections along with links to the loch and the A90. It is less visible and structure planting along the western boundary of the site would contain the settlement. In this respect,

213 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

the regular shape of the site and three defined boundaries are an advantage to the more triangular form of Westfield. A report on biodiversity has been commissioned to address the potential impact of the proposed allocation.

2.858 The site for community facilities would be located in the north-east corner, adjacent to the school. If required it could be used for a new primary school as part of an educational campus. There would be the potential for further growth to the west which could be achieved within the context of a new landscape framework, maximising the mitigating screening effect of the higher landform and knoll to which development could eventually be extended.

2.859 Walking distances from Turfbeg to various local amenities would be as follows:

Town hall 1.4 – 1.8 km Public library, West High Street 1.4 – 1.8 km East High Street 1.6 – 2.0 km Forfar Academy 0.1 – 0.7 km Primary school 1.8 – 2.2 km Tesco 1.1 – 1.5 km LIDL 1.2 – 1.6 km ALDI 0.9 – 1.3 km Lochside leisure centre 0.6 – 1.0 km Health centre 1.5 – 1.9 km

2.860 These distances, when judged against the recommended maximum of 1,600 metres indicate that Turfbeg is well located to encourage trips on foot to most amenities. Proximity to Forfar Academy is a particular benefit. A pedestrian crossing is proposed to assist town centre accessibility. In overall terms, Turfbeg is more accessible for pedestrians than Westfield. This is important in terms of structure plan Transport Policy 4 which seeks to ensure that development takes place “in the most accessible locations”. Westfield may meet the criteria but Turfbeg is better. In terms of employment, the greatest concentration in Forfar is in the town centre. All locations are within acceptable cycling distance. Various long distance and local bus services serve the site.

2.861 Turfbeg is well-located to take advantage of the grade-separated junction with the A90 particularly as the majority of residents would be likely to work in Dundee. Development would have little impact on the local road network and may have a positive effect by reducing traffic on existing residential roads. Walking distances would encourage less use of cars.

The council’s response

2.862 The local plan review considered potential housing land in terms of SPP3, Planning for Housing, which advocates the redevelopment of previously used sites, in preference to greenfield development. To meet the housing land requirements for the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area, housing sites in Forfar include brownfield land, greenfield sites within the town and an the allocation of greenfield land on the edge of the

214 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review town. Land to the west of Westfield Loan was regarded as a good location for new housing, providing a suitable framework to accommodate the scale of development needed in the period to 2011, as well as allowing for potential further development in the context of establishing a future direction of growth for the town. This position has not changed and the land at Westfield remains allocated for housing and associated development, along with major areas of open space. There is no need for additional or alternative locations to accommodate greenfield extensions to the town.

2.863 Development at Turfbeg raises concerns with regard to location, landform and landscape capacity, and local roads and access matters. Parts of the area are closer to some local services and facilities (such as Forfar Academy, the central area of the town and Lochside Leisure Centre) than other areas around the town. Westfield has the advantage of proximity to a range of local shops. Similarly, there could be potential for the provision of footpath links between new housing and these facilities. However, this is not in itself sufficient reason to override the other concerns despite the smaller area of land now required.

2.864 The offer of land for a school could be of benefit although a primary school is not required at Turfbeg at the present time as two existing primary schools are about to be replaced.

2.865 The Angus Landscape Capacity Study states that Forfar is largely contained within a shallow bowl to the north-west through east to south-east. The study further indicates that views of Forfar are limited when approaching from the Kirriemuir junction although the new housing at Turfbeg is an exception as this extends onto higher ground with straight development edges unsympathetic to the land form. Although the houses do not extend over the ridge line, they are visible. Structural planting is important and will be provided in a 10 metre strip along the northern boundary of the new development along with a further open area of 4 metres to accommodate a right of way beyond which would be hedgerow planting. This landscaping may, in time, partially mitigate the impact of the new houses.

2.866 The objection site comprises site M and the eastern part of site L in the study. Site L extends westwards to the A90.

2.867 The study indicates that development on site M would have a neutral impact on landscape setting and an adverse effect on the settlement form and pattern as it would extend the urban area over higher ground. In terms of visual effects, there would be a neutral impact on views out of or across the settlement and an adverse impact on views of the settlement as a strong urban character to the approach would be created. Similar assessments are made for site L other than views out of or across the settlement as development would appear as a disproportionate enlargement of Forfar when viewed from Balmashanner Hill.

2.868 Site K relates to land to the south west where development is no longer proposed. Negative assessments apply to all aspects of development impact at this location. Should this land be made over to the council it would probably assist in achieving the aspirations for Forfar Loch. However, the land is currently agricultural and does not detract from the setting

215 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

of the loch. In any event, the future of this land should not be dependent on the residential development required at Turfbeg.

2.869 Should development be extended to the west, a suitable boundary could not easily be achieved. The small knoll would not provide a clear end to development. The site itself is not bounded by urban development. To the east, the academy, although 4 storeys high, is not a prominent building and is substantially hidden behind trees on the boundary. The site includes much open land which further detracts from the urban character. The new development to the south has a significant intervening open area and planted strip. Despite planting, new housing would have a different character to the generally open site of the school.

2.870 Support for the principle of development in this location could well create a precedent for further future development in the vicinity. In this respect there is not a comparison with Westfield which is intended to provide for the long term growth of Forfar.

2.871 The objection should also be considered in the context of the wider strategy for housing.

Conclusions

2.872 Although the objector describes the land at Turfbeg as semi-rural in appearance I cannot agree that this is the case. The land is adjacent to the settlement boundary to the east and the south but it is in agricultural use and, in my opinion, is clearly rural in character. Approaching Forfar from the west, I believe the impression of entry to the town is gained to the immediate east of the objection site with Forfar Academy to the south and industrial buildings to the north of the road. The lack of any significant landscape feature on the land accentuates the views of the four storey academy building and the new houses to the south. These views will soften over time as trees on the western boundary of the school site mature and landscaping to the north of the new houses is provided as a condition of planning permission. The council accepts that the new housing is unsympathetic to the landform but believes that the landscaping may partially mitigate the impact.

2.873 Although the landscape capacity study emphasises the shallow bowl in which Forfar is set and states that the development of the site would extend the area over higher ground, I share the objector’s opinion that the rim of the bowl has been effectively breached in the Turfbeg vicinity. Similarly, I agree that the feature is more pronounced in the Westfield vicinity and the impact at that location would be significantly greater to the extent that, as I have previously concluded, development would be unacceptable. Although the council believes development would extend over higher ground, I again agree with the objector that development beyond the low ridge marking the edge of the bowl would be on a relatively level plateau.

2.874 In respect of views of the settlement, the capacity study is concerned about the creation of a strong urban character on the approach to the town. Although I believe the site is currently rural in character, the release of any site on the edge of a town will extend the

216 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

urban area and change the character. NPPG3 recognises that such release may be required, subject to careful planning. Account should be taken of the appearance from outside the town. At Turfbeg, despite the potential softening of the edges to the east and south, I consider that in landscape impact and visual terms, the development of the objection site would relate to the existing settlement boundary in an acceptable manner. In turn, I accept that the extension of the urban area westwards along the A926 would have little wider impact in landscape setting and visual terms. In particular, there would be no impact on Forfar Loch and impact on views from Balmashanner Hill would be insignificant.

2.875 I therefore conclude that the objection site is acceptable for a residential land allocation insofar as landscape setting and visual impact is concerned.

2.876 The site offers a good link to the A90 and although bus services are not as comprehensive as those at Westfield, there is the possibility of designing a layout which would accommodate public transport. It has also been indicated that the site could be linked to Taylor Street and Forfar Academy. I accept that this may reduce school-related traffic at the junction with Brechin Road but would be concerned that additional vehicles would be drawn through any residential development that took place at Turfbeg to the detriment of amenity. The need for careful design in this respect has been recognised by the objector. The council has expressed concern in respect of local roads but has not provided details to lead me to conclude that traffic considerations should preclude development of the site.

2.877 In terms of walking distances, Turfbeg is at the upper limit for many local attractions although proximity to the academy and leisure centre is beneficial. The ability of pedestrians to access Taylor Street would be a further advantage. I believe that the release of any greenfield land on the edge of Forfar would inevitably lead to more onerous walking distances and, in turn, sites would become less sustainable. However, notwithstanding the lack of a range of local shopping facilities, I conclude that development at Turfbeg should not be ruled out insofar as pedestrian access is concerned.

2.878 I have noted the offer of part of the site for community facilities and that land to the south-west would be retained as amenity open space to protect the setting of the loch. The amenity open space would not be integral to the development and therefore details and management arrangements could be determined, as required, in due course. In any event, the council has stated that the current agricultural use of the land is not inappropriate. The reference to community facilities is somewhat vague and the council has indicated that provision has been made for new primary school education.

2.879 Overall, I conclude that the local plan review should be modified to reserve the land at Turfbeg as possible longer term housing. The required houses for the period to 2011 can be provided on other sites and so the text should indicate that the land is safeguarded for development in the period beyond 2011. Development proposals will require to be confirmed by a future local plan. In terms of the structure plan targets, the local plan review should indicate a residential allocation of around 300 houses. I am satisfied that the site is adequate to accommodate a development of this scale and that, should a community need be identified

217 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

in the meantime, this could also be included in a future local plan review for incorporation into the site.

2.880 In reaching this conclusion, I have noted the objector’s suggestion that further development could extend westwards to the small knoll. I do not endorse this opinion: my conclusion in respect of possible future housing is limited to the objection site itself which could be sympathetically incorporated into the urban framework. I do not agree that development of the site in the period beyond 2011 should imply that further westward development would take place thereafter.

Recommendation

2.881 I recommend that the local plan review is modified whereby 17.6 hectares of land at Turfbeg is identified as being safeguarded for around 300 houses in the period beyond 2011. The text should further indicate that the development proposals are subject to review and will require to be confirmed by a future local plan.

218 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area

Objector Reference

Webster Contracts Ltd/Muir Group 953/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.882 The proposed modifications to the local plan review increases the capacity of Sites F4, Wester Restenneth and F5, Whitehills Nursery.

Basis of the objection

2.883 The modifications increase the housing allocations in the housing market area by 115 units and this could create an inconsistency between the local plan review and the structure plan.

2.884 The following options are suggested:

• Delete Site K2, Hillhead, Kirriemuir which is ineffective due to drainage problems; or • The capacity of Sites F4 and F5 should be retained at the level shown in the finalised local plan review (140 and 15 respectively) and the additions shown in the modifications should be treated as the product of a potential windfall; or • The additional houses shown in the modifications should be regarded as being within the margin of flexibility promoted in SPP3, Planning for Housing, on the basis that the various sites have uncertain effectiveness in the plan period. The text should be amended accordingly.

The council’s response

2.885 The local plan review makes provision for an adequate housing land supply in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area in order to meet the requirements of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. The proposed modifications took account of the possibility that sites in Kirriemuir could be ineffective through lack of drainage. This could have significant implications for the housing land supply position throughout the housing market area which would require to be addressed through additional allocations of land, primarily in Forfar.

219 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.886 With respect to the suggested options, land in Kirriemuir is now regarded as effective as the drainage constraint is capable of being resolved

2.887 The sites affected by modifications are not proposed to be subject to phasing restrictions controlling the release of housing land.

2.888 It is inappropriate for the scale of housing development, including the additional capacity proposed through the modifications, to be considered as potential windfall sites. Indeed, in terms of Policy SC3, the sites would fail the test of “windfall” development insofar as such development “will contribute towards regeneration and renewal”. This would not be the case with either site. Accordingly, the sites make a contribution towards the housing land allowances of the structure plan and are part of the housing land supply.

2.889 The “margin of flexibility” referred to in SPP3 relates to the structure plan process of identifying the broad level of housing land required and is not directly relevant to local plans which are required to allocate sufficient land to meet the strategic housing land targets. As required, the local plan review conforms to the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan.

2.890 There may be uncertainties over likely effectiveness of all sites in any local plan. In this respect the local plan review makes adequate provision through a commitment to monitor the effectiveness of sites through the annual audit of housing land. Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, states:

Adequate land has been allocated in the Local Plan to meet the allowances of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan up to 2011 as illustrated in Table 2.1. Land identified for residential development will be safeguarded from alternative uses, and its effectiveness will be monitored through the annual audit of housing land.

2.891 The relevant policy in the structure plan, Housing Policy 1, Housing Land Provision, requires that local plans allocate land to meet the targets set out in Schedule 1 and provides specific guidance in relation to the potential non-effectiveness of sites where it is stated that:

... If the annual monitor of housing land demonstrates that any of the current effective sites are no longer effective, alternative land should be identified to make up the shortfall, considering the potential contribution from sites in the established supply in the first instance and from new brownfield sites.

2.892 On this basis, there is no requirement for any adjustment to the text of the local plan.

2.893 Overall, the proposed modifications in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area (including adjustments to the capacity of Sites F4, Wester Restenneth and F5, Whitehills Nursery) do not raise an issue of structure plan non-

220 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

conformity. Rather, in light of the uncertainty over the timing of release of sites in Kirriemuir, the apparent oversupply of 180 units in the period to 2011 provides an acceptable and suitable planning response and will ensure that a supply of effective housing land continues to be available. In effect, it will provide flexibility, allowing for ongoing development without the need to bring forward additional effective land. It ensures a plan-led approach to new development and avoids a situation where the planning authority simply responds to planning applications outwith the development plan framework.

Conclusions

2.894 Insofar as the drainage situation in Kirriemuir has been explained by Scottish Water, it is possible to more closely relate the housing land allocations in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area to the structure plan requirements. The structure plan requires an additional allowance of 500 houses in the period 2001-2011 and 525 in the period 2011-2016 (subject to review). My conclusions in respect of objections related to land in Forfar and Kirriemuir and modifications proposed by the council lead to the following allocations:

2001-2011

F4, Wester Restenneth 100 F5, Whitehills Nursery 100 F6, Dundee Road 100 Gowanbank 60 Slatefield 5

Forfar 365 365

K2, Hillhead 40 Sunnyside 40

Kirriemuir 80 80

Landward (3 sites) 72 72

Total (structure plan target: 500) 517

2011-2016

F4, Wester Restenneth around 150 Turfbeg around 300 K2, Hillhead around 80

Total (structure plan target: 525) around 530 (subject to review)

221 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.895 As previously indicated, I believe the allocation of 517 houses in the period to 2011 provides a small but reasonable flexibility allowance.

2.896 The figures beyond 2011 are indicative and subject to review. The identified allocation of “around 530” is marginally over the structure plan allowance which I regard as reasonable, particularly as each of the sites allows for a degree of flexibility in the final agreed capacity, should the need for development be confirmed on review.

2.897 On the foregoing basis, none of the options suggested by the objector is necessary or appropriate.

Recommendation

2.898 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection although various recommendations are made in consideration of other objections which concern housing land allocations within the housing market area.

222 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Site F12 – Working, Orchardbank

Objector Reference

Charlton Smith Partnership 844/1/3

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.899 The issue of concern is the potential for noise problems arising from the proximity of a designated housing area of Forfar to a site which is allocated for general industrial use in the finalised local plan review. In response to a group of objections from this same objector seeking the inclusion of appropriate noise pollution policies, Angus Council published a First Round Pre-Inquiry Modification, in September 2005, to include a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution [which was considered in more detail in Volume 1 of this report in the context of other objections relating to noise issues].

Basis of the objection

2.900 The objector is concerned that if new noisy industry is located, particularly at the road-side, on site F12 adjoining the existing Orchardbank industrial area of Forfar, as shown in the finalised local plan review (FALPR), it would not be compatible with the proposed housing area designated as F7(c). In this regard, the objector considers that noise issues have not been given sufficient consideration, pointing out that at least one of the existing industrial users at Orchardbank operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He acknowledges that these existing industrial uses pre-date the housing developments on the opposite side of the main A929 road into Forfar. Nevertheless, he argues that the proposed extension of that industrial area westwards onto site F12 would need to have a noise attenuation bund or a clear strip of land along the A929 to act as buffer, before new industrial uses were placed opposite housing areas (F7) alongside the main road at that location. In the objector’s view it would be the wrong way round if housing developers along this road corridor were required by a development brief to have to implement noise mitigation measures because of the prospect of new industrial activities on the opposite side of the road. [Objections to the housing allocations within the F7 proposals of the FALPR have been considered separately in this report].

The council’s response

2.901 The council states that the development brief which will be prepared to guide development of land west of Westfield will address a variety of matters including the relationship between areas of proposed development and surrounding or neighbouring land

223 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

uses. Consideration will be given to the proximity of new housing areas and existing development at Orchardbank Industrial Estate and the adjacent new business park development, and the need for any mitigation measures will be addressed.

2.902 In response to a group of objections from this same objector seeking the inclusion of appropriate noise pollution policies, Angus Council published a First Round Pre-Inquiry Modification in September 2005 to include a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution. The purpose of this policy is to allow consideration of the potential impact of noise pollution and noise sensitive development through the planning process. There were no objections to the published modification. The council points out that when this is incorporated in the adopted Angus Local Plan Review, Policy ER11 will be taken into account, as appropriate, in considering proposals for noise sensitive or noise generating development across Angus, including new developments at the west end of Forfar.

2.903 In relation to the comments made by the objector concerning the development at Orchardbank Business Park, Angus Council approved a Finalised Development Brief in 2002 which established planning requirements to guide development of land at the business park. This Brief was finalised following earlier consultation on a draft brief, including a range of agencies, organisations and neighbours. The Finalised Brief established 3 main development zones - prime frontage, central area and sites adjacent to Forfar Loch Country Park. Development in the prime frontage zone, along Glamis Road and the A90(T), will generally be Class 4 business uses. The existence of the Brief to guide the development of Orchardbank Business Park - and the further work that requires to be undertaken in establishing the development framework for the Westfield area - will enable account to be taken of the compatibility of activities/land uses and specific amenity considerations, including noise.

The response of the objector to the council’s current position

2.904 The objector indicated at the end of the hearing that he was reassured by the council’s acceptance of a need to take full account of noise issues in respect of this particular objection. In particular, he welcomed the detailed responses and proposals put forward by the council, as outlined above, and set out on PP26-29 of the Proposed Modifications (published in September 2005), including the proposed inclusion of a new Policy ER11 specifically related to noise matters.

Conclusions

2.905 I am persuaded by the case made put forward by the objector that the published version of the FALPR did not give adequate consideration to the proximity of proposed new housing allocations (F7) at Westfield, Forfar to the newly designated business and industrial area (F12) located on the opposite (north) side of the old A929 Glamis Road, immediately to the west of the existing Orchardbank Industrial Area. I note that F12 also fronts onto to the Forfar By-Pass to the west and the Forfar Loch Country Park, immediately to the north. I am concerned that the uses on F12 should be compatible, specifically in terms of noise

224 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review generation, both with any housing areas allocated immediately to the south and to the existing country park which it abuts.

2.906 In this context I am reassured that the development brief prepared and approved by the council in 2002 relating to F12 makes specific reference to the need for sensitive consideration of developments at this location, taking into account the local context, particularly on prime frontages. I note that it suggests that mounding, reinforced by planting may be appropriate to minimise visual intrusion and assist in noise attenuation, particularly along the northern and western boundaries. Nevertheless, I note that this does not include the southern frontages facing towards the proposed housing land allocation areas (F7a,b,c,e). I also note, however, that the council’s proposed modification to the finalised local plan review (published in September 2005) does set out a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associated margin text referring to PAN 56: Planning and Noise (1999). I am satisfied that the incorporation of this proposed modification would address the issues raised by the objector concerning Orchardbank satisfactorily. Accordingly, I conclude that this proposed modification should be incorporated in the adopted plan, as now proposed by the council.

Recommendation

2.907 I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case to include the proposed new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associate margin text, all as set out on P29 of the council’s Proposed Modifications, published in September 2005.

225 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Site F14: Primary School, Whitehills Nursery Paragraph 15, Primary Schools

Objector Reference

Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited 69/1/3 & 69/2/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.908 The finalised local plan review included the following proposal in the Forfar settlement statement:

F14: Primary School – Whitehills Nursery

2 hectares of land at Whitehills Nursery, Fyfe Street is allocated for the development of a primary school.

The council subsequently proposed a modification as follows

2 hectares of land at Whitehills Nursery, Fyfe Street is reserved for the development of a primary school. (Outline planning permission granted 13 May 2005)

Paragraph 15 states:

… a site for a new primary school is reserved within Policy F7, New Neighbourhood – Westfield, to meet future educational needs arising from that development.

The council subsequently proposed a modification as follows:

Replace “a site” with “land” and replace “to meet future” with “to meet potential future”.

Basis of the objections

2.909 Objections to the terms of the finalised local plan review were lodged on the basis that the proposed site at Whitehills Nursery has poor access to the local roads network and the school catchment areas in Forfar. Neighbouring land uses are inappropriate including an oil depot and transport yard. There is an alternative site at Turfbeg in a more sustainable location.

226 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.910 Notwithstanding the granting of outline planning permission for a new primary school at the Whitehills Nursery site and a subsequent reserved matters application, a further objection to the modification was made on the grounds that the location of new primary schools should not pre-determine decisions on housing land. An objection was also lodged in respect of the particular reservation of land for a possible primary school at Westfield.

2.911 In terms of the proposed modifications, it is recognised that the proposal for a new school at Whitehills Nursery is far advanced. However, this should not prejudice the allocation of land at Turfbeg for housing where the alternative school site remains available. That site would redress the geographical balance of primary schools in Forfar and accommodate future residential growth to the north-west of the town. Provision could be made for a campus style facility. Notwithstanding the concern expressed, the Project Manager of the Forfar Schools Project has indicated that, within reason, the proposed schools can meet current and projected demand whenever new housing is developed.

2.912 SPP1 requires the planning system to support and enable sustainable development and should integrate policies and decisions in respect of the location of development and other changes in the way land is used. The locations of the schools at both Whitehills and Westfield further compound the geographical imbalance with a concentration of facilities in the southern part of the town.

The council’s response

2.913 The modification to the finalised local plan review in respect of F14, Primary School – Whitehills Nursery, was proposed because outline planning permission for the new primary school at Fyfe Street (Whitehills Nursery) was granted 13 May 2005.

2.914 The Forfar/Carnoustie Schools Project will provide three, two-stream primary schools for Forfar, by redeveloping two existing schools and building a new school on the site at Fyfe Street. In November 2005 the council appointed approved bidders for the project and reserved matters applications were submitted. It is expected that the new schools will be ready for occupation from August 2007.

2.915 The objection to paragraph 15 is to the principle rather than the minor changes of the proposed modification which do not change the overall intention in respect of primary schools.

2.916 It is accepted that the need for new schools should be related to future housing allocations as explained in proposal F7, New Neighbourhood – Westfield. The proposal represents a plan-led approach to the release of land for development in the Westfield area. Although a primary school is not required for the first phase of up to 300 houses, should there be further housing in the period beyond 2011, a new primary school may be required. A wide range of matters needs to be taken into account in preparing a development brief and masterplan including providing a suitable location for a possible new primary school. This would ensure that the matter is considered at an early stage, not at a later date when opportunities may be more limited.

227 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.917 Insofar as the new school at Whitehill Nursery is concerned I note the progress that has been made and accept that this project is likely to progress to completion.

2.918 My recommendation in respect of the proposed new neighbourhood at Westfield involves the deletion of site F7d, the possible site for a primary school, as part of the recommended deletion of the wider land use allocations at this location. My recommendation in respect of land at Turfbeg reserves an area for possible future housing development and I have indicated that the site could include a community facility, such as a primary school, should a need be identified. This could be expressed in a future local plan review. I therefore conclude that the proposed recommendations in respect of housing land allocations in Forfar do not prejudice, nor are prejudiced by, the potential distribution of educational facilities within the town.

Recommendation

2.919 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection although the modifications proposed by the council in respect of F4, Primary School, Whitehills Nursery, should proceed. Paragraph 15 falls as a consequence of my recommendation to delete site F7, New Neighbourhood, Westfield.

228 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: F17 - Forfar Loch

Objector Reference

Charlton Smith Partnership 844/1/4

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.920 The issue of concern is the noise implications arising from the proximity of Forfar Loch Country Park (Policy F17) to a site which is allocated for general industrial and business use (F12) in the finalised local plan review. In response to a group of objections from this same objector seeking the inclusion of appropriate noise pollution policies, Angus Council published a First Round Pre-Inquiry Modification, in September 2005, to include a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution [which was considered in more detail in Volume 1 of this report in the context of other objections relating to noise issues].

Basis of the objection

2.921 The objector is concerned that if new noisy employment activities are located at F12, adjoining the existing Orchardbank industrial area of Forfar, as shown in the FALPR Proposals Map, it would not be compatible with the Forfar Loch Country Park immediately to the north. In this context the objector contends that Policy F17 - which prohibits developments which would adversely affect the landscape or nature conservation value of the Country Park - should mean that adjoining parts of F12 should not be allowed to be developed with uses that generate noise which could impact on the setting of this Country Park In this regard the objector considers that the Country Park area should ideally benefit from quietness and seclusion in its vicinity. Accordingly, in the absence of a noise pollution policy he argues that, as a minimum, a substantial buffer zone should be established along the northern edge of F12 to reduce or eliminate noise impact on the Country Park.

The council’s response

2.922 The council notes that Forfar Loch Country Park dates from the 1970’s and so is pre- dated by the original parts of the Orchardbank Industrial Area. The Country Park was reclaimed land from an area of refuse disposal and has evolved in its urban setting from east to west. The busy eastern part features a caravan park and proceeds via a transition section in the middle to the west end which was a wild area prior to the Forfar By-Pass A90 trunk road being constructed and now forming its western boundary. Even today the western part of the park is relatively wild and is dominated by natural heritage. In this context, Policy F17 of FALPR is intended to protect Forfar Loch and the Country Park and its setting from

229 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

developments that would adversely affect the landscape or nature conservation value here. It is pointed out that the supporting text at Paragraph 16 also refers to protection of ‘local recreational value’. The council now accepts, however, that it would also be appropriate to alter the text of Policy F17 to include reference to the local recreational value in the policy itself – and similarly to alter Policy F16 (Balmashanner) in the same way, for the same reasons. Its proposed amendment to F17: Forfar Loch Country Park would read as follows "... adversely affect the landscape, nature conservation or recreational value...". Similarly, it now proposes to amend F16 : Balmashanner to read as follows "...open character, landscape and recreational value...".

2.923 In response to a group of objections, from the same objector, seeking the inclusion of appropriate noise pollution policies, Angus Council published a First Round Pre-Inquiry Modification, in September 2005, to include a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution. The purpose of this policy is to allow consideration of the potential impact of noise pollution and noise sensitive development through the planning process. The council points out that when this is incorporated in the adopted Angus Local Plan Review, Policy ER11 will be taken into account, as appropriate, in considering proposals for noise sensitive or noise generating development across Angus, including new developments at the west end of Forfar.

2.924 In relation to the comments made by the objector concerning the development at Orchardbank Business Park, Angus Council approved a Finalised Development Brief in 2002 which established planning requirements to guide development of land at the business park. This Brief was finalised following earlier consultation on a draft brief, including a range of agencies, organisations and neighbours. The Finalised Brief established 3 main development zones - prime frontage, central area and sites adjacent to Forfar Loch Country Park. For the ground adjacent to Forfar Loch Country Park, the Brief notes that careful consideration will be given to the precise nature of proposals for development in order to ensure compatibility with the character and setting of the Country Park. The council points out that, in the context of that Brief, development of the new business park on F12 adjoining Orchardbank now has planning permission and construction is under way with a substantial landscaped buffer and mounding being implemented along the boundary of the Country Park. This is in line with the detailed terms of the Brief and is intended to minimise visual intrusion and assist in noise attenuation.

The response of the objector to the council’s current position

2.925 The objector indicated at the end of the hearing that he was reassured by the council’s acceptance of a need to take full account of noise issues in respect of the Country Park. In particular, he welcomed the detailed responses and proposals put forward by the council, as outlined above, and set out on PP26-29 of the Proposed Modifications (published in September 2005), including the introduction of a new Policy ER11 specifically related to noise matters as well as the proposed amendment to Policy F17 now put forward (as set out above).

230 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.926 I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the objector that the published version of the FALPR in February 2005 did not give adequate consideration to the proximity of proposed new industrial and business park uses on F12 to the adjoining Forfar Loch Country Park, to which Policy F17 applies. I am concerned that the uses on F12 should be compatible, specifically in terms of noise generation, with the existing country park which it abuts.

2.927 In this context I am reassured that the development brief prepared and approved by the council in 2002 relating to F12 makes specific reference to the need for sensitive consideration of developments at this location, taking into account the local context, particularly on prime frontages. I note that this indicates that mounding, reinforced by planting, may be appropriate to minimise visual intrusion and assist in noise attenuation, particularly along the northern and western boundaries. Furthermore I am persuaded that the proposed amendment to Policy F17, put forward by the council, will reflect the importance of protecting the local recreational value of the Country Park. Based on the same considerations I also endorse the proposed (equivalent) amendment to Policy F16 as outlined above, for the same reasons. I also note that the council’s proposed modification to the finalised local plan review (published in September 2005) sets out a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associated margin text referring to PAN 56: Planning and Noise (1999) which I welcome and endorse. I am satisfied that the incorporation of these various proposed modifications and amendments would satisfactorily address the issues raised by the objector concerning Forfar Loch Country Park. Accordingly, I conclude that these proposed modifications and amendments put forward by the council should all be incorporated in the adopted local plan review.

Recommendation

2.928 I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case to include the proposed new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associate margin text, all as set out on P29 of the council’s Proposed Modifications published in September 2005, together with the proposed amendments to F16 and Policy F17, as detailed above.

231 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Omission – Land at North Mains

Objector Reference

Albamuir Limited 261/3/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.929 Proposal F13 allocates 4 hectares at Carseview Road principally for general industrial development (Class 5). There may also be some scope for limited Class 4 development in the western part of the site. Access will be from Carseview Road and a landscaped buffer will be required along the northern and western boundaries.

Basis of the objection

2.930 Proposal F13 is supported and is capable of development in its own right. However, there is scope for additional beneficial mixed development on further land at Carseview and North Mains. The settlement boundary should be adjusted to accommodate the proposed allocation.

2.931 The land is in agricultural and leisure use, extending from site F13 westwards to Brechin Road and bounded to the south by existing development and to the north by a farm track.

2.932 In broad terms the following development is envisaged:

• additional business and industrial development adjacent to site F13; • a swimming pool near Forfar Academy and an all weather pitch adjacent to the football ground; • around 60 houses, mainly social/affordable housing for which there is a recognised need; • new access from the west.

2.933 It would be necessary for the council to undertake future maintenance of the swimming pool.

2.934 Local transportation and infrastructure details would require to be considered in due course but it is envisaged that access, drainage and other services could be provided. There would be no impact on environmental resources.

232 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.935 The proposal accords with national planning policy guidance contained in SPP2, Economic Development, SPP3, Planning for Housing, NPPG11, Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space, and SPP17, Planning for Transport. Any structure plan issue in respect of housing should be addressed in the context of the significant benefits to be gained from the project.

2.936 The local plan review seeks to provide a range of business and housing opportunities.

The council’s response

2.937 Site F13 was brought forward to provide an alternative business/industrial location. A landscape buffer is required to ensure a strong edge to development. The proposed housing would extend development to the periphery of the town in an area with no landscape capacity to absorb development. The character of the approach to the town via Brechin Road would therefore be changed. In any event, the development strategy for Forfar does not require additional greenfield release, housing land allocations in the town taking account of the situation in Kirriemuir and providing for long-term growth at Westfield.

2.938 The recreational facilities should be subject to a sequential test in accordance with guidance contained in NPPG11 whereby preference is given to more central sites. The proximity of the football ground may provide potential for related facilities but any particular proposal could be considered against local plan review policies.

Conclusions

2.939 The council points out that there is no requirement for additional greenfield release of housing land in Forfar. The local plan review, as modified, allocates land with a capacity of 600 units for the period to 2011 compared with the structure plan requirement of 500 units. Indeed, the objector recognises that there could be a conflict in this respect but believes that the benefits of the proposed development overcome any strategic difficulty. I have recommended modifications that provide the potential for 517 houses in the period to 2011 and 530 houses in the following 5 years. Accordingly, there is no requirement for any additional housing land allocations.

2.940 One claimed benefit is the provision of social or affordable housing. However, Table 2.3 identifies an affordable housing requirement of 83 in the housing market area with a potential from allocated sites of 106 units in the period to 2011. Accordingly, a shortage of affordable housing is not anticipated.

2.941 I can accept that the recreational facilities could be a significant benefit and the council agrees that there may be a case for setting aside the sequential approach in favour of a location close to the football ground. However, these facilities have not been proposed in isolation but are part of the wider development package. Indeed, it would be necessary for the council to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the swimming pool. The council has given no indication that the pool would be adopted and therefore I am led to conclude

233 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review that the provision of this particular element of the proposal remains in doubt. In turn, any potential benefit is jeopardised.

2.942 The local plan review allocates employment land at Site F12, Orchardbank and, as an alternative, 4 hectares at Site F13 adjacent to the objection site. These provide the strategic requirement set out in the structure plan. Although the proposed additional business/industrial land would have the benefit of offering employment opportunities, the case for a further employment land allocation has not been substantiated.

2.943 On the basis of the foregoing, I do not believe that the claimed benefits of the required mixed-use allocation justify additional houses proposed as part of the overall development.

2.944 The council has also expressed concern about the landscape impact of the proposal and I agree that the development would extend into an exposed area where the visual impact would be significant. This would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of the town. All-in-all, I conclude that the mixed use land allocation at North Mains should not be supported.

Recommendation

2.945 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

234 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Forfar: Land at Orchardbank – conflict of land use

Objector Reference

Alastair S M Allan 906/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.946 Orchardbank Industrial Estate is a large area of established industrial and commercial uses to the north of the A929, Glamis Road, on the approach to Forfar from the west. Site F12 allocates the remaining land between Orchardbank and the A90 for employment land. This area is currently being developed. A small group of residential properties are located on the Glamis Road frontage at the south-west of the existing Orchardbank Industrial Estate. They fall within the employment land supply designation in the Forfar inset map.

Basis of the objection

2.947 The objector is concerned that the industrial allocation extending over the Orchardbank Industrial Estate includes residential properties fronting Glamis Road in the extreme south-western part of the zoned area. The designated area of employment land has subsequently been extended further west as site F12, the Orchardbank Business Park which is now under development. The residential enclave includes Orchardbank House, a category B listed building.

2.948 In land use and environmental terms, there is a clear conflict between the residential and business uses. Houses should not be located within an industrial estate. Residents cannot regard their property as homes that offer a safe future to growing families. The solution is for the council to acquire the residential property, a procedure that has been considered previously but abandoned in 1998 because of budgetary reasons.

2.949 The council has not responded to the objection in a proper manner. Indeed, over the years, this longstanding complaint has not been dealt with fairly, reasonably and with transparency.

2.950 It is noted that a section of the plan relates to environmental protection including Policy S4. That this section of the plan required re-drafting indicates, by implication, an admission by the council that there was a deficiency in the responsibility for the environmental protection of residents. Notwithstanding any claimed policy-based protection, the houses at Orchardbank remain in an area where there is a threat to safety and health.

235 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The council’s response

2.951 The land at Orchardbank was allocated for industrial development through the Angus County Development Plan, 1962, and subsequent amendments to that document in the period up to 1975. The area zoned for industrial development incorporated the houses that are the subject of the objection. An extension of 4.7 hectares westwards was included in the Forfar Local Plan, 1984. More recently the Angus Local Plan, 2000, continued the westward progression in allocating a further 29.6 hectares for employment use. A development brief has been prepared for this area to guide the location of Class 4, 5 and 6 uses and to set out requirements for landscaping, surface water management and environmental protection of the surrounding areas.

2.952 There were no objections to the policies and proposals for the establishment of land for employment use, during the preparation process of either the Forfar Local Plan or the subsequent Angus Local Plan. The development plan has therefore previously established the principle of allocating all the land at Orchardbank for employment use. The finalised Angus Local Plan Review continues to reserve the land for employment purposes at Orchardbank.

2.953 In response to a similar objection to the consultative Draft Local Plan, 2003, a new general policy and supporting text dealing with Environmental Protection (Policy S4) was added to the finalised plan. No objections to that policy have been received.

2.954 SPP1, The Planning System, indicates that the planning system should not be used to secure objectives that are more properly achieved under other legislation. The development plan (of which the local plan is a part) has the responsibility for setting the regulatory framework for land use and development, taking into account, amongst other things, environmental protection. Existing industrial development at Orchardbank benefits from planning permission and other legislation regulates public health and safety and environmental protection matters, notably the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, 1974. The Environmental and Consumer Protection Department and other external agencies such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Health and Safety Executive also have a role in enforcing the regulatory regimes. New development must comply with local plan policies. The council will continue to work in partnership with the range of agencies involved in environmental protection when assessing new development.

2.955 The objector is critical of the way the council has dealt with this matter. Complaints are made against the Planning and Transport Department in general and the Director in particular. Such matters are not appropriate for or relevant to a local plan inquiry and there are other avenues open to the objector to pursue these allegations, including the Public Services Ombudsman. For the avoidance of any doubt, however, Angus Council refutes the allegations of maladministration made by the objector.

236 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

2.956 I note the concerns expressed by the objector in respect of the alleged shortcomings of the council in terms of his objection to the finalised local plan review and to events over the years related to the residential property adjacent to the Orchardbank Industrial Estate. However, I accept the council’s contention that these are not matters for the local plan inquiry which must be limited to the consideration of objections insofar as they relate to land use matters arising from the contents of the document. As explained by the council, there are other avenues for pursuing such concerns.

2.957 Although the council has indicated that the industrial allocation at Orchardbank, which extends over the property that is central to the objection, originated in 1962 and has subsequently been extended, the current local plan review offers the opportunity to assess the situation. Despite the lack of any objections in the past, land use allocations should be considered in the context of current circumstances and, if appropriate and justified, changes should be made.

2.958 However, land use allocations are not at the heart of this objection which is essentially directed towards the claimed incompatibility of two long established land uses – residential and industrial. The objector maintains that the residential environment is neither safe nor healthy posing a threat to the wellbeing of the residents. On the other hand the council maintains that planning and other regulatory controls provide the required protection. I recognise that the close proximity of houses and industry can limit residential amenity but, as I have been provided with no specific details of the objector’s concerns, I am unable to conclude that the level of amenity has fallen below acceptable levels. I must also take at face value, the council’s argument that the appropriate authorities are in a position to take such enforcement action as might be required should the circumstances dictate.

2.959 Although the objector regards the inclusion of Policy S4, Environmental Protection, as an admission by the council that there was a policy deficiency, I believe that the local plan consultation and publicity exercise offers the opportunity to refine and improve the document. I consider the inclusion of Policy S4 and the associated text as an example of how this process has operated to the general benefit of the content of the plan. I therefore do not accept the opinion of the objector.

2.960 In land use terms, I have given thought to recommending that the houses should be removed from the current employment land designation and allocated for residential purposes. However, this would be likely to protect the residential use and not assist the objector in his endeavour to secure the acquisition of the property. In this regard, the council has provided no indication that the local authority is likely to promote acquisition through compulsory purchase proceedings or otherwise. I therefore believe that the wider industrial allocation should continue to incorporate the small area of residential land use that is the subject of the objection. I recognise that this will do nothing to allay the concerns of the objector but, in this respect, I must again draw attention to the council’s comments in respect of regulatory control and enforcement. There is no evidence to suggest that the property might be required for an employment related use and I am conscious of the constraints

237 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

imposed by the listed status of Orchardbank House. Nevertheless, I believe that continued industrial allocation is the most appropriate local plan designation for the objection site.

Recommendation

2.961 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

238 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Paragraph 3 – Key Issues & Development Strategy

Objector Reference

Kirriemuir Community Council 695/1/2 & 1/3 Webster’s High School Board 700/1/1 & 1/2 Kirriemuir Health Centre 758/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.962 The Kirriemuir settlement statement identifies a number of key issues and sets out the basic development strategy.

Basis of the objections

Kirriemuir Community Council

Car parking facilities

2.963 There is a parking problem in Kirriemuir which should be alleviated by designating the former yard site adjacent to Martin Park as a car park. This would help to meet demand when local football pitches, including a proposed all-weather pitch, are in use.

School provision

2.964 The community council believes the scale of new housing envisaged will lead to a need for increased capacity at Webster’s High School.

Webster’s High School Board

School provision and key services

2.965 The school board is also concerned about the level of house-building proposed in Kirriemuir in the period to 2016. Webster’s High School is operating close to maximum capacity with the largest ever roll in the period 2004-06. The proposed houses are likely to be occupied by families with children of school age and are likely to increase demand not only for school places but for other key services including health care.

239 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir Health Centre

Health centre provision

2.966 The current health centre is no longer fit for purpose and it is proposed to relocate after 2007. A suitable site should be made available.

The council’s responses

Car parking facilities

2.967 The potential of the former yard site should be investigated in terms of providing a car, coach and lorry park. This would also facilitate the prohibition of heavy goods vehicles from a car park elsewhere in Kirriemuir. There is no requirement to include the matter in the local plan review as a key issue and no change is proposed.

School provision

2.968 Webster’s High School is operating within capacity and offers places to a significant number of pupils beyond the designated area. Phased development and drainage constraints will ensure that there would not be a sudden influx of additional pupils.

2.969 The current school roll statistics are as follows:

Capacity Roll Places remaining

Northmuir Primary School 444 354 90 Southmuir Primary School 335 246 89 Webster’s High School 864 799 65

Health centre provision

2.970 It was initially proposed that potential for a replacement health centre within Site K2, Hillhead, should be investigated although it was subsequently recognised that there may be other possible sites. A further modification has therefore been proposed to include reference to a health centre under Key Issues and Development Strategy as follows:

Key Issue – The need to identify a suitable site for a replacement health centre

Development Strategy – Support development of a replacement health centre

2.971 Webster’s High School Board conditionally withdrew the objection as a consequence of the proposed modification.

240 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Conclusions

Car parking facilities

2.972 The investigation into the potential of the former yard for vehicle parking is a positive response to the objection. The site is currently shown under “development in existing built- up areas” designation and the council does not propose to identify this matter as a key issue. However, it would be appropriate to draw attention to the potential for land use change and possible allocation of the land for a car, coach and lorry park along with an appropriate reference in the text under “Community Facilities and Services”. I am aware that this land has also been suggested as a possible site for a new health centre.

School provision

2.973 On the basis of the roll information provided by the council (including attendance at Webster’s High School by pupils from beyond the designated area) and taking into account the phased development of any new housing, I conclude that there is no requirement for the local plan review to make special provision for additional educational provision.

Health centre provision

2.974 The further proposed modification in respect of a replacement health centre is appropriate and, insofar as site K2, Hillhead, is no longer specified, a more reasonable degree of flexibility is provided.

Recommendations

Car parking facilities

2.975 I recommend that the local plan review is modified, to reflect the council’s position, whereby the former depot is identified on the Kirriemuir Inset Map as a possible car, coach and lorry park. There should be a similar entry in the Kirriemuir settlement statement.

School provision

2.976 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.

Health centre provision

2.977 I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby the Kirriemuir settlement statement is amended to include the following additional bullet points as set out above.

241 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Residential Development - General background

The general background relates to the following sites:

Land allocated in the finalised local plan review

Site K(b) - Lindsay Street/Westfield Site K1 - Shielhill Road Site K2 - Hillhead Site K3 - Land at Beechwood Place

Omissions

Land at Sunnyside Land at Herdhill/Martin Park Land at Pathhead, Forfar Road Land at Newton Park Land at north of Cortachy Road (two sites)

2.978 Kirriemuir lies within the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area for which the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan requires land for 1,610 houses for the period 2001-2016. The effective supply in 2001 was 585 and additional allowances of 500 and 525 houses are required for the periods 2001-2011 and 2011-2016 respectively, the latter figure being subject to review.

2.979 Structure plan Housing Policy 4 states that local plans should allocate land to meet the additional allowances, the majority in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area being directed to Forfar. The finalised local plan review allocates land with a capacity of 530 houses to Forfar in the period to 2011. Kirriemuir is said by the structure plan to have experienced significant house building in the past which has contributed to pressure on infrastructure and other services. Programmed resolution of these issues will provide scope for additional building in the town in the future.

2.980 The finalised local plan review indicates that the 2001 population of Kirriemuir was 5,963, an increase of 9.07% since 1991. The review also refers to the significant house building in the past and explains that since 1999 further development has been restricted due to issues with the waste water treatment plant. (WWTP).

2.981 Key issues in Kirriemuir include:

the need to resolve problems at the WWTP; the need to identify sites within and well-related to the town to accommodate an appropriate level of new housing development.

242 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.982 The aims of the development strategy include:

identifying appropriate land to continue to accommodate a range of housing developments to meet local needs; giving priority to the redevelopment of brownfield sites within the built-up area where possible.

2.983 In respect of the drainage constraint, the local plan review expects improvement works to be completed by January 2006 although available drainage for new development will only be confirmed following a review of the operation of the drainage system on completion of the improvement project. The drainage situation will be kept under close observation and the council will continue to press Scottish Water to make the necessary investment to allow Kirriemuir to accommodate new development.

2.984 The finalised local plan review identified the following housing sites in Kirriemuir for the period to 2011:

Sites with planning permission at June 2004

K(a), Glengate 8 units K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street 39 units

Sites previously identified in the first Angus Local Plan

K1, Shielhill Road 10 units

Allocated sites

K2, Hillhead 60 units K3, Beechwood Place 50 units

2.985 The Kirriemuir Proposals Map shows the draft alignment of a distributor road passing through site K3. Site K(b) is wrongly identified as site K(c) and a recently completed development is shown as site K(b).

2.986 Site K4, Working – East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road, is shown lying adjacent to the eastern boundary of site K3.

2.987 Modifications to the local plan review were proposed by the council as follows:

Site K1, Shielhill Road

A note was added as follows:

(Planning permission granted for 14 affordable housing units on 18 August 2005).

243 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Site K2, Hillhead

The site was extended to include adjacent land and industrial buildings to the north of the existing allocation with the following description:

12.4 hectares between Kinnordy Road, Cortachy Road and Shielhall Road is allocated for around 120 dwellings as a first phase in the period to 2011. A further area of land is reserved as a potential second phase of development which may be permitted once existing businesses within the north-western part of the site are relocated.

Proposals should be in accordance with the development brief which will be prepared for this site which will include details of the following requirements:

• Vehicular access from Kinnordy Road and Cortachy Road as appropriate. Access from Shielhill Road may be permitted if the existing drop-off/pick-up area to serve Northmuir Primary School can be satisfactorily relocated. • 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing. • Potential for a replacement health centre to be located within the site will require to be investigated.

(The finalised local plan review did not permit access from Shielhill Road and included a requirement for a minimum of 2 hectares of public open space.)

Site K3, Beechwood Place

This site was deleted along with the distributor road.

Site K4. Working – East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road

Re-designated K3 with an amended description to take account of the deletion of the Beechwood Place site.

2.988 In terms of drainage, Scottish Water has explained that the original capacity of the WWTP was a population equivalent of 6,500. A constraint on development arose some years ago from the lack of capacity and the need to maintain the quality of the receiving watercourse. Scottish Water has no funds to increase capacity and the recent environmental improvements - due for completion in February 2006 – were undertaken to comply with the pollution control requirements of SEPA. When complete, the operation of the works will be monitored for three months to determine whether any additional capacity has been created. It is not possible to forecast whether such capacity will be created. However, should some “headroom” be identified, consent to connect would be granted following technical approval of any proposal that has been granted planning permission. This would be on a first come, first served basis. In respect of the Lindsay Street/ Westfield site, there could be no guarantee that drainage will be made available but Scottish Water will endeavour to make appropriate

244 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

provision. At present, there is no specific allocation of finance for additional work at Kirriemuir WWTP.

2.989 J & J Learmonth and Guild Homes approached Scottish Water seeking drainage connections and funded a study to examine the prospect of providing additional capacity to connect 100 houses each. The study has subsequently shown that additional capacity could be provided to allow connections for up to 270 (equivalent) new houses. In the face of a threat of a legal challenge by Select Homes, Scottish Water advised the developers that it was not possible to enter into the proposed contribution agreements. A legal action was subsequently raised and Learmonth and Guild Homes expressed an unwillingness to fund additional capacity without this being earmarked for their own developments.

2.990 The scale of impact of developments varies and therefore an impact assessment is an essential requirement in the connection process no matter the location of the proposed development. Distance from the WWTP is not a critical factor as the impact of a development both upstream and downstream requires to be assessed. It is immaterial whether sites are grouped together or dispersed as, in all cases, a pragmatic view is taken of the need to make provision. Scottish Water is not involved in guiding development to specific locations and has no objection to the level of housing proposed in the local plan review. New demand will be informed by the terms of the local plan review and sites which have been granted planning permission. Where possible, provision must also be made for windfall sites.

2.991 Although there have been problems in respect of the Den sewer, these have been remedied. However, this does not remove the need for a drainage impact assessment to be undertaken for any new development.

245 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Site K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street,

Objector Reference

Richard Lawson 68/1/4 Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd 872/1/4

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.992 Land at Westfield/Lindsay Street is shown as site K(c) on the Kirriemuir Inset Map. Table 1, Existing Sites, and Appendix 5 identify site (b), Westfield/Lindsay Street, as a site contained in the Housing Land Audit, June 2004, under the category of having planning permission or being under construction.

Basis of the objections

2.993 The site remains undeveloped despite a previous residential allocation and a current planning permission. Whilst the site is part of the established land supply, it should be no longer allocated for housing in the local plan review if a satisfactory drainage situation cannot be achieved and the planning permission lapses.

The council’s response

2.994 The council acknowledges the drainage constraint but the site remains identified in the finalised local plan review (it should be shown on the Inset Map as site K(b), the site shown as K(b) having been completed). An application for renewal of outline planning permission or a reserved matters application would be considered on merit against the local plan provisions.

Conclusions

2.995 I am aware from evidence given in respect of other housing sites in Kirriemuir that site K(b) (shown as K(c)) was granted outline planning permission in March 2003. That outline permission included a suspensive condition in respect of providing a connection to the public sewer. I am further aware that an application for the approval of reserved matters was lodged in December 2005. I understand the detailed application has not yet been determined.

2.996 No evidence has been provided to indicate that agreement has been reached with Scottish Water to make a connection to the public sewer. The information provided by

246 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Scottish Water suggests that there is no prospect of an agreement prior to the appraisal of the performance of the WWTP following the recent environmental works. It also appears that the question of access has not been resolved as both access options involve land not in control of the applicant. To this extent, the site could be regarded as constrained in terms of PAN38, Housing Land. Nevertheless, the application for approval of reserved matters has been made within the 3 year period specified in the outline planning permission and therefore the permission remains extant. I have no reason to believe that the permission will lapse and therefore, in terms of the text of the local plan review, the land remains as a site with planning permission under the 2004 Housing Land Audit. I believe there is a reasonable expectation that the constraints will be removed within the plan period. In turn, I conclude that the site is properly contained in the local plan review and should be shown on the Kirriemuir Inset Map under site K(b).

Recommendation

2.997 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections although, in the interests of accuracy, the Inset Map site allocation reference for the Westfield/Lindsay Street site should be amended to K(b) and completed site K(b) should be deleted.

247 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Site K1, Shielhill Road,

Objector Reference

Kirriemuir Community Council 695/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent

______

Background

2.998 As indicated in the general background, the local plan review allocates 0.5 hectares of land at Shielhill Road for about 10 dwellings. Northmuir Primary School is sited on the same side of the road to the south. There is an existing drop-off/pick-up point for pupils on the opposite side of the road to the school.

Basis of the objection

2.999 The land should not be used for housing but re-designated as a car park to pick-up and drop-off school pupils. This would eliminate the need to cross Shielhill Road in the vicinity of the school.

The council’s response

2.1000 The site has long been allocated for housing and planning permission has been granted for affordable housing. The pick-up/drop-off area will be re-assessed as part of the proposals for the development of land at Hillhead (site K2). For clarification, it is intended to modify the local plan review as follows:

insert the following after the description of site K1:

(Planning permission granted for 14 affordable housing units on 18 August 2005.)

Conclusions

2.1001 The local plan review preparation process has been overtaken by events insofar as planning permission has been granted for affordable housing. Notwithstanding the objection to housing on the site and the alternative land use suggested by the community council, the future of the land has moved significantly towards development. The practicality of reversing this process is such that I conclude there is little prospect of utilising the site for a pick-up/drop-off area. In pragmatic terms, any change to the housing allocation is therefore not justified and the council is correct in adding a note to indicate that planning permission has been issued. In reaching this conclusion, I have noted that the situation in respect of the

248 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review pick-up/drop-off area will be re-assessed as part of the development proposals for the land at site K2, Hillhead. (Objections to site K2 itself are considered below).

Recommendation

2.1002 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection. However, I endorse the modification proposed by the council in respect of referring to the granting of planning permission for the development of site K1.

249 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Site K2, Hillhead

Objector Reference (Finalised local plan review and/or first round modification)

J & J Learmonth 71/1/2 & 2/1 William Hartley 673/1/1 Mrs J Yates 674/1/1 & 2/1 Mr M Smith 676/1/1 Mr R E Clarke 677/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs L J Clarke 678/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs Ishbel M L Lindsay 679/1/1 Mr & Mrs D Lindsay 680/1/1 Mrs Lindsay 681/1/1 Mrs J L Ross 682/1/1 & 2/1 Mr Ernest Powrie 710/1/1 & 2/1 Ms Brenda Powrie 713/1/1 & 2/1, 2/2 Mr C F Wilson 717/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs E B Wilson 718/1/1 & 2/1 A A Barclay 720/1/1 Jill A Anderson 721/1/1 Mrs Ena Craik 723/1/1 Alexander B Barrie 728/1/1 Mr D McLellan 730/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs K McLellan 732/1/1 & 2/1 Mr & Mrs A Young 735/1/1 & 2/1 Mr Callum B Melville 737/1/1 Mrs M Johnston 738/1/1 Mr B Greig 739/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs S J Greig 740/1/1 & 2/1 Catherine S Hunter 744/1/1 Colin W G Willet 745/1/1 Iain Sime 749/1/1 Eric H Witton 801/1/1 Mrs M Waddell 802/1/1 & 2/1 K Simpson 803/1/1 Mrs I Hannan 804/1/1 & 2/1 William Driscoll 805/1/1 & 2/1 Darren Davies 816/1/1 Eric Y Hill 843/1/1 & 2/1 Maureen P Mansley 859/1/1 & 2/1 Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd 871/2/3 & 4/2 Mr & Mrs D McSheffrey 880/1/1 & 1/2 M Ferguson 948/1/1

250 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Supporter

Richard Lawson 68/1/2 Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd 872/1/2 Lawson/Guild, joint reference 954/1/1 Kilmartin Ventures Ltd 852/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Inquiry (Select Homes, J & J Learmonth, Richard Dent Richard Lawson, Guild Homes); hearing (Kilmartine Ventures) and written submissions

______

Background

2.1003 Site K2, as modified, lies in the northern part of Kirriemuir and comprises three distinct areas. The south-east section is a generally west-facing sloping field in agricultural use. To the east, there is a short frontage to Shielhill Road, opposite Northmuir Primary School and adjacent to a drop-off and pick-up lay-by for pupils. This is the highest part of the site and affords long distance views westwards to low hills. The field slopes downwards from Shielhill Road and bounds residential property, including Hillhead Terrace and a small play area, to the south. There is modern housing to the north-east in the Northmuir district of Kirriemuir.

2.1004 The north-west part of the site, extending from the field to Cortachy Road is employment land and is actively occupied by automotive businesses. The northern section of this area has a number of substantial buildings and the southern section is open and used for vehicle storage. This part of the site takes access from Cortachy Road with a tall hedge along the remaining part of the western boundary. It is this part of site K2 that was added as a modification to the local plan review.

2.1005 The smallest part of the site is to the west with an open area adjacent to the field providing a link to Kinnordy Road, at the lowest point of site K2, and a further area of garden ground extending to Cortachy Road to the south of the vehicle storage area.

Basis of the objections

Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd

2.1006 Kirriemuir is divided into three distinct areas: Northmuir, Kirriemuir itself and Southmuir, each separated by green swathes or “wedges” which are integral to the character of the town and reflect the pattern of growth.

251 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1007 Although the land at Hillhead was assessed by the council as a possible development area the landscape character was not considered and views to and from the site were not analysed. The Key Issues set out in the consultative draft local plan review included the protection of the landscape setting of the town, including important open spaces. Reference to landscape setting and important open spaces was not included in the finalised document and, significantly, the Hillhead site was included, some 7.6 hectares in size and, in terms of the proposed modification, extending to 12.4 hectares. Similarly, the Landscape Capacity Study undertaken by the council contains limited analysis and also does not take account of wider views of the site. Even when the trees are in leaf there are clear longer views of the land at Hillhead.

2.1008 The original requirement for open space has been removed in the modification, a further matter of concern in the context of retaining the green wedge at this location. This loss of this requirement would compound the visual and physical impact of housing development at Hillhead by obscuring views. Even careful design would not protect the landscape setting.

2.1009 There are important long views from Shielhill Road northwards to the lower highland summits and southwards to the Sidlaw Hills. This section of the road contributes to a sense of openness experienced by both motorists and pedestrians. Mature hedgerows and trees along boundaries to the west and north help to integrate housing and business uses into the wider landscape, an important consideration in assessing the landscape setting of the town. Views from Hillhead Terrace establish the clear divide between Kirriemuir and Northmuir. Northmuir Primary School impinges into the green wedge but does not close off the landscape corridor. In any event, educational uses are acceptable in a green corridor, the relationship of which to the wider landscape can be appreciated from the elevated land in the vicinity of the nearby camera obscura.

2.1010 Residential development at Hillhead would alter the fundamental character of Kirriemuir in removing the green wedge although, in landscape terms, the private garden area and the industrial buildings to the west could be allocated for housing without detriment being at a lower level and benefiting from tree screens.

2.1011 The majority of trips generated by the new houses - some 90-95% - would be to Dundee or Forfar. Much of this traffic would travel through the town centre to the A926 or A928, the alternative routes being unclassified minor roads, generally narrow and with poor alignment. Despite being signposted, the minor road to Northmuir is within this category and is not a desirable alternative. Additional accidents tend to occur on rural roads. Capacity is not an issue but the narrow town centre roads with sub-standard junctions and restricted pavements cause difficulty for both pedestrian and traffic movement and lead to conflict between the two. There is an accident cluster in the town centre and additional traffic would exacerbate this problem.

2.1012 It has been suggested that an improved drop-off/pick-up area for Northmuir Primary School and the potential inclusion of a new health centre are major advantages of the Hillhead allocation. However, no details of the former have been provided and a new health

252 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review centre would have reduced accessibility for most Kirriemuir residents being in an off-centre location. Although within the theoretical maximum walking distance of 1,600 metres (as advised in PAN75, Planning for Transport) the gradient from the town centre is a significant adverse site consideration.

2.1013 Overall, landscape and transport assessments of site K2 strongly suggest that the land should not be released for housing other than, perhaps, the lower area to the west which has an access to Cortachy Road and better walking links.

2.1014 Compared with the structure plan target of 500 houses, the finalised local plan review allocated 485 houses in Forfar in the period to 2011 and 110 houses in Kirriemuir with 60 at site K2 and 50 at site K3, Beechwood Place, a total for the two towns of 595. Following the proposed modifications the total in Forfar was raised to 600 with 120 at Kirriemuir, all at site K2, with a combined total of 720. There are also 450-550 houses allocated in Forfar for the period 2011-2016 providing a total of 1050-1150 compared with an allowance of 1025 for the whole housing market area, including Kirriemuir.

2.1015 The council has stated that all sites in Kirriemuir should be regarded as potentially ineffective because of the drainage situation. Accordingly, to compensate, an over-supply of houses across the housing market area was proposed. The drainage situation was also stated to be a reason for the allocation of a single site at Kirriemuir. However, in allocating a single site, the choice and range of housing opportunities is reduced in Kirriemuir, contrary to national and strategic guidance. The enlarged site K2 was also said to provide the opportunity to maximise wider community benefits.

2.1016 The first benefit perceived by the council in the enlargement of site K2 involved the possibility of using brownfield land. However, brownfield land normally comprises sites which have previously been developed or used for some purpose which has ceased. The uses at Hillhead have not ceased although the proposed allocation is likely to precipitate the closure of the existing businesses. This is acknowledged by the council insofar as a phased development is proposed which would allow the relocation of the businesses.

2.1017 The site in total cannot be justified as infill because of its scale, this being the opinion of the Reporter following the 1986 local plan inquiry.

2.1018 Despite concern about drainage, it is clear that the perceived capacity constraint should not be regarded as a reason the avoid allocating land for housing. However, the distance from the WWTP may give rise to a local constraint and point against the allocation at Hillhead.

2.1019 Wider community benefits listed by the council included accessible open space (a requirement that has now been removed), affordable housing, potential for a health centre, removal of business/industrial use and the possibility of providing an improved school drop- off/pick- up point. However, the site already provides open space, any allocated site has the potential to provide affordable housing, a health centre allocation could be made in its own right, likewise a drop-off/pick-up point could be provided without houses, and, by

253 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

implication, there is an alternative site to relocate the business industrial uses. In total, the claimed wider community benefits amount to very little.

2.1020 The proposal to allocate site K2 for residential purposes should therefore be limited to the area immediately to the south of the Kilmartin employment land presently used for vehicle storage and the immediately adjacent residential garden ground.

J & J Learmonth

2.1021 Development should be guided to the most sustainable locations with a view to reducing travel demand, and securing integration with existing public transport, walking and cycling networks. Guidance to this effect is contained in SPP17, Planning for Transport, SPP3, Planning for Housing, and the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. The local plan review itself includes policies to promote walking, cycling and bus transport.

2.1022 Location of a new health centre at Hillhead would result in the facility being more remote from the majority of the population and therefore not in accordance with policy objectives. In terms of PAN75, the distance is acceptable, although at the margins, but ill or elderly people and children would have to contend with significant gradients, possibly during inclement weather, and poor pavements. Other more appropriate sites may well be available including the council’s former depot site at Sledmuir (the land adjacent to Martin Park considered under other objections as a potential coach, car and lorry parking site) and lock- up garages adjacent to the proposed access to the Westfield/Lindsay Street housing site (site K(b)).

2.1023 Walking distances from Hillhead via Shielhill Road to major attractions are 52% greater overall than distances from Sunnyside, even greater if routes via Kinnordy Road are used. Although the site is closest to the largest pre-school nursery in the town, it is, for the most part, poorly related to the main retail facilities, leisure, health and new employment provisions. Bus stops serving Hillhead are further from the site than those at Sunnyside. Whilst, overall, Hillhead may meet the guidelines in respect of accessibility, by comparison the site is inferior to Sunnyside.

2.1024 Concentration of all new housing at Hillhead would result in greater potential traffic impact. Details of any access from Shielhill Road have yet to be prepared but it is clear that existing local traffic congestion close to the school would be exacerbated. Traffic impact would also be likely along the route to the south via Lindsay Street and Morrison Street. Other options would lead to additional traffic in the town centre, local residential areas and/or the unclassified rural road network, each of which would result in operational or safety concerns. Overall, development at Hillhead is least likely to encourage sustainable travel patterns.

2.1025 Following the 1986 local plan inquiry, the Reporter had concluded that the Hillhead site was too large to be regarded as an infill proposal and that a green wedge between Kirriemuir and Northmuir was desirable. Again, in 1999, following a further local plan inquiry, Hillhead was deleted as an “opportunity site” on the basis of size, proximity to

254 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

industrial uses and attractive open character. Loss of the site was once more regarded as being to the detriment of the green wedge.

2.1026 Although the council’s Assessment of Possible Development Areas concluded that the site is open in character but is not visible from outwith its immediate boundaries, it is clear that the land is very visible from Shielhill Road and development would permanently link Northmuir, which has a separate character, with Kirriemuir. The site is a strong contributing element to the character of the adjoining areas and development would result in substantial adverse impacts on landscape character and have a moderate adverse impact on visual amenity. The loss of this landscape resource, which is part of the natural heritage of Kirriemuir, would destroy the concept of space and sense of place to which the Hillhead site contributes. Northfield Primary School does not significantly impinge on the green wedge as the buildings adjoin playing fields which add to the perception of openness. Hillhead is the last significant area of undeveloped land in Kirriemuir and the need for new houses must be balanced against the importance of maintaining the green wedge.

2.1027 Notwithstanding the general disadvantages of the Hillhead site, the land allocated through the modification is supported to the limited extent that it represents the re-use of a brownfield site. If required, about 80 houses could be accommodated and the balance of 40 houses should be directed to Sunnyside, adjacent to land at Westfield/Lindsay Street which has outline planning permission. This would allow the best use of infrastructure at both Sunnyside and Hillhead.

2.1028 The Hillhead residential allocation should be deleted. Alternatively, any housing development should be restricted to the brownfield site. Should part of the land at Hillhead be retained for development, 3.7 hectares to the north-east of the site should be deleted. This would be the least damaging allocation and would help to maintain the green wedge concept, particularly when viewed from Shielhill Road.

Written submissions

2.1029 Many of the objectors to the finalised local plan review were concerned about the scale of the development and the impact on the character of the area and the town itself. The open, green nature of the land, which has long been used agriculturally, is an important feature in the local landscape. The land has never been allocated for housing and there are more suitable alternative sites, better located in terms of services and facilities. Some of these alternatives have previously been allocated for housing. Brownfield land should be used wherever possible.

2.1030 Retention of the land in its current condition would be of ecological benefit and retain the separate identity of Northmuir. Loss of features such as the mature beech hedge would impact on the existing character. Views would be lost and house values would fall.

2.1031 The development would simply serve as a dormitory for Dundee commuters. Traffic generated by the new houses would cause congestion in the general area around Kirriemuir, bring danger to the rural road network and the town centre, including Glengate, in particular.

255 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Extra cars would cause air pollution. Pedestrian access would be via The Roods, a long, steep hill. Development would not respect the principles of sustainability, especially as the site has a north-west aspect.

2.1032 There would be a detrimental impact on existing facilities such as the health centre, schools and the police.

2.1033 Residential development would not be compatible with the adjacent existing industrial uses.

2.1034 Several objections were conditionally withdrawn following publication of the proposed first round modifications in respect of the site. Other initial objections were confirmed and a number of further objections lodged against the terms of the proposed modification. In particular the increased density of housing at site K2 is of concern, especially in view of a possible link to Shielhill Road. There would be even further pressure on school capacity. Although loss of a view may not be a planning consideration, the loss of the green wedge would have an impact on tourism, a principal economic consideration in the area. Fewer houses to the west with access from Kinnordy Road or Cortachy Road may be more acceptable.

The council’s response

2.1035 Housing land allocations in Kirriemuir took account of a background paper which assessed possible development areas. The appraisal of sites involved consideration of landscape and visual quality, accessibility, proximity to facilities, drainage, water and availability of services, archaeology and other policy matters. The allocations in Kirriemuir reflect the structure plan advice but, in view of the uncertainty insofar as uncertainty over drainage provision, additional compensating allocations were made in Forfar.

2.1036 Kirriemuir is the second largest town in the housing market area and new housing would take advantage of existing services and facilities. The town is well served by local bus routes. The various competing sites are all generally within acceptable distances of these services and facilities and so the advantages of one over another must be regarded as comparative. Nevertheless, Hillhead has the advantage of being close to a primary school and within a relatively short distance of the largest food store in Kirriemuir. Wider planning benefits would be gained from a comprehensive, master-planned development at Hillhead.

2.1037 There has never been a council policy to maintain the Hillhead site as an open area and, at one time, the land was identified as a site for a secondary school. Residential use has subsequently been considered on various occasions but, although housing was proposed in the finalised Angus Local Plan, 1999, the allocation was removed following the findings of the local plan inquiry which took place in 2000. Nevertheless, that local plan refers to the possibility of sites in addition to allocated housing sites coming forward, Hillhead being quoted as an example.

256 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1038 The outcome of the previous local plan inquiry left the future of the Hillhead site uncertain although the potential development of the site was not precluded. The situation has been reconsidered as part of the current process and it has been decided that there is no over- riding requirement to retain the land free from development or provide an area of separation between the northern part of Kirriemuir and the centre of the town. Indeed, Hillhead is a largely greenfield infill site within the built form of the town where development would not have a detrimental impact on the wider landscape and has very little visual impact other than from points close to the site itself. There are views to the hills from Shielhill Road adjacent to the site but this is the case in many parts of the town.

2.1039 The structure plan requires a range of choice and this is provided by the allocations throughout the housing market area. However, in view of the drainage situation, it was prudent to concentrate the Kirriemuir housing land allocation in one location. This was a pragmatic approach intended to ensure that a variety of incomplete sites did not result. Nevertheless, land allocations should be based on sound planning principles and, in this respect, development at Hillhead would maximise wider community benefits. An attractive living environment could be provided including accessible public open space which would be provided to the recognised standard. Recreational benefit would derive from footpath links from the west of the town passing through the site to Kirriemuir Hill and Northfield Primary School. A significant contribution to affordable housing could be anticipated (15% in terms of Policy SC6), there is potential for a replacement health centre (although this will now be considered in a wider context), removal of business/industrial uses from the area could be achieved and there is the prospect of providing improved drop-off/pick-up facilities for Northfield Primary School.

2.1040 Insofar as the extended area of site K2 is concerned, the development strategy for Kirriemuir gives priority to the redevelopment of brownfield sites within the built-up area. The council recognises the industrial premises remain in use, currently occupied by a vehicle preparation and leasing company and a vehicle transporter manufacturing company. Technically, therefore, the site should not be regarded as “brownfield”. Nevertheless, in a plan-led system, it is appropriate for the local plan review to highlight to potential of that part of site K2 for residential development. This approach has the support of the owners, who indicated that the current use would be likely to cease, and allows for consideration of the future co-ordinated development of the wider site.

2.1041 A development brief will deal with a range of detailed matters. However, in view of the continuing occupation of the business premises, this part of the area should not be allocated for immediate development but reserved for potential longer term development, probably beyond 2011 thereby permitting the employment uses to continue for some time and allowing the wider employment land issues to be addressed. This would ensure the retention of employment opportunities, insofar as this was in the control of the council, and permit the residential development of the remainder of site K2. The situation should not be regarded as an incentive for the business land owners to render the site vacant but, alternatively, as an opportunity to secure a long term alternative location.

257 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1042 The Kirriemuir section of the Landscape Capacity Study identifies two important landforms in the town: Kirriemuir Den, a green valley to the south of the town centre, and Kirriemuir Hill. The disposition of these open areas is unusual and gives unique identity to the settlement pattern of the town. Whilst very important in terms of landscape setting, Kirriemuir Hill does not relate to site K2, as Northfield Primary School substantially masks views of one from the other. Development at site K2 would not have an adverse impact on Kirriemuir Hill as it is not visually or physically related to land to the east of Shielhill Road. Similarly, it is not possible to walk through “the green wedge” from one end to another. At worst, some roofs may be seen from Kirriemuir Hill should houses be built on site K2, The impact of any development would not be significant in the wider context.

2.1043 It is very difficult to view site K2 from any location, particularly because of the level of tree cover in the general area. Although trees in leaf can reduce visual impact, this was not relied on when undertaking the landscape impact assessment. Indeed, the analysis undertaken as part of the capacity study was carried out when the deciduous trees were not in leaf. At worst, the visual impact of development on site K2 would be neutral.

2.1044 Insofar as the landscape setting of Kirriemuir is concerned, site K2 has no significant impact. The capacity study does not refer to K2 as a green wedge but the value of the site was considered in terms of settlement evolution. As indicated in the study, development of the site would consolidate the urban pattern particularly as Northmuir can no longer be regarded as separate. Development of site K2 would be preferable to expanding the urban area. Whilst much of site K2 is currently an attractive open area, the agricultural use is an anomaly in the urban area, especially as Kirriemuir is a compact town. Of course, housebuilding would involve a permanent change but this is the balance that must be struck.

2.1045 The view of the site, once developed, from the adjacent school would be important. Two storey housing on the boundary would have an impact but careful design could reduce any visual intrusion. In any event, the main orientation of the school is in a north/south direction. There could be some limited impact on nearby Hill Rise and also on Hillhead Terrace. Houses to the north of the site in Sycamore Place are single storey and obscured by a high hedge. Overall, few houses have views across the site.

2.1046 In terms of the location of a new health centre, it is accepted that the issue should be the subject of wider consideration. Accordingly, a further modification is proposed as follows:

insert an additional Key Issue:

The need to identify a suitable site for a replacement health centre.

insert under Development Strategy:

Support development of a replacement health centre.

(see also previous objections)

258 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1047 The capacity of the schools in Kirriemuir does not give rise to any concerns. Northmuir Primary School had a spare capacity of 90 in November 2005, Southmuir had a spare capacity of 89 places and Websters High School had 65 remaining spaces. Traffic considerations would require to be examined in detail with the possible need to improve the local road network. In a wider context, there is a range of routes to and from Kirriemuir. Most importantly, the new grade-separated junction with the A90 has provided easier access to Forfar and the trunk road itself. It is understood that problems experienced along the line of the Den sewer have been resolved and this is no longer an issue in terms of the development of the site. Accordingly, it is not believed that any local drainage constraints would arise. Generally, the site faces south-west and there is an opportunity to maximise the benefits of this orientation. That part of the site in agricultural use has no quality designation.

2.1048 Overall, the Hillhead site is being brought forward for sound planning reasons and certainly not in response to the legal action brought by a developer against Scottish Water.

Richard Lawson & Guild Homes (Tayside) Limited

2.1049 The potential for the development of the land at Hillhead has long been recognised by the council. A residential allocation was removed from the previous local plan although it was clear that the council’s views did not accord with those of the Reporter. The site stands on its own merits and there is no suggestion that the allocation is linked to any legal proceedings. The initial inclusion of site K2 was therefore welcomed subject to a number of points of detail. There is no objection to entering into discussions with the owner of the enlarged area of site K2 in order to achieve the council’s development strategy. However, certain matters require clarification, particularly in respect of phasing and site effectiveness in terms of current employment land use.

2.1050 There are existing successful businesses on the extended area of site K2. Together, the two business concerns employ about 80 people. Lawsons employ 30 people, offer the potential for growth and hope to extend the lease as long term stability is required to fulfil this potential. Should these uses be relocated, suitable alternative provision must be available. In any event, relocation would require great sensitivity. In terms of standard procedure, vacant business premises are required to be marketed for a specified period prior to any potential change of use being considered. However, in the event that site K2 is allocated for housing with the inclusion of the continuing business uses, development of that part of the site should only take place after 2011 and any development brief should be prepared on that basis.

2.1051 That part of the site used for agriculture is not a viable unit in itself. It is the last remaining part of Hillhead Farm and is now operated by a farmer from Dundee although understood not to be profitable.

2.1052 In landscape terms, the council’s evidence that the site is barely visible and development would have no impact on landscape setting should be preferred over suggestions that there are important views from Shielhill Road.

259 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1053 Site K2 is located within the existing urban area and is bounded by development on all sides. Whilst large, the land offers an infill opportunity. The proposed site layout shows preferred access points at Shielhill Road and Kinnordy Road. Amenity parking associated with Northmuir Primary School would be provided adjacent to the Sheilhill Road access. Detailed design or, possibly, an exchange of land involving site K1, could ensure an adequate solution but, if necessary, a single access from Kinnordy Road would be acceptable. Guild Homes has control of the land required for this latter access.

2.1054 The site would rely on the existing footway network in terms of access for pedestrians. The Roods would not be the principal pedestrian route to the town centre which would be accessed via Kinnordy Road and Glengate. Although marginally longer, this would be the more attractive route and is within the maximum specified distance. There are no specific cycle routes but traffic levels are such that on-street cycling is a realistic proposition. Shielhill Road and Kinnordy Road are both bus routes ensuring that the maximum walking distance to bus services would be about 250 metres, well within the maximum guidance distance.

2.1055 Opportunities to walk or cycle to the adjacent primary school could be maximised by careful design. Although further away, the secondary school is only some 800 metres from the edge of the site, a realistic walking and cycling distance. Existing traffic problems at the secondary school are therefore unlikely to be significantly increased.

2.1056 The total number of houses proposed is only marginally above the threshold for a transport assessment and, on this basis alone, overall increase in traffic is likely to be marginal. Nevertheless, a transport assessment has been undertaken and indicates that current travel patterns for the economically active population of Kirriemuir are as follows: 6% work from home, 6% travel by bus, 11% travel as passengers in cars, 45% are car drivers and 31% walk. The remainder use taxis, cycles or other modes. On the foregoing basis, the proposed development of 120 houses would give rise to the following trips:

Pedestrian 54 Public transport 10 Car 96 (77 vehicle movements due to sharing) Total 173

2.1057 All trips would not occur during peak hours and it is estimated that about 65 outward trips would be generated during the morning peak. Inward trips are at about 40% (26) of outward which would lead to a total two-way flow at peak of about 91 vehicles. Development at Hillhead would not inevitably lead to a greater traffic impact than the alternative site at Sunnyside. Much would depend on the detailed arrangements as there are various access options at Hillhead. In particular, it cannot be said with certainty that 90-95% of generated traffic would pass through the town centre as an access to Kinnordy Road could, in turn, lead to a variety of routes to and from the town. The alternative rural routes are not as poor as has been suggested and any impact on Morrison Street would be slight. Concerns about accidents cannot be substantiated without a more detailed analysis.

260 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1058 Overall, in respect of transport and related matters, the site provides an opportunity for sustainable development. It is not accepted that, in comparative terms, Hillhead is the least well-placed of the competing sites. This depends on the destinations specified. Northfield Primary School and the location of the new health centre on the site would give Hillhead significant advantages. It has been made clear by Scottish Water that all sites in Kirriemuir are subject to drainage constraints and therefore each one must, in this respect, be regarded equally.

Kilmartin Ventures Ltd

2.1059 The proposed modification is supported as part of the additional land allocated for development is brownfield, infill and available for housing. Redevelopment of brownfield land is supported by SPP3 and the local plan review development strategy for Kirriemuir. The site would contribute to the effective housing land supply and, in all matters other than drainage, meets the criteria for effectiveness included in PAN38.

2.1060 Some of the buildings on the brownfield part of the site are poor quality former agricultural sheds and, in general terms, there is little long term future as an employment location. Buildings are let to an autocare company on a short term basis for 12 months from September 2005, when the tenant will be required to vacate the premises. It is agreed that the section of the site which provides employment opportunities should be considered as a second phase following relocation of existing businesses. However, continued employment is dependant on retaining a tenant. This is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. The phased approach is an appropriate mechanism for developing the site whilst providing an opportunity to consider the future employment function of the existing buildings.

2.1061 Access could be taken from Cortachy Road as the required 90 metre visibility splays could be provided. This access could serve the entire area of site K2.

Conclusions and recommendations in respect of all the Kirriemuir housing land sites, other than for sites K(b) and K1, which are dealt with above, follow consideration of the objections to land at Crawford Park, north of Cortachy Road.

261 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Land to the south of Beechwood Place

Objector Reference (Finalised local plan review and/or first round modification)

J & J Learmonth 71/1/3 W D & I F Cameron 683 & 684/1/1 Mr Charles & Mrs Ada Robertson 685 & 686/1/1 Mrs A Crabb 687/1/1 Mrs J Rae 688/1/1 Mrs Muriel Alexander 689/1/1 Mr J & Mrs G Moore 690/1/1 & 691/1/1 Eric W Ramsay 692/1/1 S W & F M Clark 703/1/1 & 703/1/2 Lesley & Scott Buchan 706/1/1 & 707/1/1 Miss Celia S Topping 708/1/1 David D Grimmond 709/1/1 Mr & Mrs WG Kirkman 711/1/1 & 712/1/1 Grace C Johnston 751/1/1 William Johnston 752/1/1 Mr H G McCrum 753/1/1 Mr Neil Ferguson 760/1/1 Miss D A Brogan 784/1/1 Neil Cameron 798/1/1 Douglas W Mearns 800/1/1 June A Hill 842/1/1 Mr Graham Thomas 846/1/1 Miss Mary Gourlay 847/1/1 Gwen Ritchie 853/1/1 A S Murray 861/1/1 Mrs Morag Garrow 868/1/1 & 1/2 Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd (first round modification) 871/2/1 Wilma Falconer 878/1/1 Harry & Maureen Mowbray 904/1/1 Alistair G McCallum 939/1/1 Mr & Mrs J F Linton 941/1/1 & 942/1/1

Supporter (first round modification)

Richard Lawson 68/1/3 Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd 872/1/3 J & J Learmonth 71/2/2

262 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Procedure Reporter

Inquiry (Select Homes, J & J Learmonth, Richard Dent Richard Lawson, Guild Homes); And written submissions

______

Background

2.1062 The land south of Beechwood Place lies at the southern extremity of Kirriemuir which, at this point is formed by Beechwood Place itself, a street with a single frontage of residential property looking across the land which was designated site K3 in the finalised local plan review. The town slopes generally downhill to Beechwood Place beyond which the ground is level. The site itself is agricultural, said to be in a set-aside condition, with some farm buildings in the south-western part of the land. Beechwood Place forms the northern boundary and the A928, Glamis Road provides the western boundary, beyond which is a small area of employment land, the Muirhead Industrial Estate. A track between fields provides the eastern boundary and there are trees along the southern boundary. A small residential property to the north-east of the site was excluded from the K3 designation. The site itself extends a little way beyond this residential property to provide a short frontage with the A926, Forfar Road, at a point opposite Newton Cottage where the main road turns uphill into the town.

2.1063 The waste water treatment plant lies a short distance to the south of the site.

Basis of the objections

Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd

2.1064 The allocation of land for housing and employment (sites K3 and K4) in the finalised local plan review was appropriate and supported by Select Homes. Clarification on the timing and delivery of the new distributor road was the only matter requiring resolution. The proposed modifications to the local plan review change the development strategy for Kirriemuir by deleting site K3 and increasing the size and capacity of site K2, Hillhead.

2.1065 Structure plan provisions for housing should be noted as set out in the objections to site K2, Hillhead.

2.1066 Site K3, Beechwood Place, should be reinstated as a contributor to the structure plan housing land requirement and, importantly, as offering greater choice in both Kirriemuir and the wider housing market area.

2.1067 The council agrees that the land at Beechwood Place is suitable for housing and accepts the wider benefits of development. Indeed, the council anticipates that the land could provide a future development area. The reasons for not allowing earlier development relate to

263 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

the possibility of development the “brownfield” site at Hillhead, concern about drainage and “wider community benefits”. These matters are also addressed under the Select Homes objection to site K2.

2.1068 A significant advantage of the land at Beechwood Place is its proximity to the WWTP. Much of the drainage infrastructure would be new and the risk of there being constraints in the existing system would be greatly reduced. Additionally, there would be benefits in the joint development of sites K3 and K4.

2.1069 The access to new development south of Beechwood Place would be via roundabouts on the A926, Forfar Road, and A928, Glamis Road, which would provide wider community benefits through creation of improved entrances to the town as well as generally improving access to the southern part of Kirriemuir. Traffic along Beechwood Place would be reduced, including traffic related to the adjacent industrial premises. These benefits have been demonstrated in a formal transport assessment. New bus lay-bys would also be constructed.

2.1070 Development at Beechwood Place would accord with the principles of SPP17, Planning and Transport, in terms of being able to link to walking and cycling networks, being within 400 metres of public transport, not encouraging reliance on private cars, having no detrimental effect on the capacity of strategic transport networks and generally meeting sustainable transport requirements. In particular, there would be a low level of impact on the town centre, Dundee being the key employment destination. Equally, development would follow the advice contained in PAN75, Planning for Transport, and meet the terms of the structure plan. Walking would be the second most popular mode of travel. All destinations from the site, including the main food store, would be under the 1,600 metre maximum walking distance and most would be less than 800 metres. Cyclists would share road carriageways. A small proportion of trips would be by bus with three routes passing the site in Forfar Road.

2.1071 The transport assessment has demonstrated that all relevant road junctions operate satisfactorily in the southern part of the town. The development would not have a serious impact on junctions and, indeed, the distributor road would lead to traffic benefits.

2.1072 Between 2001 and 2004, 32% of accidents in the Kirriemuir area occurred in the town centre. There have been accidents at both ends of Morrison Street and at the junction of Forfar Road and Beechwood Place. Alignment and visibility probably contributed to these accidents. The proposed new distributor road would replace the unsatisfactory use of Beechwood Place and Morrison Street, particularly if combined with traffic management measures. As this would involve mainly commuter traffic, local services would not be undermined. There would be no direct residential frontages to the distributor road and therefore no safety issues would arise.

2.1073 The land at Beechwood Place offers overall a more beneficial housing release site in terms of its setting and landscape character and would benefit Kirriemuir in the longer term by addressing the existing poor approaches to the town. The land is agricultural but is “set aside” and not part of a working farm. A well considered and designed proposal would bring

264 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

further benefit to the town taking into account the aims and objectives of the local plan review and the advice contained in PAN44, Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape, and PAN52, Planning in Small Towns, which identifies Kirriemuir as a poor example of arrival at a small Scottish town.

2.1074 Although generally open in character, the Beechwood Place site is physically contained by the road corridors of the A926 and A928. Containment is increased by the lower-lying topography and the shelter belt to the south of the site, which would be reinforced. Locally the site is visible but more distant views are limited, particularly when approaching Kirriemuir from the east.

2.1075 At present, the southern edge of the town at this point has a stark appearance, the abrupt boundary compounded by the poor impression given by the neighbouring industrial estate. The approach from Glamis Road the south of the town is unattractive and ill-defined and the development would provide the opportunity to further improve this approach.

2.1076 The development would lead to a moderate impact on the existing setting but combined with the allocated employment land to the east, the development of the land south of Beechwood Place would provide a framework for change and permit the creation of a robust, considered and integrated southern edge to the town. In terms of urban design, the development of both the residential site and the adjacent employment land would provide the best solution and lead to wider community benefits from the juxtaposition of the two land uses including a co-ordinated master plan and infrastructure designed to serve both sites. This would also assist in the delivery of the distributor road, the optimum solution being the development of the residential site without phasing restrictions.

Written submissions

2.1077 Objections to the allocation of site K3 in the finalised local plan review can be summarised as follows:

• the proposed site goes well beyond that considered in the Assessment of Possible Development Areas; local people have therefore been denied their right to full consultation as they had never been led to believe that such an extensive development was intended; it had been understood that the land would remain undeveloped; • there would be a detrimental impact on the open rural character of this approach to the town, development would contribute to the coalescence of Southmuir and Maryton; • there are alternative sites, which are more discretely located, better integrated with the town and better related to services and facilities; • urban sprawl would result which would not enhance the image of the “Little Red Town” or its reputation as a “Gateway to the Glens” with a consequent impact on tourism; • Beechwood Place provides a visually strong, definitive and defensible boundary to the south of the town; building over 100 houses in the adjacent countryside is unnecessary and conflicts with good planning practice;

265 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• housing on this scale should be considered on its own merits without reference to a distributor road and business park; it would then be difficult to defend; a new road would not address existing transport issues but would be used solely by new residents; • locating housing principally for convenience of access to the A90 would simply encourage commuting and travelling to Forfar/Dundee for services thereby undermining rather than supporting local services; • the site has never been allocated for housing whereas alternative sites were previously identified; • the distributor road would sever a local countryside walk; • the land is low lying and suffers from localised flooding; • traffic impact could add to congestion around the Newton Hotel section of the Glamis Road, and the increased use of Forfar Road junction with Glamis Road; • there is no evidence of economic constraint caused by lack of effective business land in recent years, it is therefore difficult to accept there is a need for 5 hectares of new business land; if there is a need, the land south of Beechwood Place is more appropriate for this use; • there would be an unacceptable impact on schools and medical facilities in the town; • town centre roads already struggle to cope with existing traffic and parking is at a premium; additional housing on the perimeter of the town would exacerbate the problem.

The council’s response

2.1078 The allocation of land south of Beechwood Place in the finalised local plan review replaced the proposed allocation of a small site west of Sunnyside. At the time of the finalised local plan review, the development of land south of Beechwood Place was considered to have wider community benefits. A new distributor road was required as part of the development of the housing site and the adjacent employment land allocation (site K4), and there was potential to improve the entrances to the town from Forfar Road and Glamis Road. However, an area of brownfield land adjacent to site K2 at Hillhead became available for residential redevelopment. It is therefore proposed to include that land within the allocated area at Hillhead, and to delete the allocation of land south of Beechwood Place which is not now required for development in the local plan period. Clearly, the allocation of the land in the finalised local plan review indicates that the council accepted that housing was an appropriate land use.

2.1079 The incorporation of the employment land within the enlarged site K2 and the allocation of a new site for a business park at East Muirhead of Logie (originally site K4 and, as modified, site K3) accord with the broad development strategy for Kirriemuir.

2.1080 In response to the concerns raised in the written submissions the council makes the following comments:

• there was a 6 week consultation period as required by legislation to provide the opportunity to make objections to the local plan;

266 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• development south of Beechwood Place, along with the adjacent allocation of land for employment uses provided an opportunity to create improved entrances to the town, and would allow for the provision of a new road to improve access around the southern part of the town and to allow easier access to the Glamis Road and the local road network to the west; there would not be coalescence with Maryton although the open area between the settlements would be reduced by the employment land; • a variety of sites have been suggested for development but the land south of Beechwood Place was preferred at the time of the finalised local plan review; • development would not constitute urban sprawl, rather it would have been a planned extension to the town with the potential to provide wider benefits; • it is acknowledged that Beechwood Place provides a strong boundary to the southern part of the town although there is housing and industrial development to the south of North Mains Road; • housing is required in Kirriemuir to meet local needs and contribute to the housing land allowances for the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area as set out in the structure plan; employment land was required to replace a site at North Mains of Logie which has not been brought forward; • in terms of access to the A90, sites within the town would also raise traffic concerns as people would inevitably travel to larger service centres such as Forfar and Dundee; • precise details of the distributor road have not been determined but the continued use of the Logie Range footpath would be required; • the land south of Beechwood Place does not appear on flood risk maps; • traffic matters would be examined in detail and, where necessary, off-site improvements to the local road network would be required; • land south of Beechwood Place opposite existing housing is not a suitable location for business/industrial land; the identified site does not impinge on existing housing; • land south of Beechwood Place is greenfield land and whilst development would change the character of the area loss of a view is not a valid planning reason for preventing development; direct access was not intended from Beechwood Place and, indeed, a new road to the south may have reduced traffic on Beechwood Place. • although the land south of Beechwood Place land has not previously been allocated for development, part of the land was considered for industrial use in the early 1980s; • there are no concerns over the capacity of schools in Kirriemuir; a site for a new health centre is being sought; • new housing to the south of the town would not have had a detrimental impact on the local tourism industry; indeed “gateway” improvements to the approaches might be beneficial.

2.1081 The objections, in themselves, did not persuade the council to modify the finalised document but, nevertheless, as explained previously, the housing land allocation for site K3, land south of Beechwood Place, was deleted. Notwithstanding the deletion of the site, the council accepts that certain benefits would derive from development. For instance, the council’s Roads Department considers the distributor road shown in the finalised local plan review would be of broad benefit. Unattractive entrances to the town, especially Glamis Road, would be improved although, in this respect, matters have moved on significantly since PAN52 identified this approach as being of poor quality. The housing would be next to

267 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review employment land and best use could be made of infrastructure. Accordingly, the possibility of the future residential development of the land to the south of Beechwood Place should not be discounted.

J & J Learmonth

2.1082 SPP3, Planning for Housing, SPP17, Planning for Transport, and the structure plan all seek to guide development to the most sustainable and accessible locations. The local plan review contains policies supporting a pattern of development that facilitates travel by foot, cycle and public transport.

2.1083 Should the new distributor road be constructed it could perhaps accommodate the traffic demands generated by development at Beechwood Place without impacting on the A926 at Morrison Street. However, it would be unlikely to bring any substantial relief to the existing road which would remain the principal traffic route. Movements between the two radial routes, Glamis Road and Forfar Road, are only a small proportion of the total flow along Morrison Street as the junctions are poor and limit numbers of turning traffic. In any event, the low accident record suggests no particular need the distributor road. Its impact would, at worst, be marginal in an area of reasonably light traffic. Any identified problems could be resolved through standard traffic management measures. In this respect it should be anticipated that resources would be concentrated on the principal routes: Morrison Street is an “A” road. The distributor road could also result in residents travelling away from Kirriemuir to the detriment of local services and facilities.

2.1084 The land south of Beechwood Place does not offer the prospect of sustainable development being 33% further from the principal attractions compared with Sunnyside. Development would therefore be less successful in encouraging travel by alternative modes. In overall terms the two sites have very similar walk distances and, to this extent, both are sustainable. However, Beechwood Place does not offer the best opportunities to encourage walking and cycle access to employment, education, health or leisure facilities. Pupils walking to school would be required to cross Glamis Road. Sunnyside should be preferred.

2.1085 Substantial new infrastructure would be required at Beechwood Place whereas the Sunnyside site could make use of the infrastructure provided for the adjacent Westfield development. It is accepted that, should the employment land proceed next to Beechfield Place, there would also be the prospect of the joint provision of infrastructure.

2.1086 Development at Beechwood Place would curtail the open southerly aspect of existing development by extending onto the flat land beyond the town boundary. There is no historical precedent for this and development would have a moderate adverse impact on the landscape character and visual setting of Kirriemuir and start to encroach on Maryton. Development at Beechwood Place would therefore represent a less sustainable pattern of development than Sunnyside.

2.1087 Landscape character assessments undertaken by the council and Select Homes were, respectively, lacking in detail and recognised methodology, and therefore unreliable. The

268 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

negative landscape and visual impacts of development at Beechwood Place outweigh any claimed benefits. Similarly, it is not credible to suggest that development on the scale proposed on a highly visible site at the entrances to the small town of Kirriemuir could create a more attractive approach. The solution to any such problems lies in smaller-scale environmental improvements.

2.1088 The council is correct in proposing to delete the housing land allocation and the distributor road to the south of Beechwood Place.

Conclusions and recommendations in respect of all the Kirriemuir housing land sites, other than for sites K(b) and K1, which are dealt with above, follow consideration of the objections to land at Crawford Park, north of Cortachy Road.

269 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Sunnyside

Objector Reference

J & J Learmonth 71/1/1 Eric Y Hill 843/1/1 & 843/2/1 James Hill 855/1/1

Supporter

Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd 871/4/1

Procedure Reporter

Inquiry (J & J Learmonth, Select Homes) Richard Dent and written submissions

______

Background

2.1089 The objection site is located to the immediate west of the town, adjacent to the rear gardens of houses on the west side of Sunnyside itself. The land slopes gently downwards to the south and is vacant, not having recently been in agricultural use. The northern boundary is formed by a track beyond which is land designated site K(b) in the local plan review. That site has outline planning permission for a residential development of 39 houses. The western boundary is marked by a scrubby hedge and some small trees. A line of young trees has recently been planted along the southern boundary.

Basis of the objections

J & J Learmonth

2.1090 SPP3, Planning for Housing, SPP17, Planning for Transport, and the structure plan all seek to guide development to the most sustainable and accessible locations. The local plan review contains policies supporting a pattern of development that facilitates travel by foot, cycle and public transport.

2.1091 The site at Sunnyside compares well when assessed against the other options for residential development in Kirriemuir in terms of walking and cycle journeys. In respect of proximity to the secondary school and leisure facilities including local parks and playing fields, Sunnyside has a significant advantage. Walks to the nearest post office, current health centre and the edge of the town centre are also shortest. The Hillhead site is closer to the main supermarket but the journey back involves climbing a hill. The primary school and convenience shopping are also within acceptable walking distance. A possible site for a new health centre has been suggested in the vicinity of the Sunnyside site. Routes from Sunnyside

270 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

are generally more level than from other sites. Bus stops are located closer to the site than Beechwood Place and Hillhead.

2.1092 Any concerns about traffic impact on local streets through the use of Sunnyside to access Lindsay Street and causing increased congestion in Morrison Street are misplaced. Access is not proposed via Sunnyside but would be by means of a road from the north through site K(b). It is intended to take access to site K(b) from Lindsay Street through an area of lock-up garages owned by the council. Discussions to this effect have taken place with the council and no difficulties had ever been raised. On this basis, the outline planning application included this route as the proposed access to the site as does the current reserved matters application.

2.1093 A recent letter indicating that the council “wishes to landbank the site” required for the access and therefore is unable to give consideration to the request for the site is surprising. The content should be regarded with considerable caution. In any event, an alternative access could be taken from a recently completed development to the immediate north of site K(b). In this latter respect, an agreement has been reached with those who control the ground required. Access to the Sunnyside site should therefore not be regarded as an impediment.

2.1094 Traffic impact in Morrison Street could be mitigated through traffic management measures including more intensive on-street parking controls and traffic signals. Traffic flows are modest and any problems could be resolved through relatively simple steps.

2.1095 The objection site at Sunnyside would effectively form an extension to the adjacent site for 39 houses. A layout has been prepared showing a potential 38 further houses. There is no apparent reason for not supporting this development, especially as the land was allocated in the draft local plan in 2003. As concluded by the council, the site is not highly visible and residential development would have less visual and landscape impact than some other suggested areas. Indeed, the landscape assessment concludes that the development would cause only slight adverse impacts on both the landscape character and visual amenity. A more attractive edge to the town could be created to offer a better relationship with the countryside. Good quality housing could be provided with outlooks across the south-facing site over the Vale of Strathmore to the Sidlaw Hills. Residents would be able to gain immediate access to the countryside without recourse to vehicular transport. Footpath provision across the site would be retained and any right of way would be respected.

2.1096 Impact on existing houses would be less at Sunnyside than at Beechwood Place as there are fewer houses involved with limited, generally obscured views, from the rear of existing property.

2.1097 The site is sustainable insofar as it would make use of the infrastructure provision for the adjacent site of 39 houses. Indeed, this extension of site K(b) and the use of the brownfield element of the Hillhead site would utilise the smallest area of greenfield land, Sunnyside having not been used for agricultural purposes for two years. Future agricultural use is unlikely as no grant or subsidy is available and agricultural machinery would have

271 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

difficulty in accessing the land once houses are built to the north. Development at Sunnyside would also best safeguard environmental quality insofar as it would reflect the historical pattern of development in Southmuir. Development would relate well to the recently built and approved housing to the north and represent rounding-off this part of Kirriemuir. Recent planting has been undertaken to provide improved boundary definition to the south.

2.1098 A further 2 hectares of ground is also available to the immediate south of the objection site which would be capable of contributing 40 or more houses in the period beyond 2011.

2.1099 The settlement boundary should be adjusted to accommodate either a 2 hectare site with an allocation of 40 houses or a 4 hectare site with an allocation of 60-80 houses.

Written submissions

2.1100 Sunnyside was allocated for development for 30 years and identified for housing in the consultative draft local plan. It is an ideal housing site in a quiet area with little traffic, close to the school and other facilities. Services are available and the land is not agriculturally viable. The earlier allocation should be restored.

The council’s response

2.1101 Land to the west of Sunnyside was one of several sites allocated for housing in July 1973 by an amendment to the County of Angus Development Plan. While certain sites came forward, most of the land at Sunnyside did not. A review of the previous land allocations was undertaken in the mid 1980s and various sites, including Sunnyside, were rezoned to agricultural use in the Kirriemuir Local Plan adopted in 1986.

2.1102 The current review process reconsidered housing land requirements for Kirriemuir in the context of structure plan guidance and the ongoing drainage issue. The Assessment of Possible Development Areas background paper set out broad information for a wide range of sites, including Sunnyside. Subsequently, the consultative draft local plan identified Hillhead (site K2) and Sunnyside (site K4) for housing, the latter being an extension of the site at Westfield/Lindsay Street allocated in the Angus Local Plan 2000.

2.1103 The allocation of Sunnyside in the consultative draft local plan was intended to create a more attractive edge to the town, softening the existing hard built-form and providing a better buffer with the countryside. There were relatively few objections to the allocation. However, the review of potential sites led to the allocation of the land to the south of Beechwood Place. The Beechwood Place site was itself subsequently proposed for deletion with a larger area allocated at Hillhead. In the light of the proposed modifications there was no longer a requirement for the allocation of further land at Sunnyside. However, should output from other sites be limited for whatever reason, Sunnyside could be brought forward.

2.1104 In terms of landscape setting, a number of conifers to the south of the site have been removed in recent years and views of the site from the south are now more open. On the

272 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

other hand, the new trees along the southern boundary of the site provide potential for additional screening. In general terms, the Sunnyside site is not especially visible and opportunities exist to strengthen the boundary further.

2.1105 Notwithstanding the claims in respect of the proximity of Sunnyside to the town centre and services, Kirriemuir is a small town well served by local bus routes. The various sites considered for housing are all relatively well located in terms of the town and its essential services and, although an important consideration, this factor alone should not outweigh the wider planning benefits that could be gained by a comprehensive master- planned development of the site at Hillhead.

2.1106 Site K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street, was granted outline planning permission for housing in 2003 subject to a suspensive condition requiring “That no development shall commence until confirmation has been obtained by the planning authority in writing from Scottish Water that a connection to the public sewer is available.” A reserved matters planning application for the erection of 39 houses, reconstruction of 24 lock-up garages and formation of new access road was submitted during December 2005. Insofar as access is concerned, the council’s housing department has recently decided not to sell the required land. Although there may be an agreement in principle in respect of an alternative access, details are lacking and it must be considered whether or not there is adequate evidence to regard the land as effective in terms of PAN38 criteria.

Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd

2.1107 Sunnyside was omitted from the finalised local plan review for sound planning reasons.

2.1108 The development of the site would create a visible and abrupt southern edge until any new planting matured. Recent planting would have little impact and would require further strengthening. There is a partial hedgerow on the western side of the site and this would require replanting and strengthening. Viewed from Glamis Road, which is particularly important in the context of Kirriemuir as the “Gateway to the Glens”, development at Sunnyside would expand the horizontal extent of the settlement, causing urban spread and making the footprint of Kirriemuir appear much wider. Development would have a significant impact on the residents on the west side of Sunnyside whose small rear gardens and rear facades are oriented to the west. At Beechwood Place there is an intervening road and the existing houses are higher than the level of the proposed development.

2.1109 Overall, Sunnyside offers few landscape benefits, particularly when compared with the land at Beechwood Place. It is more open site and not contained by mature trees such as found to the south of the Beechwood Place land where impact would be better described as “slight” adverse impact rather than “moderate” adverse impact. Similarly, the benefits of providing adjacent employment land, developed through a joint master planning exercise, are not to be found at Sunnyside. Benefits in walking to attractions are not material. On the other hand, traffic on Morrison Street would increase. Despite the reference to promoting

273 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

additional traffic management measures, it would not be appropriate to, for example, further restrict parking on a residential thoroughfare such as Morrison Street.

Conclusions and recommendations in respect of all the Kirriemuir housing land sites, other than for sites K(b) and K1, which are dealt with above, follow consideration of the objections to land at Crawford Park, north of Cortachy Road.

274 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Herdhill/Martin Park

Objector Reference

J & J Learmonth 71/1/4

Procedure Reporter

Inquiry Richard Dent

______

Background

2.1110 The objection site is on the north side of the A926 as the road leads westwards from Kirriemuir towards Blairgowrie comprising agricultural land between Martin Park to the east and an area to the west containing a substantial joinery concern and several houses, some of which are currently under construction. There is agricultural land to the north of the site and a row of residential property on the opposite side of the A926.

Basis of the objection

2.1111 The site received a very favourable assessment when the council considered possible development areas: it was acknowledged that development to the north of the road would balance the increasingly developed character of land to the south.

2.1112 The site was not included within the settlement boundary in the consultative draft local plan despite being bounded on three sides by urban uses, including built development on two sides. There is agricultural land to the north along with employment and residential land uses, including a further three new houses, to the west. The site is of a scale which could be described as infill. It is not countryside but is located in an urban context, including Martin Park to the east which is a town-related use. In view of the council’s initial concerns over density, it is now proposed to provide 20 houses on 2 hectares. The site would be a carefully designed modest development, in keeping with the houses to the west, and could not be regarded as linear or ribbon development.

2.1113 As required, in the interests of sustainability, the site is convenient for all principal attractions including local shops, Post Office, town centre, high school, leisure centre and swimming pool, Southmuir Primary School and health centre (a suggested possible site for the replacement health centre being very close). It is probably further from the primary school and town centre than the site at Beechwood Place. Good walking, cycling and vehicular routes are available to these attractions and to employment land. It is within 400 metres of a bus route.

275 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1114 It is proposed to expand the joinery business adjacent to the site and this use would co-ordinate with the housing and lead to a more sustainable development pattern. It may be that a commercial use such a factory shop, office or showroom would be required.

2.1115 Overall, the allocation of the land would accord with a plan-led system, add to housing choice and allow the development of local business. The settlement boundary should therefore be extended to allocate 1 hectare for employment use and up to 2 hectares for 20 houses.

The council’s response

2.1116 The open field between Herdhill and Martin Park lies beyond the existing development boundary of Kirriemuir. Although there is built development to the south and west of the area, the open aspect of the field and the adjacent public park gives the area a semi-rural character. Development as proposed would be linear rather than infill.

2.1117 No justification has been provided for the expansion of the adjacent business into the area although this could be considered through a planning application. Residential development of the scale proposed would not be in keeping with the character of the area, especially in view of the availability of other land to meet the housing land requirements for Kirriemuir. Development should not be compared with the row of houses on the opposite side of the road which was unplanned organic growth that took place in the past. Similarly, comparison with the three new houses to the west is not an assessment of like-with-like.

2.1118 This objection should also be considered in the context of the wider housing strategy. Accordingly there is no requirement for additional land to be allocated.

Conclusions and recommendations in respect of all the Kirriemuir housing land sites, other than for sites K(b) and K1, which are dealt with above, follow consideration of the objections to land at Crawford Park, north of Cortachy Road.

276 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Pathhead, Forfar Road

Objector Reference

A Bruce 651/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Hearing Richard Dent

______

Background

2.1119 The land at Pathhead lies to the immediate south-east of Kirriemuir bounded to the west and south by the A926, Forfar Road. There is residential property beyond the A926 on the western boundary but, on the opposite side of the road to the south the land is open although it is allocated for employment land as site K3 (previously K4). The eastern boundary adjoins agricultural land whilst part of the northern boundary lies adjacent to Strathview Road, a short residential cul-de-sac leading from Forfar Road. A substantial veterinary centre which takes access from Forfar Road intrudes into the north-western part of the site. The site itself is under pasture and slopes steadily from north to south.

Basis of the objections

2.1120 A modest residential development would provide a gateway to the town on the principal approach from the A90. The land is not prominent in wider views and would provide a sense of reaching the town only at a relatively limited distance from the site.

2.1121 A sketch layout has been prepared showing a development of 28 plots on 2.89 hectares of south-facing land to the north, east and south of the existing veterinary centre. A single access would be taken through an extension of Strathview Road. Should it not be possible to achieve the required standards there may be scope for an access to the southern part of the site from Forfar Road. The development would represent the organic growth of the town and strengthen the edge of this part of Kirriemuir.

2.1122 Strong demand for houses in Kirriemuir has been frustrated in recent years by a drainage constraint although this constraint may no longer be justified. Development at this location would add to choice, spreading housing sites throughout the town.

2.1123 Should development proceed as required, an existing legal agreement under section 75 of the 1997 Act would need to be amended as it protects the northern part of the site from further development.

277 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The council’s response

2.1124 The objection site is a large, open field which is prominent on the approach from Forfar. It could accommodate a significant number of houses.

2.1125 Land around the veterinary surgery is partially subject to a Section 75 agreement requiring the land between the vets and the housing in Strathview Road to remain free from development. The purpose of the agreement is to protect the amenity of residents from disturbance resulting from the use of the veterinary centre. It remains the case that housing would not be acceptable in close proximity to the centre where there could be activity at all times of day and night. It would therefore be inappropriate for this part of the site to be allocated in the local plan. Piecemeal development of the land to the south of the veterinary centre would also not be appropriate as any incursion into this area would have a significant visual impact on the main entrance to Kirriemuir, particularly from the south-east.

2.1126 The junction between Strathview Road and Forfar Road is sub-standard and may well not be acceptable for the number of houses shown in the sketch layout.

2.1127 There is no strategic requirement for land release in this location, given the availability of other sites to meet the housing land requirements for Kirriemuir, and the potential of these for providing wider community benefit. In this respect, the objection should also be considered in the context of the strategy for housing in Kirriemuir.

Conclusions and recommendations in respect of all the Kirriemuir housing land sites, other than for sites K(b) and K1, which are dealt with above, follow consideration of the objections to land at Crawford Park, north of Cortachy Road.

278 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Newton Park

Objector Reference

A Bruce 651/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Hearing Richard Dent

______

Background

2.1128 The site lies within the settlement boundary to the north-east of the town centre being part of the generally sloping open area that extends around much of the Hill of Kirriemuir. Established residential areas flank the west, south and south-east of the objection site with Kirriemuir Cemetery to the north-east. The land to the north is open, sloping further upwards towards the camera obscura on the west slope of the Hill of Kirriemuir. The land is in agricultural use. Direct access is taken from Strathmore Avenue through a network of relatively narrow roads. There is also an access from the south via a narrow track.

Basis of the objection

2.1129 The objection site extends to some 4.2 hectares and is south-facing within the town boundary. The land is within a larger open area of some 7.25 hectares of isolated agricultural land. In the past the land has been used for raspberries and barley but it is difficult to gain access for machinery, particularly a combine harvester. The land is no longer viable for agriculture and is prone to vandalism. It is open and without character, essentially a gap within the framework of the town.

2.1130 The site would be ideal for housing with good access to the services in the town centre. Medium density and affordable housing would be appropriate although, should it be thought necessary to reflect the character of the area to the east, high quality houses could be provided. Access could be taken from Strathmore Avenue which extends to the edge of the site. The balance of the land to the north of the objection site could be retained as public open space.

2.1131 Although views can be valuable, the development of the site would have little impact on long distance views of Kirriemuir Hill and would not conflict with the objective of maintaining the general openness of the area. Indeed, new houses would improve the locality.

279 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1132 All-in-all, a suitable development, including the objection site and the adjacent land could be achieved through a development brief. The lack of objections to other sites is irrelevant.

The council’s response

2.1133 The site at Newton Park is greenfield land within the town on the steepest part of the south facing slope of the Hill of Kirriemuir. It is unique and forms part of the open character of the Hill of Kirriemuir. The land is highly visible particularly from areas outwith the town to the south, and from some distance. A modern housing development on this site would be extremely visible and out of context with the surrounding area. To the east the cemetery and a former quarry area appear open and semi-natural, to the west there is a large house set in extensive grounds with mature trees. The adjacent area to the east along Brechin Road is an organic development of residential properties in larger plots with mature gardens. From distant viewpoints the area appears natural and attractive. Development would impinge on the open character of the area and because of the range of other available sites this land should not be allocated for development at this time.

2.1134 The local road network is subject to limitations with a number of sub-standard junctions. In technical terms, the maximum number of houses that could be accepted is 50. However, in terms of character, even 50 houses would be excessive and a more limited development would require the highest quality of design and layout to reflect the character of adjacent areas.

2.1135 Importantly, the matter also requires to be considered in the strategic context. In this respect there is no justification for the allocation of the objection site. It is significant that the objector has not objected to other housing land allocations in the housing market area.

Conclusions and recommendations in respect of all the Kirriemuir housing land sites, other than for sites K(b) and K1, which are dealt with above, follow consideration of the objections to land at Crawford Park, north of Cortachy Road.

280 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Omission - land north of Cortachy Road (two sites)

Objector Reference

Mrs Kathleen J Smith 314/1/1 Mr A Melville 643/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Hearings Richard Dent

______

Background

2.1136 The objection sites lie close to one another just beyond the north-western extremity of Kirriemuir.

2.1137 Mrs Smith’s site lies in the angle of Cortachy Road and Mid Road and comprises an extensive area of disused sheds within a level area of generally open land. There are several cottages to the immediate north. The built-up area of the Northmuir district of Kirriemuir lies on the opposite side of Cortachy Road.

2.1138 Mr Melville’s land lies a short distance to the north along Mid Road and is part of a small complex of industrial buildings flanked to the south-west and north-east by a row of about a dozen houses. Mr Melville’s land is used as a yard for heavy goods vehicles and there is an adjacent joinery business. It appears that Mrs Smith also owns a small part of this land. There is a substantial wooded area beyond the objection site and the houses.

Basis of the objections

2.1139 Mrs Smith’s objection relates to the derelict hen houses that extend over a site of 0.62 hectare. They have been disused for 4 years and provide a highly visible, unsightly view from the B955, Cortachy Road, known as the “Road to the Glens”.

2.1140 Six holiday homes are proposed in plots of about 0.1 hectare each, a much reduced density than had been previously suggested. Well designed houses would be more aesthetically pleasing and improve local amenity. Tree planting would reduce visual impact. Access would be directly from the B955. Either mains drainage, if available, or a private system could be provided. A private system could benefit existing houses in the area.

2.1141 The development would accord with SPP15, Planning for Rural Development, which supports small-scale housing development in rural areas, and SPP3, Planning for Housing, which gives priority to brownfield site development.

281 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1142 There is a demand for property of the type proposed and the expansion of Mrs Smith’s business would represent an excellent tourist facility, to the benefit of the local economy, again as supported by SPP15.

2.1143 Mr Melville’s objection site is 1.2 hectares in size and used as a haulage yard. The land would provide scope for 8 houses in a landscaped setting, a development related to Mrs Smith’s holiday home project within a settlement envelope drawn around the two sites and the existing 12 houses in the immediate vicinity. The use of this brownfield land should be given preference over the greenfield land allocated for housing in the Kirriemuir area. Access could be taken from either the adjacent Mid Road or Golf Course Road to the north. Drainage would be provided on the same basis as Mrs Smith’s development.

2.1144 SPP15 also supports rural diversification and recognises that the formation of some new businesses can depend on new build or conversion housing to provide early funding.

2.1145 Both projects are supported by the local plan review which, in rural areas, gives priority to encouraging the conversion of appropriate buildings and the re-use of underused or vacant sites. There is also support for limited new house building in the countryside.

2.1146 The new settlement envelope at Woodside would be distinctively separate from Kirriemuir with its own sense of place and community. The vicinity is in need of limited development and a defined boundary would allow this to take place and prevent the threat of further spread.

Note: following the inquiry, a letter was sent on behalf of a resident of Woodside stating that she does not agree the area has a sense of community or that it should be designated as a settlement.

The council’s response

2.1147 Insofar as Mrs Smith’s objection is concerned, Cortachy Road forms a very strong development boundary to Kirriemuir. This boundary should not be breached when there are other better located sites available for development elsewhere in the town. The area has a rural character which would be totally destroyed by the scale of development proposed as holiday homes have a similar visual and environmental impact as permanently occupied dwellings.

2.1148 In terms of Mr Melville’s objection, the area involved is relatively small with a range of surrounding uses including residential and business. If desired, a planning application could be submitted for change of use from haulage yard to residential. This would be considered on its merits as a rural brownfield site having regard to matters such as access, drainage, impact on the amenity of adjacent residential uses and other surrounding land uses. In the meantime, the site should not be allocated for residential development.

2.1149 As the policy guidance in the local plan review is adequate to deal with any planning application which may be submitted, there is no requirement to designate the area within a

282 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

settlement envelope. No particular need for development at this location has been identified and, in turn, in this respect also, a settlement envelope is not necessary. Although one of the reasons the envelope is required is to promote the redevelopment of the haulage yard, there could be practical difficulties as the area is in mixed ownership.

2.1150 In any event, there is not a true settlement at this location but simply a group of houses established over a number of years without a specific identity.

2.1151 Both objections should also be considered the context of housing strategy which has made adequate provision for residential development in Kirriemuir and the housing market area. Accordingly, there is no requirement for the allocation of additional housing land.

283 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Residential Development - Conclusions

Land allocated in the finalised local plan review

Site K2 – Hillhead Site K3 – Land at Beechwood Place

Omissions

Land at Sunnyside Land at Herdhill/Martin Park Land at Pathhead, Forfar Road Land at Newton Park Land at north of Cortachy Road (two sites)

Structure plan considerations

2.1152 The council responded to the structure plan in allocating the majority of housing land in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area in Forfar. In the period to 2011, additional allocations for 500 houses are required of which the majority of housing land is to be allocated in Forfar. The finalised local plan review allocated sites for 485 houses in Forfar with land for around 110 houses allocated at two sites in Kirriemuir. Proposed modifications led to a single site being allocated in Kirriemuir with 120 houses in the period to 2011.

2.1153 The structure plan recognises the high rate of house building in Kirriemuir that has taken place in the past and the resulting pressure on infrastructure and other services. Nevertheless, programmed resolution of the issues will provide scope for additional building. The local plan review also acknowledges the infrastructure situation to the extent that the Key Issues include the need to resolve the problems at the WWTP. Text provides more detailed information on anticipated progress and reflects the council’s resolve to secure improved drainage capacity which, in turn, would allow further development.

2.1154 All 120 houses are allocated at the modified site K2 “as a first phase in the period to 2011.” In turn, it is stated that “a further area of land is reserved as a potential second phase of development which may be permitted once existing businesses within the north western part of the site are relocated.” On the basis that the first phase of 120 houses is anticipated in the period to 2011, I believe it is not unreasonable to assume that the potential second phase would take place after 2011. In terms of the structure plan, development in the period 2011- 2016 is open to review.

2.1155 There are no specific objections to the scale of the local plan review housing land allocation for the town although Select Homes has drawn attention to the total allocation for the housing market area which is somewhat above the structure plan allowance. In this respect, the council has explained that the over-supply of houses across the housing market area was proposed as all sites in Kirriemuir were regarded as potentially ineffective because

284 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

of the drainage situation. I have dealt with the matter of supply in the wider housing market area in my consideration of objections to housing land in Forfar and a specific objection to allocations in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area. In order to more closely conform to the structure plan target, I conclude that it is appropriate for the Kirriemuir development strategy to allocate land for 80 houses in the period to 2011.

2.1156 National planning policy requires local authorities, developers and other housing providers to consider the need to provide a choice of house types. The structure plan gives priority to the development of appropriate brownfield sites but recognises that there may be need for some greenfield release to provide a range of housebuilding opportunities. It is important that the amount and distribution of housing land within each housing market area provides sufficient flexibility and allows a range and choice of sites in terms of tenure, house type, house size and location.

2.1157 Select Homes has expressed concern about the allocation of a single housing site in Kirriemuir believing this to be contrary to national and strategic guidance. Similarly, Mr Bruce has pointed out that spreading development sites throughout the town would add to choice. The council argues that the structure plan requirement for a range of choice is met by the allocation of sites throughout the housing market area.

2.1158 The reasons for selecting a single site will be examined in detail in respect of my consideration of the objections to Site K2, Hillhead. However, in strategic terms, I agree that it is preferable to provide a wide a range of choice as possible. Although the council has argued that the required range of choice is provide throughout the housing market area as a whole, Kirriemuir is the second largest town in the area. In my opinion, taking into account local planning considerations, it would be appropriate, if possible, to allocate more than a single site for housing development.

285 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Scottish Water

2.1159 It is clear that the capacity of the waste water treatment plant has constrained development in recent years. The recent work at the WWTP has been of an environmental nature and, in itself, was not intended to increase the capacity of the plant. However, a monitoring process will be undertaken to determine, in fact, whether or not the work has resulted in increased capacity.

2.1160 There has also been a more localised problem in the Den sewer although it is the understanding of Scottish Water that this has now been remedied. I have regarded this as the best evidence available.

2.1161 Discussions took place between Scottish Water and two potential developers with a view to increasing the capacity of the WWTP and it was agreed that work could be undertaken to allow connections for up to 270 (equivalent) new houses. A legal action was initiated by a further developer and no work has taken place to create additional capacity. Irrespective of any increased capacity that might be identified as a result of monitoring, I believe it is not unreasonable to assume that, in technical terms, waste water treatment capacity could be provided for housing land allocations up to 270 units. In turn, I conclude that the proposed total of around 80 houses in Kirriemuir in the period to 2011 can reasonably be included in the local plan review.

2.1162 Quite properly, I believe, Scottish Water has no preference in terms of the location of housing land allocations. This is a matter for the planning authority, the local plan review being the appropriate method of determining precise location of housing land. Thereafter, Scottish Water is prepared to discuss drainage connections with those wishing to develop allocated sites as well as any site that has planning permission such as the Lindsay Street/Westfield site (site K(b)).

2.1163 Equally, Scottish Water is not in a position to indicate that one site is preferred to another in terms of providing a connection to the WWTP, particularly in respect of distance from the treatment plant. Consideration must be given to possible impact upstream as well as downstream. This seems eminently sensible and justifies the requirement for all sites to be subject to a drainage impact assessment to determine the basis for a connection to the public system.

286 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Site K2, Hillhead

Wider community benefits

2.1164 The council believes that there are several wider community benefits to be derived from allocating the all housing land in Kirriemuir to the single site at Hillhead under designation K2.

2.1165 Firstly, it is clear that the concern about drainage is no longer a relevant consideration. In terms of the WWTP, no particular site has an advantage over others. Although Hillhead is the furthest from the WWTP, this should not be considered a disadvantage. It has been suggested that there could be a local problem in connecting the Hillhead site to the WWTP but this claim has not been substantiated and I have accepted that any problem with the Den sewer has been resolved. As with any other site, a drainage impact assessment would identify whether or not any further local problems require to be overcome. I therefore conclude that drainage is not a determining consideration in respect of allocating Hillhead or, for that matter, any other site in Kirriemuir.

2.1166 The council had believed that the Hillhead site provided potential for a health centre and the development brief was to require this possibility to be investigated. However, it has been accepted that the location of a new health centre should be the subject of wider consideration and this is reflected in a further proposed modification to the Key Issues and Development Strategy for Kirriemuir. Accordingly, whilst the provision of a new health centre at Hillhead remains a possibility, the prospect of a wider search reduces the emphasis on the need for Site K2 to provide for this facility.

2.1167 Affordable housing provision was a further reason given for the Hillhead allocation. However, Policy SC6 requires all sites in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area with a capacity of 10 or more units to contribute 15% of the total in low cost affordable housing. On this basis, residential development at Hillhead has no potential, proportionately, to provide more affordable housing than any other site.

2.1168 The provision of an improved drop-off and pick-up facility for Northmuir Primary School was considered by the council to be a further community benefit which could result from the development of the Hillhead site. Whilst this aspiration could be achieved, I do not believe that an improved facility would be inevitable as I do not consider that the development of the site and the drop-off and pick-up point are inextricably linked. It may be that access to Site K2 would not be taken from Shielhill Road and therefore the improvements required could not be demanded to allow the housing development to take place. In any event, any required improvements to the drop-off and pick-up point could be pursued irrespective of the development of Site K2.

2.1169 Accessible open space, although required in the finalised local plan review was not referred to in the modification and the council has agreed that any housing development should provide open space in accordance with the recognised standard.

287 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1170 Finally, the council saw the extended area of Site K2 as an opportunity to develop brownfield land. However, it is recognised that the industrial premises are still in use and therefore, by definition, should not be regarded as “brownfield”. I agree with this assessment and, insofar as the council is seeking a phased development with this part of the site probably not being used for housing before 2011, it appears that there is no great commitment to seek the early relocation of the existing businesses.

2.1171 Evidence on the future of the industrial premises varied. Kilmartine Ventures agrees that the site continues to offer employment opportunities and that any redevelopment should be a second phase within the wider Site K2 to allow for the possibility of relocation. However, some doubt was thrown on the future, continued occupation of the premises by the current lessees and reference was made to the difficulty of obtaining new tenants. In any event, it was suggested, much of the property is of poor quality.

2.1172 In contrast, Richard Lawson and Guild Homes believe that the two businesses on the site are operating successfully, employing about 80 people with the prospect of expansion. Stability is required to fulfil the growth potential.

2.1173 In my opinion, the level of employment already provided on the site and the potential for growth is an important and significant consideration. I do not believe that the contents of the local plan review should put these jobs in jeopardy. Although the possibility of relocation has been suggested, no practical possibilities have been brought forward in this respect. It has been indicated that the buildings are in poor condition. Whilst this might be so, external inspection does not reveal particular problems and much of the property appears to be sound and fit for purpose. Accordingly, I do not consider this to be an overriding concern.

2.1174 There is a general acceptance that, at least, the development of this part of Site K2 should be a later phase in the overall development with some parties, including the council, believing that post-2011 development would be appropriate. The modified local plan review description of the redevelopment of this part of the site is somewhat qualified saying the land is reserved as a “potential” second phase which “may” be permitted “once existing businesses within the north-western part of the site are relocated”. In my opinion this approach gives little certainty to either prospective house builders or the existing businesses. In any event, despite the doubts of Kilmartin Ventures, it may be that “existing businesses” are subsequently replaced by other business concerns.

2.1175 In my opinion, it would be appropriate to exclude the industrial land from Site K2 thereby providing the stability that the current businesses require. Should it be that, at some point in the future, the premises do become unoccupied and fall within the brownfield category, there are mechanisms, including a subsequent local plan review, which could lead to an appropriate change of use, should this be required.

2.1176 In reaching this conclusion, I have considered whether the continuing industrial land use is acceptable in terms of location. In this respect, I do not consider the property to have a significantly detrimental visual impact. Nothing has been brought to my attention to suggest that the residential amenity in the general area would be adversely affected by the continued

288 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

activity on the site. In any event, the council does not envisage the short term cessation of the current use of the site.

2.1177 All-in-all, in terms of wider community benefits, I conclude that the matters advanced by the council, individually or as a whole, do not constitute an overriding reason for designating Hillhead as the sole housing land allocation in Kirriemuir. The employment land should be deleted from the K2 designation and the balance of the site should be assessed on merit along with the other sites brought forward by objectors.

Landscape and visual impact

2.1178 Although it has been claimed that there are clear longer views of the Hillhead site, even when the trees are in leaf, I do not believe the land is especially prominent from beyond the boundaries of Kirriemuir. I accept that there are some views of the site - mainly glimpses - but I generally share the opinion of the council that it is relatively difficult to see Site K2 and that the land does not represent a dominant feature. I therefore conclude that the development of the land at Hillhead would not significantly impact on the landscape setting of the town.

2.1179 Much has been made of the local significance of the land at Hillhead within the urban framework. Select Homes considers the town to have three distinct components: Northmuir, Kirriemuir and Southmuir. Green swathes separate the three areas and this fundamental character should be protected. In terms of Hillhead, the land is part of an important green wedge that extends from the Hill of Kirriemuir to the east. J & J Learmonth and various other objectors also emphasise the importance of retaining the open area between Kirriemuir and Northmuir, which is regarded as a separate community. The council does not believe that Northmuir can still be considered to be separate and does not accept that a significant green wedge exists. Northmuir Primary School effectively prevents a visual link between areas of open space on either side of Shielhill Road.

2.1180 I can accept that, historically, there were three distinct communities and that these perhaps functioned separately in some respects. However, notwithstanding, the open land that remains, I believe these individual communities are now largely subsumed within the town of Kirriemuir itself. Although the small valley or “den” of the Gairie Burn is a distinctive feature, I do not consider it leads to any significant distinction between the parts of the town to the north and south of the burn. Similarly, I perceive little individual character in Northmuir. I acknowledge that road signs direct motorists to “Northmuir” but there are few, if any, indications of self-identity. Indeed, substantial areas of modern housing, including that to the immediate north of Site K2, give the impression of a typical suburb and, on this basis, I conclude that the open land at Hillhead does not require to remain undeveloped in order to maintain the community identity of Northmuir.

2.1181 Turning to the importance of the Hillhead site in terms of townscape, there is a further divergence of opinion. Select Homes sees the land as part of an important green wedge extending from Hill of Kirriemuir in the east to Cortachy Road in the west. Although the primary school impinges on this land it does not close off the landscape corridor. Views

289 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review to the hills from the open section of Shielhill Road across Site K2 are particularly important. Similarly, J & J Learmonth points out that Hillhead is the last area of undeveloped land providing a concept of space and sense of place. On the other hand, whilst recognising that Hillhead is an attractive open area, the council does not think that the land, which is an agricultural anomaly, serves any wider purpose. Kirriemuir Den and Kirriemuir Hill are the two important landforms in the town. Development at Hillhead would consolidate the urban pattern as an infill development. Although certain objectors believe the site is too large to be regarded as infill the council nevertheless maintains that development at Hillhead would be preferable to expanding the town. Richard Lawson and Guild Homes confirm that the agricultural part of the site is not a viable unit.

2.1182 I accept that the Hillhead site is, in itself, a pleasant open area. However, I agree with the council that its importance in the overall structure of the town does not compare with that of Kirriemuir Den and, especially, Kirriemuir Hill. I do not consider that there are strong links between the site and the land to the east of Shielhill Road. Notwithstanding the adjacent playing fields, the school buildings bring about a significant degree of separation.

2.1183 The land has very little visual impact locally, being totally screened from Cortachy Road and flanked by the rear of houses to the south other than for the small play area at Hillhead Terrace and the narrow link to Kinnordy Road. The northern boundary is also screened by the industrial buildings to the north-west and houses to the north-east with fencing and high hedges.

2.1184 The only significant views to the site are obtained from the short frontage to Shielhill Road. The fall of the land, boundary trees and the pick-up and drop-off facility all reduce the impact of the site along this frontage. I agree that drivers should be required to concentrate on road conditions, especially at times when pupils are arriving at or leaving school. The long distance views over the site to the hills are pleasant, but not dramatic or unique in Kirriemuir.

2.1185 Whether or not development at Hillhead could be considered infill in nature is a moot point. I believe it is more important to consider possible development in terms of appropriate land use. Should residential land use be acceptable, I believe, in general terms, that the council is correct in stating that development within the framework of the town is preferable to an expansion of the boundary.

2.1186 I have noted the conclusions of Reporters following earlier inquiries but, on the basis of my analysis of the evidence, I conclude that the open part of the Hillhead site is not an integral part of a wider landscape corridor and does not have an overwhelmingly important role as a green wedge.

Land use

2.1187 The enlarged site comprises three land uses: industrial, agricultural and garden areas.

290 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1188 I have previously concluded that the industrial land to the north-west should be retained and not included in the residential allocation even as a later phase of development.

2.1189 The agricultural land has been described as an anomaly and I believe this is a reasonable assessment. I do not believe that this use should be an impediment to the development of the land for a suitable alternative purpose.

2.1190 It has not been suggested that the loss of part of the large garden areas in the western part of the site would have a significant impact on current level of residential amenity and I see no reason why these areas should not be incorporated into Site K2.

Accessibility

2.1191 It is generally agreed that Hillhead is within the maximum distance of 1600 metres as advised in PAN75 in terms of accessibility to local facilities by walking and cycling. There is also reasonable access to bus routes. I accept that certain facilities are at the upper end of the acceptable range for walking and also that the walk from the town centre via Roods is uphill and, in part, lacks good quality pavements. In any event, although marginally longer, I believe that the route to the town centre via Kinnordy Road and Glengate would be at least equally attractive and would involve a lesser gradient and better pavements.

2.1192 Although it has been claimed that other sites compare favourably, I conclude that in terms of accessibility, the Hillhead site should not be discounted for residential use.

Traffic

2.1193 I accept that the destination or origin of the majority of trips would be to or from destinations to the south of the site although Richard Lawson and Guild Homes dispute the figure of 90-95% suggested by Select Homes. Concern has been expressed about the impact on the town centre by vehicles travelling to either the A926 or A928, the use of nearby residential areas, additional congestion at Northmuir Primary School and the poor quality of the rural road network.

2.1194 It has been estimated that there would be a total two-way flow of about 91 vehicles. In the event of there being an access to any development from Kinnordy Drive, Richard Lawson and Guild Homes believe that drivers would have the choice of a variety of routes and that would reduce the level of traffic using the town centre.

2.1195 I note that road capacity has not been regarded as a problem and there was evidence in respect of the Sunnyside site that traffic flows in the town are modest. In general terms therefore I believe that the traffic generated by a development of 120 houses at Hillhead is unlikely to cause any significant problems. Clearly, the town centre road system is far from ideal but I accept that there would be a choice of routes from an access to Kinnordy Road, including the use of Slade Road on the western edge of the town. Insofar as most traffic would be to and from the south it could not be anticipated that there would be significant additional use of Woodend Drive to the north of the site. Concern has been expressed about

291 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

additional traffic in the proximity of the primary school and I accept this is a valid consideration. However, access arrangements have not been finalised and, in the event of development of the site coming forward, I believe the council would require to be entirely satisfied over the safety of any proposed access to Shielhill Road. Insofar as the rural road network is concerned I share the view of Richard Lawson and Guild Homes that the routes are not of as low a standard as suggested by other objectors and that they could reasonably cope with a degree of additional traffic.

2.1196 I therefore conclude that traffic generation resulting from a residential development of 120 houses at Hillhead would not place an intolerable burden on the local or wider road network.

Other matters

2.1197 I have taken account of the variety of other matters raised by objectors but, having noted the council’s responses, there is nothing that persuades me that the site should not be allocated for residential development.

292 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Site K3, Land at Beechwood Place

Landscape and visual impact

2.1198 Select Homes accepts that the land has a generally open character but is contained by roads to the east and west, and a shelter belt to the south reducing long distance views of the site. The stark southern edge of the town and the approach from Glamis Road especially could be improved by development. J & J Learmonth believes that the landscape and visual impacts would be more negative than suggested by Select Homes. It is difficult to accept that such a highly visible development is necessary to bring about the claimed improvements. Other objectors are concerned about encroachment into the countryside beyond what is currently a well-defined boundary. The council considers that any residential development would not represent urban sprawl as it would be brought forward as a planned extension to the town.

2.1199 Despite the opinion of Select Homes, I believe that the two roads and the shelter belt, which is beyond the southern boundary of the site would, as stated by J & J Learmonth, provide little containment and the site would have a high level of local visual impact. I note that Select Homes regards the southern edge of the town at this point as being stark but, nevertheless it is a clearly defined and unmistakable boundary. Topographically, Beechwood Place is also significant insofar at it follows the foot of the slope on which the development of this part of the town has taken place. Extension to the south would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the landscape setting of Kirriemuir, even if undertaken as part of a comprehensive masterplan.

2.1200 The council allocated the land for residential development in the finalised local plan review and has indicated that the land may well be reconsidered for this purpose in the future. It may be that future circumstances point to a need for additional housing land allocations, but, in the meantime, in landscape and visual impact terms, I conclude that the land south of Beechwood Place should not be allocated for development.

Land use

2.1201 Select Homes points out that the site is agricultural but is “set aside” and not part of a working farm. I am not in a position to comment on the agricultural viability of the land but, in my opinion, agriculture is a reasonable land use for the land and relates well to the clear urban edge formed by Beechwood Place.

Accessibility

2.1202 I note that the site is within 1,600 metres of all attractions and within 800 metres of most including the secondary school and sports centre. There is access to public transport. Walking to the town centre would involve a steady climb up Forfar Road or Glamis Road with steeper gradients in Bellies Brae but, overall, I accept that the site is accessible in terms of walking, cycling and public transport.

293 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Traffic

2.1203 The site is clearly well placed to ensure that traffic impact on the local road network is minimised. I accept that, for the most part, traffic would not pass through the town centre but would travel to or from the south along the A926 or A928. Traffic generated by the site is therefore not a significant issue.

Wider community benefits

2.1204 Select Homes considers that the development and the related construction of a distributor road giving access to the site and linking the A926 and the A928 would improve the southern entrances to the town and improve road safety, particularly in respect of reducing traffic in Morrison Street. Additionally, benefit would derive from the juxtaposition of the residential site and the employment land to the east. There would be a significant advantage in terms of drainage infrastructure. The council agrees the distributor road would be of general benefit but points out that there have been improvements in the Glamis Road approach to the town since the publication of PAN52. The proximity of housing to employment land could make the best use of infrastructure. J & J Learmonth believes it unnecessary to undertake a development of the scale proposed to improve the entrances to the town and is not convinced about the claimed benefits of the distributor road.

2.1205 I share the view of J & J Learmonth insofar as it is not essential to undertake a large development to solve the image problems of the entrances to the town. In any event, as the council has stated, improvements have already taken place at Glamis Road.

2.1206 I can accept that the construction of the distributor road, as agreed by the council, would bring about general benefits, perhaps improving safety at the bend on Forfar Road at the poor quality junction with Beechwood Place. However, the traffic flows shown in Appendix D of the Transport Assessment undertaken on behalf of Select Homes, support the opinion of J & J Learmonth that the traffic flow along Morrison Street between the radial routes, Glamis Road and Forfar Road, are limited. Comparatively few vehicles turn right from Glamis Road to Morrison Street or left from Morrison Street into Glamis Road. In any event, the overall level of traffic has been described as modest. I therefore do not consider the prospect of the distributor road to be such that need for its construction weighs in favour of the residential use of the land to the south of Beechwood Place.

2.1207 Similarly, I can accept that there are benefits in providing residential land next to employment land. Although it might be argued that few residents would live and work in such close proximity, the provision of employment opportunities close to housing provides the potential for jobs close to home and, in turn, supports the sustainable principle of reducing the need to travel. I also agree that benefit could derive from the joint provision of infrastructure although Scottish Water has made it clear that proximity to the WWTP should not necessarily be regarded as a benefit and that a drainage impact assessment would be required for all sites.

294 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1208 Overall, whilst acknowledging that certain community benefits would result from the allocation of residential land next to the employment land, I am not persuaded overall that these benefits should be given greater weight than the concerns I have expressed in terms of landscape and visual impact.

Other matters

2.1209 I have taken account of the variety of other matters raised although, of course, the requirement of the objectors is for the deletion of the housing land allocation proposed in the finalised local plan review. Certain matters relate to issues already considered and the criticism of procedure has been adequately answered by the council. Concerns about the prospect of localised flooding have not been substantiated although the development guidelines in the local plan review offer advice in this respect. In terms of the impact on school rolls and medical facilities the council has provided evidence to show that all three schools have spare capacity and have agreed to include a reference in the local plan review to a search for a new health centre site. In terms of the countryside walk, the council has indicated that, in the event that development took place, footpath links would be preserved. Having noted the council’s responses, to the matters raised, there is nothing that persuades me that the site should be allocated for residential development.

295 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Land at Sunnyside

Landscape and visual impact

2.1210 J & J Learmonth argues that the development of the land would effectively extend the adjacent site where permission outline planning has been granted for 39 houses. Landscape and visual impact would be relatively less than on other sites and the opportunity could be taken to improve the edge of the town. The council accepts that the urban boundary could indeed be improved. Despite the loss of some conifers, new trees have been planted along the southern boundary and, in general terms, the site is not especially visible. Select Homes believes a visible and abrupt edge would result from development and the horizontal extent of the settlement would be extended. There would be a significant impact on properties in Sunnyside.

2.1211 The land at Sunnyside is clearly visible only when approaching Kirriemuir on the Glamis Road. Even then the site would be viewed in the middle distance against a backdrop of gently rising land and existing or future (site K(b)) development. In my opinion the council is correct in believing that the site is not especially visible. Although Select Homes fears that an abrupt boundary would be created, this need not be so as a layout could be designed which would provide an acceptable edge to the development to both the south and west. Indeed, the newly planted trees would be a first step in softening the southern boundary Development might marginally add to the horizontal aspect of the built form of Kirriemuir as viewed from a short section of the A928 but I do not consider this would be other than a marginal visual impact and would have little or no significance on the wider landscape setting of the town. Similarly, I consider that impact on the amenity of houses in Sunnyside could be reduced to an acceptable level through careful design. In any event, there is no inherent reason why new houses should not be built to the rear of existing development.

2.1212 All-in-all, I believe that landscape and visual impact do not preclude the development of the site at Sunnyside for residential purposes.

Land use

2.1213 The site has not been used agriculturally for some time and J & J Learmonth points out that future agricultural use is unlikely in terms of finance and access problems once development on land to the north has taken place. I believe that the agricultural use of the land is not inappropriate but recognise the practical difficulty of gaining access in the longer term. In view of my assessment of the limited impact of the site visually and in respect of landscape setting, I believe that residential use of the site would not be an unreasonable alternative.

Accessibility

2.1214 J & J Learmonth claims that the site has a significant advantage in terms of walking or cycling to various attractions. The council does not consider this to be a particular

296 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

advantage compared with various other sites and Select Homes equally does not believe Sunnyside has a significant advantage.

2.1215 In my opinion, Sunnyside is well placed for a number of key facilities including schools, sports centre and recreation at Martin Park. The town centre is most directly reached via Tannage Brae although this involves a short but steep hill. The health centre is also currently located in Tannage Brae although this facility may well move at some time in the future.

2.1216 Overall, I conclude that accessibility of the Sunnyside site is not a negative consideration in terms of suitability for residential development.

Traffic

2.1217 It is suggested by J & J Learmonth that any traffic impact in Morrison Street could be mitigated by relatively simple traffic management measures. I accept that, in the context of relatively modest traffic flows, the generation of additional traffic from a site of 2 hectares would not cause any significant problems.

Wider community benefits

2.1218 The claim that development would be sustainable in terms of making best use of the infrastructure required for the development to the north has not been contested. I also note that there would be the potential to gain access to the countryside without the need to use a vehicle. I accept these are both positive considerations should the land be used for housing.

Other matters

2.1219 Site K(b) to the north of the Sunnyside site has been granted outline planning permission for housing and it is proposed to take access to the objection site via that development. J & J Learmonth argues that although the council has recently stated that access to site across council-owned land is no longer possible, this indication should be regarded with some caution. In any event, the principle of providing an alternative access through land to the north has been agreed. The council believes that there is doubt over the ability to provide an access and therefore the effectiveness of the land must be questioned.

2.1220 I accept that there is some doubt over the access arrangements for Site K(b) and, in turn, this places an element of uncertainty over the residential potential of the objection site. Nevertheless, as access via council-owned land is now apparently denied, there is an agreement in principle to construct an alternative access to Site K(b). Clearly this alternative will rely on successful financial negotiations and, as in the case of all “ransom strips”, a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed. Equally, lack of drainage is currently a constraint and therefore neither Site K(b) nor the objection site to the south can be regarded as immediately effective in terms of PAN38.

297 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1221 In my consideration of objections to Site K(b) I expressed the opinion that there is a reasonable expectation that the constraints will be removed within the plan period. The development of Site K(b) is therefore to be anticipated. The ability to implement the extant outline planning permission for Site K(2) would, in turn, provide the opportunity to secure an access to the objection site. Agreement with Scottish Water in respect of drainage would give the land “effective” status. Site K(b) and, if allocated, the objection site would be the subject of monitoring through the annual housing land audit and, should it be that development does not proceed, appropriate action could be initiated depending on the housing land requirements at the time.

2.1222 I therefore conclude that current lack of effectiveness is not a matter that should preclude the allocation of the objection site of 2 hectares at Sunnyside for residential use it being reasonable to expect that the site will become effective within the period of the local plan review. I have also noted the suggestion that, if necessary, an additional 2 hectares to the south could be allocated but do not consider that this is a fundamental part of the objection and therefore reach no conclusion and make no recommendations on this matter. Equally, the suggestion that an extended area linking into North Mains Road could be allocated in the longer term was not pursued in any detail. I am not in a position to assess this larger area in terms of visual and landscape impact or in respect of the implications of the link North Mains Road and I have therefore not taken this matter any further.

2.1223 I have noted the written submissions in support of the allocation of the site for housing land and that attention is drawn to the long-term zoning of the land in previous development plans. The council has provided details of the development plan status but I accept that a local plan review provides the opportunity to consider matters afresh in the context of current circumstances including the strategic guidance in the structure plan and national planning policy.

298 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Land at Herdhill/Martin Park, Kirriemuir

2.1224 J & J Learmonth believes the site offers an urban infill opportunity within convenient walking and cycling distance of all principal attractions. A low density housing development is envisaged and the use of part of the site for employment use would add to sustainability.

2.1225 The council argues that the area is semi-rural in character and that development would be linear. Housing would be out-of-character. Any proposed expansion of the adjacent business could be considered through a planning application.

2.1226 In my opinion the site has sufficient depth to accommodate housing and business use that would not represent linear development such as is found on the south side of the road. Nevertheless, I share the council’s view that the land has a semi-rural character being visually linked with the agricultural land to the north. The cluster of development to the west, including the new houses and the straggle of houses to the south side of the road does not detract from the character of the site to the extent that it should be considered in an urban context. Martin Park, although an urban-related use, contributes to the open nature of the vicinity and I do not believe that a true urban character is apparent until the cross roads at Lindsay Street and Slade Road is reached.

2.1227 Notwithstanding the claim that the site is convenient in terms of walking and cycling, I conclude that the land should not be incorporated within the settlement boundary and allocated for residential, albeit low density, and employment uses. I believe that the development envisaged would detract particularly from the established character of the vicinity and have an adverse impact on the general setting of Kirriemuir. I note the council’s suggestion that any proposal for the extension of the adjacent business could be considered through a planning application. No doubt any such application would be assessed against the relevant local plan policies.

299 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Land at Pathhead, Forfar Road, Kirriemuir

2.1228 It has been argued that the development of the site would represent organic growth and strengthen the edge of this part of Kirriemuir. In my opinion, the edge of the town is clearly defined on the western side of Forfar Road opposite the objection site. The boundary does not require to be strengthened and I do not consider that the extension of the town across this clear physical feature could be properly described as organic.

2.1229 I acknowledge that the veterinary centre is located to the east of the road but I regard this as being a specialised land use justifying a semi-isolated location. Indeed, the existing Section 75 agreement is intended to ensure that the immediately surrounding land remains free from development because of the potential impact of activity at the centre. Although it is important to review land use as part of the local plan preparation process free from the fetters of any Section 75 agreements, such agreements should not be set aside lightly. I believe that the case for revocation to make way for development has not been substantiated in this instance.

2.1230 The retention of the agreement would limit development to the southern part of the site and I agree with the council that this could be regarded as piecemeal and somewhat incongruous. I also accept the council’s contention that development on this sloping site would be relatively prominent and I am not persuaded that residential development to the north of the road would form a gateway to the town. The development of the lower part of the site would lead to encroachment on Maryton, and reduce the value of the buffer zone to the south of the road which is intended to maintain the separation between the employment land at East Mains of Logie and the village to the east.

2.1231 I also note the council’s concern about the standard of the junction between Strathview Road and Forfar Road although, should any development be limited to the southern part of the site, the use of the cul-de-sac for access purposes may not be appropriate in any event. In these circumstances, although reference has been made to an alternative access, it has not been demonstrated that it would be possible to take an access from Forfar Road.

2.1232 All-in-all, I conclude that the allocation of the objection site for residential use should not be supported.

300 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Land at Newton Park

2.1233 Mr Bruce maintains that the land is isolated and no longer suitable for agricultural use. Essentially the land is a gap in the urban framework and would be ideal for a range of housing, particularly in view of the good access to the town centre. There would be little impact on long distance views and, in any event, the northern part of the site would remain as public open space.

2.1234 The council believes the site is an important part of the open land surrounding the Hill of Kirriemuir. Development would be out of context with the established character of the neighbourhood. In any event, the local road network is sub-standard and could support a maximum of 50 houses.

2.1235 I can appreciate the difficulty of farming the land in terms of both access and security. I also accept that the site commends itself as being within the urban fabric and relatively close to the town centre. Whilst I appreciate the character of the surroundings, the vicinity has no specific heritage designation and, in particular, is not a conservation area. I therefore accept that a well-designed residential development could be accommodated on the site without untoward adverse impact on the surrounding residential area.

2.1236 Access is a problem and, in practical terms, would require to be taken from Strathmore Avenue. The council has drawn attention to sub-standard junctions and states that, in technical terms, a maximum of 50 houses could be accepted. Clearly the objection site of some 4.2 hectares could adequately accommodate a development of 50 houses.

2.1237 In my opinion, the potential of the site for housing depends on its value as an open area in the wider land use structure of the town. The council believes this to be an over-riding consideration whereas Mr Bruce argues that the land does not play a significant role in this respect.

2.1238 I note that the Kirriemuir section of the Landscape Capacity Study undertaken by the council identifies the Hill of Kirriemuir and Kirriemuir Den as the two “important land forms” in the town. Insofar as Kirriemuir Hill is concerned, the boundary of this important land form extends over approximately two thirds of the objection site, excluding the southern third of the site. In terms of landscape character and settlement form and pattern, the study concludes that development of this area would have a negative impact. Insofar as views out of or across the settlement are concerned it is stated that development of the north of the site would interrupt views from Kirriemuir Hill and views of the settlement from the south-west would be adversely affected.

2.1239 I agree that the Hill of Kirriemuir is an important land form and an integral component in the structure of Kirriemuir. The open areas surrounding the hill are also important in protecting the setting of the higher ground. Development of the entire objection site would, in my opinion, bring about the negative impacts set out in the Landscape Capacity Study. The upper part of the site is particularly important in views from the southern approaches to the town. However, I note particularly that the boundary of the

301 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

“important land form” excludes the southern section of the objection site. I therefore consider that there may be some scope for limited residential development at this part of the site. However, subject to other sites in Kirriemuir being able to make provision for the required allocation of housing land, I conclude that a precautionary approach should be applied to the land at Newton Park and no allocation should be made over any part of the objection site at this time. It may be that future residential development could be considered subject to a detailed assessment of the precise area over which houses could be constructed without detrimental impact on the Hill of Kirriemuir.

302 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Land north of Cortachy Road (two sites)

2.1240 Although the council states that both objections should be considered in the context of housing strategy I believe that the sale of development proposed is not of strategic consequence and require to be assessed on their individual merits.

2.1241 In terms of Mrs Smith’s proposal, the derelict hen houses can properly be regarded as brownfield in character. However, although SPP3 does give priority to development on brownfield land, this does not offer carte blanche as the guidance indicates that the planning system should guide development to the right places. In this respect, the council believes that Cortachy Road provides a clear edge to Kirriemuir beyond which development should not encroach. Development would spoil the rural character.

2.1242 Mrs Smith draws attention to SPP15 which advances policy in respect of small scale rural housing developments including clusters and groups in close proximity to settlements and, inter alia, holiday homes. There is considerable scope for allowing more housing developments of this nature.

2.1243 I accept that the removal of the derelict hen houses would improve visual amenity at the location but subsequent development should not be considered to be justified by the removal of the structures or as being an inevitable consequence. Indeed, planning authorities are in a position to initiate action requiring steps to be taken to abate any adverse effect on amenity caused by the condition of any land.

2.1244 Notwithstanding the condition and appearance of the hen houses, I accept that the provision of holiday homes is a legitimate aspiration in terms of SPP15. I also agree that the type of development proposed could represent a worthwhile tourist facility and benefit the local economy. However, I do not believe that SPP15 envisages that individual locations would be identified in local plans for the entire range of rural housing. Indeed, SPP15 indicates that the scope for such housing should be expressed in development plans, either as part of a general settlement policy or as a separate sub-set on rural housing policy. On this basis I conclude that it would not be appropriate to make a specific land use allocation for the objection site.

2.1245 The foregoing conclusion does not preclude the possibility of submitting a planning application seeking permission for a group of holiday homes on the objection site. On receipt of any such application the council would no doubt wish to assess the proposal in the light of the guidance of SPP15 and the relevant policies of the local plan review including policies in respect of development boundaries and tourism development. These policies and the guidance would allow the council to judge any proposed development taking into account the proximity to the Kirriemuir settlement boundary, any impact on the environment and the economic and visual implications.

2.1246 Mr Melville’s objection approaches the prospect of future development in the vicinity from a different point of view by seeking a settlement envelope around both objection sites (Mrs Smith’s site and Mr Melville’s site) and the existing houses in the

303 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

vicinity. Woodside is claimed to be a separate settlement with a sense of place and identity: a defined boundary would allow suitable development and prevent further spread.

2.1247 The council does not believe Woodside is a true settlement, a view endorsed by a local resident. It may be that the development envisaged would be best promoted through the submission of a planning application.

2.1248 Should a settlement boundary be drawn around Woodside as required, Policy S1(a), Development Boundaries confirms that new development within the boundary on sites not specifically allocated will generally be supported where they are in accordance with relevant local plan review policies. It would be on this basis that any submission seeking the development required by Mr Melville would be assessed.

2.1249 I note that the Town and Village Directory contains boundary maps for settlements with a wide range of sizes. Some are very small and contain a limited number of houses. Nevertheless, I have assessed Woodside on its own merits. I accept that the buildings are separate from the town and that, as the council states, Cortachy Road provides a distinct edge to Kirriemuir. However, I am unable to discern a sense of place. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that the houses function as a community. I therefore agree with the council and conclude that a settlement boundary is not justified.

2.1250 Notwithstanding this conclusion, I have noted the council’s indication once more that development would be best promoted through a planning application. On this basis, the local plan review may provide a policy basis for appropriate development.

304 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Summary of conclusions

2.1251 On the basis of the foregoing, I reach the following conclusions:

Site K3 – Land at Beechwood Place – I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, Site K3, Land at Beechwood Place, should not be allocated for housing as indicated in the finalised local plan review and the distributor road should be deleted. The land should not be contained within the settlement boundary.

Land at Herdhill/Martin Park – I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at Herdhill/Martin Park should not be allocated for housing and employment uses. The land should not be contained within the settlement boundary

Land at Pathhead, Forfar Road – I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at Pathhead, Forfar Road should not be allocated for housing. The land should not be contained within the settlement boundary

Land at Newton Park – I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at Newton Park should not be allocated for housing.

Land at north of Cortachy Road – I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at the former hen houses (Mrs Smith’s objection) should not be allocated for housing and there should be no settlement boundary at Woodside (Mr Melville’s objection).

Site K2 – Hillhead – I conclude that the local plan review as modified should be further modified as follows:

the extent of the site should be limited to that contained in the finalised local plan review, that is, the employment land to the north-west should be allocated “development in existing built-up areas”;

In view of my conclusions in respect of providing a range of choice, the allocation for Site K2 should remain at around 120 with a first phase of 40 houses up to 2011. A development brief should be required. Although Policy SC6 requires all sites of a certain size or capacity to contribute an element affordable housing, the local plan review should make it clear that low cost home ownership housing is to be provided at Hillhead. There is no requirement to refer to a replacement health centre as this matter is dealt through a further proposed modification. Reference should be made to access from Shielhill Road to provide potential flexibility. In order to protect visual amenity, there should be a requirement to agree on an appropriate use of the land not required for phase 1. The further modified text should therefore be as follows:

305 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

K2: Housing – Hillhead

7.6 hectares of land between Kinnordy Road and Shielhill Road is allocated for around 120 dwellings. A first phase of 40 will be permitted for development in the period to 2011.

Proposals should all be in accordance with a development brief which will be prepared for this site and which will include details of the following requirements:

• vehicular access from Kinnordy Road. Access from Shielhill Road may be permitted if suitable arrangements can be agreed to relocate or redesign the drop-off/pick-up point for pupils of Northmuir Primary School; • 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing; • proposals for suitable use and maintenance of the land not required for phase 1.

Land at Sunnyside – In view of my conclusions in respect a range of sites and the land at Sunnyside, I conclude that the local plan review as modified should be further modified as follows:

insert an additional site:

K3: Housing - Sunnyside

2 hectares of land south of site K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street, is allocated for around 40 dwellings.

Access will be taken from site K(b). Development will require to have regard to the edge of town location with appropriate landscaping, particularly planting along the western and southern boundaries. The benefits of the southerly aspect of the site should be reflected in an energy efficient layout and design

Recommendations

2.1252 In terms of the foregoing summary of conclusions I recommend no change to the local plan review as modified in respect of the following sites:

• land at Beechwood Place • land at Herdhill/Martin Park • land at Pathhead, Forfar Road • land at Crawford Park • land north of Cortachy Road (two sites)

2.1253 I recommend the local plan review is further modified in respect of site K2, Hillhead, as set out above.

306 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1254 I recommend the local plan review is modified by the inclusion of site K3, Sunnyside, as set out above.

2.1255 Consequential changes in respect of housing data should also be made.

307 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Kirriemuir: Site K4 – Working, East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road,

Objector Reference

Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd 871/2/2

Procedure Reporter

Hearing Richard Dent

______

Background

2.1256 In the finalised local plan review site K4, Working, is shown to the south of Forfar Road to the immediate south-east of Kirriemuir. It lies adjacent to land allocated for residential development, site K3, land south of Beechwood Place. The draft alignment of a distributor road is shown passing across the residential land and meeting Forfar Road at the north-western extremity of site K4.

2.1257 It is proposed to modify the local plan by deleting the residential site on the land south of Beechwood Place and re-designating the site K3, Working. The distributor road is also deleted as part of the proposed modification.

Basis of the objection

2.1258 Select Homes supported the finalised local plan review insofar as both site K3 and site K4 were concerned. The principle of the distributor road was also supported although clarification was sought on timing and delivery.

2.1259 The objection by Select Homes to the proposed deletion of the residential land south of Beechwood Place has been considered under my assessment of the various objections to the residential proposals for Kirriemuir. Reference was made to the distributor road.

2.1260 In particular, it was explained that the distributor road would have a roundabout at each end. The roundabout at the eastern end of the distributor road would have several advantages. Apart from being integral to the wider benefits that the distributor road would bring to Kirriemuir, it would allow good access to the employment land, the residential land (which should be restored as an allocation) and also remove the bend at this point in Forfar Road. Even in the event of the housing land not coming forward at this time, the local plan review should make adequate provision for a good quality access to the employment land. This is an important requirement in its own right but, in the wider context, it is also necessary to ensure that a good layout for future residential development to the south of Beechwood Place should not be prejudiced.

308 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The council’s response

2.1261 It is recognised that the employment land, should it progress prior to any housing to the west, requires good access and should not prejudice future residential development south of Beechwood Place. The local plan review should include a statement to this effect.

Conclusions

2.1262 Although I have recommended that site K3, Land at Beechwood Place, should be deleted as proposed by the council, I recognise that, at some time in the future, the development of the land is likely to be reassessed. I have no way of knowing when such a review may take place or what the outcome will be. Equally, I have endorsed the council’s modification insofar as the local plan review no longer requires the distributor road linking Forfar Road and Glamis Road. Again I am unable to forecast whether this road will be required at some time in the future.

2.1263 I appreciate the need to provide an attractive access to the employment land and also acknowledge the benefit of ensuring the most efficient use of infrastructure. However, in this latter respect, I do not believe it would be appropriate for the local plan to explicitly require an access to the employment land that is designed to serve land which is currently unallocated for development.

2.1264 Should the development of the employment land proceed irrespective of the lack of an adjacent housing land allocation, it may be that the location and design of the access could, in any event, allow the possibility of development to the west at some time in the future. In this respect, the housing land allocation in the finalised local plan review extended to the west of Newton Cottage with a short frontage on Forfar Road. The modified employment land site extends over the extreme north-eastern part of the former housing land allocation. I believe the increased extent of the Working allocation provides a degree of flexibility in terms of access to the employment land and any future development to the west.

2.1265 On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that the modified K3, Working, allocation is acceptable in terms of the adjusted site boundary and the text which simply requires access from Forfar Road.

Recommendation

2.1266 I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, in respect of the employment land at East Muirhead of Logie. The site was designated K4 in the finalised document but re-designated K3 as a result of the proposed modifications. In view of my recommendation in respect of housing land at Sunnyside, the K4 designation should be re-applied.

309 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Monifieth: Site Mf 4 - Budden Drive Cemetery Site

Objector Reference

William Shearer 247/1/1 Amelia A Shearer 587/1/1 Mr S Hewitt 786/1/1 Mrs Frances E Kerr 833/1/1 Mr & Mrs R Cairns 946/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing (W Shearer & A A Shearer) Richard Dent and written submissions

______

Background

2.1267 The Community Facilities and Services section of the Monifieth settlement statement contains Policy Mf 4, Budden Drive Cemetery Site, as follows:

2.8 ha of land to the east of residential properties on Budden Drive is reserved for use as a cemetery. Details of access arrangements, parking, landscaping and boundary treatment will be dealt with as part of any future planning application.

2.1268 The Monifieth inset map identifies the site within the settlement boundary to the north-east of the town adjoining the rear of properties in Budden Drive.

2.1269 The site is under pasture and forms part of a wider area of countryside extending northwards and eastwards away from the rear of the houses in Budden Drive. Budden Drive itself lies on the periphery of an established residential area which takes access from the A930, Panmure Street, and B962 to the south. The road hierarchy is not well defined although there is a bus route through the area. There is a small car park on Budden Drive close to the north-west corner of the Mf 4 allocation. A short cul-de-sac leads from Budden Drive to the south-west corner of the Mf 4 site.

The basis of the objections

2.1270 Mr and Mrs Shearer are concerned about the status of land allocated in the local plan review. Designation as a cemetery is the equivalent of granting outline planning permission and therefore all of those directly affected by the proposal should have been notified individually. To support this contention attention is drawn to the terms of SPP15, Planning for Rural Development, which emphasises the need for appropriate development in the right places along with an evidence-based policy approach to guide and promote sustainable rural development.

310 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1271 The council has argued that the Mf 4 allocation is the correct location for the site and that the development is in response to a need identified by the local community. However, lack of notification of those most directly affected precluded a legitimate expression of views. If details were to be dealt with at the time of a future planning application, the opportunity to lodge objections to the principle would be lost, particularly in respect of ensuring that the cemetery is an appropriate development in the right place. Any objections to the principle of development at the time of a planning application would simply be turned away by the council on the basis of the local plan allocation.

2.1272 Graveyards are generally similar in appearance, whereas other forms of development, such as housing, can take an infinite variety of form, density, mix, type and appearance, all of which are subject to control through the planning application process. In contrast, in terms of Mf 4, very few matters are left to be decided: access arrangements, parking, landscaping and boundary treatment.

2.1273 Local opposition to the proposal is strong and is reflected in a petition submitted by residents of Budden Drive containing 16 signatures.

2.1274 The need for a new cemetery has not been established as there are some 16,000 lairs available in Angus, with about 3,000 in Arbroath, and a crematorium in . Additionally, lairs are available in Dundee. All these facilities are accessible because of the good road network in the area and, overall, there is no pressure on Angus Council to provide additional capacity.

2.1275 It appears that finance is a determining factor as the council owns the allocated land and, clearly, the need to acquire a new site could involve very significant expenditure.

2.1276 There is a former quarry close to the site and a geological study is necessary to ensure that soil conditions are suitable for burial purposes. The ground falls to a watercourse to the north and, similarly, it is important to be certain that no contamination would arise as a result of the cemetery proposal. Investigation is also required in respect of potential ancient monuments. Until the site has been proved to be suitable in all respects there is the prospect of unreasonably expensive development. Due diligence requires that, at least, a desk study of the suitability of the site should be undertaken prior to any formal proposal being brought forward in the local plan review.

2.1277 In any event, Site Mf 4 is not well located. Approach roads are generally limited to 5.5 metre width with poor visibility splays. The bus service is infrequent and poor design standards preclude the use of Budden Drive by busses. Many people unfamiliar with the area would visit the cemetery and pose a security problem. The regular use of a residential area by funeral corteges is not appropriate and would alter the established character. The provision of an access directly from the B962 would be very expensive because of the distance involved and the topography. This must be regarded as an impractical alternative. All-in-all, residential amenity in the Budden Drive vicinity that has been established over 35 years would be significantly reduced.

311 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1278 Should it be decided to proceed with the provision of a cemetery at Monifieth, alternative sites should be considered. In this respect, a range of six options exists on land to the north of the town extending from South Grange, west of Victoria Street to land north of Ashludie Hospital, east of Victoria Street. In general terms, these sites are far more convenient than the Mf 4 allocation, having good access, including access from Dundee via the A92. This latter consideration is important as the new cemetery in Dundee is to the west of the city. The alternative sites have little impact on existing residential property.

2.1279 Allocation Mf 4 should be deleted from the local plan review and the settlement boundary should be adjusted at this point to follow the rear of the properties at Budden Drive.

2.1280 Mr Hewitt, Mrs Kerr and Mr & Mrs Cairns express concerns that generally reflect those of Mr and Mrs Shearer. Mr Hewitt emphasises that lack of compatibility between the activities that take place in and around residential properties and funeral ceremonies. He is also concerned about levels of traffic and parking. Mrs Kerr is particularly concerned about access problems. Mr and Mrs Cairns draw attention to the impact on residential amenity.

The council’s response

2.1281 The site proposed for the cemetery is in council ownership and has been reserved for a number of years, the land being currently allocated in the adopted Angus Local Plan under Policy Mf/INF1, Reservation of Land for Cemetery Purposes. Following consultation with the Leisure Services Department, it was considered that in the absence of a viable and accessible alternative site the allocation at Buddon Drive should be retained in the finalised local plan review. To some extent this is a pragmatic approach as future development would not involve a need to acquire land.

2.1282 The allocation should not be regarded as being equivalent to granting outline planning permission. Two separate processes are involved and, in respect of the local plan review, the council has undertaken an appropriate level of publicity. Individual notification is not required. Any proposal for a new cemetery on this or another site would involve further statutory procedure under Notice of Intention to Develop provisions.

2.1283 Many of the existing cemeteries in Angus are of Victorian origin and remain operational by virtue of extensions. The council has been made aware by the community of the need for a local facility to serve Monifieth and the surrounding area and remains supportive of this aspiration. The facility must be accessible to the public and not in a remote location. Although there has not been a detailed survey, it is not believed that there is any problem in respect of sub-surface rock as the Budden Drive site had previously been allocated for a school. Similarly, it is understood that there are no archaeological problems. No access has been specified but there are three alternatives: via the car park to the north- west, via the cul-de-sac to the south-west and across open ground from the B962. The cemetery has been identified as a future project but is not currently programmed for implementation. In any event, it takes many years for a cemetery to come forward to

312 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review operational status. In Arbroath, for instance, there was a 7 year preparatory period.

2.1284 As no viable alternative site has been identified it is appropriate to maintain the allocation of the land at Buddon Drive, at least for the period of the emerging local plan. The allocation will protect the site from pressure for alternative development. It will also provide an opportunity to investigate potential alternative locations as part of the longer-term future of Monifieth set out in a future local plan review. A range of matters require further investigation and details of landscaping, access arrangements, etc. will be considered as part of any planning application.

Conclusions

2.1285 In terms of concern about the lack of notification, I have no reason to believe that the council did not undertake an adequate level of publicity or provide the appropriate opportunity to lodge objections against the terms of the finalised local plan review. Section 12(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans)(Scotland) Regulations 1983, set out the procedural requirements in respect of publicity. In this respect I note that the council has prepared a formal Statement of Publicity and Consultation which will form part of the local plan review submission to the Scottish Ministers.

2.1286 The need for individual neighbour notification is not specified and I can accept that a requirement to undertake publicity at such a level would be onerous and impractical. I do not believe that, in terms of procedure, a cemetery proposal varies materially from any other land use allocation, be it, for example, residential, commercial, or any form of “bad neighbour” development. The terms of SPP15 referred to by Mr and Mrs Shearer do not appear relevant in this respect and do not persuade me that a cemetery proposal has any particular or individual cause for special consideration.

2.1287 I agree with the council that the local plan preparation process and the need to obtain planning permission are separate procedures. However, the local plan is a land use document that guides the location of development during the course of the plan period. Section 25 of the 1997 Act states that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is therefore clear that a land use allocation in an adopted local plan carries significant statutory weight and establishes the principle of development. When a planning application is submitted in accordance with the provisions of a local plan, there is undoubtedly a presumption in favour of granting permission subject to taking account of any material considerations.

2.1288 The council has referred to Notice of Intention to Develop provisions which require a planning authority to refer to Scottish Ministers any proposal where there are objections to its advertised proposals. This allows the Scottish Ministers the opportunity to consider whether they wish to call for a formal application from the authority. Each case is considered individually although there is a presumption against calling for a formal application where the proposal accords with the adopted local plan or has not attracted a significant body of

313 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

objections.

2.1289 On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that the objections to the proposed cemetery at Budden Drive should be considered on the basis of land use and whether or not the allocation is justified and suitable in this respect.

2.1290 Turning first to the question of need I note the objectors’ contention that Angus is well-served in terms of burial and cremation facilities. Even taking into account the ability of residents from other areas to utilise these facilities (which I note is possible at additional cost), there does appear to be significant capacity in the wider area. However, I believe that it is for the council to determine whether or not local facilities should be provided. In this case there is a perceived local requirement and I accept that the council is justified in responding positively in seeking to allocate land for a cemetery.

2.1291 Although the cemetery allocation at Budden Drive is long-standing, being contained in the extant Angus Local Plan, I do not believe, in itself, that this justifies the inclusion of a similar proposal in the local plan review. Self-evidently, the review offers the opportunity to re-assess land use allocations. The site was originally intended for a school and, on the basis that this is no longer required, I can accept that council ownership is a seductive factor in proposing the land for an alternative community use. Certainly, in terms of acquisition costs, it is not unreasonable to assume there would be a significant advantage in using the land. However, whilst the council has described such an approach as pragmatic, I am of the opinion that a careful assessment of land use and planning matters is required.

2.1292 In terms of the site characteristics, objectors have expressed concern about the lack of any study of the site and have drawn attention to the possibility of contamination of a nearby watercourse, archaeological remains and unsuitable sub-soil conditions. The council does not believe that that site would give rise to any such technical problems. Whilst potential development problems might appear either unlikely or capable of resolution, I am of the opinion that lack of any basic site assessment – a desk study was suggested by objectors as a minimum requirement - weakens the credibility of the proposed allocation.

2.1293 Insofar as location is concerned, I accept the council’s contention that a cemetery should not be in remote location. As it is intended that the facility should serve Monifieth and the surrounding communities it is logical that it should be close to Monifieth as the main centre of population. In practical terms, a location on or close to the edge of the town is to be anticipated. To this extent, the proposed allocation commends itself.

2.1294 I consider a basic requirement for a new cemetery is ease of access. In this respect I am not persuaded that the proposed site is capable of being provided with a suitable vehicular access. To approach the site from either the north-west or south-west would entail passing through a residential area. I share the objectors’ opinion that the standard of the roads is not high and conclude that they would be inappropriate for funeral corteges. I can also appreciate that the use of roads of limited standard within an area of residential character could have an adverse impact on established amenity. Although there is a bus route through the residential area, this is said to be infrequent and unable to use Budden Drive. Lack of a convenient bus

314 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review service would be a serious disadvantage and contrary to the promotion of sustainable development.

2.1295 The council has also referred to the possibility of taking a direct access from the B962. There is no indication that the council has control over the land required to construct such an access and I share the objectors’ opinion that the length of this approach and the local topography would significantly add to cost. I therefore conclude that the council has not demonstrated that adequate access can be taken to site Mf 4. Although the policy suggests that access arrangements could be determined at the time of a detailed planning application, I believe that this is a fundamental requirement and that any problems must be shown to be capable of resolution if the land use allocation is to remain meaningful.

2.1296 The council has indicated that the Mf 4 allocation is a protective measure. Although the cemetery has been identified as a project, it is not included in the council’s programme of work. Indeed, there is no suggestion that the cemetery would come forward during the period of the current local plan review. Further, the council recognises that there will be an opportunity to investigate potential alternative sites. Objectors have also emphasised the need to consider alternative locations and a range of possibilities has been suggested to the immediate north of Monifieth. I do not consider it appropriate to analyse these alternatives in any detail as insufficient information has been provided to make a credible assessment. Nevertheless, I accept that, at least, the prospect of an alternative cemetery site does exist.

2.1297 All-in-all, although the council hopes to provide a local cemetery for Monifieth, I have gained the impression that there is not total commitment to site Mf 4 which appears to have been allocated as a matter of expediency and on a provisional basis. Indeed, the council’s reference to the investigation of potential alternative sites strengthens my opinion in this respect. Taking into account my conclusions in terms of the technical characteristics of the site and, particularly, my misgivings over the access constraints, I further conclude that the cemetery allocation Mf 4 cannot be justified. In turn I conclude that the site should be deleted and the settlement boundary redrawn to the rear of the residential property in Budden Avenue.

2.1298 In order not to frustrate the council’s desire to provide a local cemetery for Monifieth and surrounding communities, it would be appropriate to include this objective as a key issue in the Monifieth settlement statement with an indication in the development strategy that a search will be made with a view to bringing forward an appropriate site.

Recommendation

2.1299 I recommend that the local plan review is modified as follows in respect of the Monifieth settlement statement and Inset Map 6:

add a further bullet to paragraph 4, Key Issues, as follows:

• The need to identify a site for a cemetery

315 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

add a further bullet point to paragraph 5, Development Strategy, as follows:

• Undertake a search for a new cemetery for inclusion in a future local plan review or earlier if required

delete allocation Mf 4 from the inset map and key and realign the settlement boundary to the immediate rear of residential properties in Budden Avenue.

316 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Monifieth: Omission – Land at Ashludie Farm, Mains of Ardestie and Ardownie Farm

Objector Reference

Mr & Mrs G Mackie 607/1/1 Mr S Booth 921/1/1 & 921/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Hearing Richard Dent

Note: Three individual objections were submitted originally relating to separate parcels of land. With the agreement of the council, these objections were subsequently combined within a single, larger area of land.

______

Background

2.1300 The settlement boundary to the north and east of Monifieth follows the clearly defined edge of the town other than for allocation Mf 4, Budden Drive Cemetery Site, which reserves land for a cemetery beyond the north-eastern part of the built-up area. (see previous objection).

2.1301 The undulating countryside of the objection site is in agricultural use, extending from the edge of the built-up area to the A92 to the north, Victoria Street to the west, and the B962 to the east. A group of houses on higher ground at Ashludie Steadings, adjacent to the B962, is excluded from the objection site. Mains of Ardestie farmhouse and associated buildings are immediately beyond the north-eastern extremity of the site. Ashludie Farm lies in the south-east section. A partially culverted watercourse flows south-eastwards across the site.

Basis of the objection

2.1302 The objection site extends to some 90 hectares and constitutes a logical extension to Monifieth for future residential development. There is a primary school in Victoria Street and a secondary school in the western part of the town. The town centre and railway station are within easy walking distance. A garden centre and Angus Gateway, a retail facility, are easily accessible to the north-west.

2.1303 Relevant national planning policy is contained in SPP1, The Planning System, SPP3, Planning for Housing, SPP17, Planning for Transport, NPPG11, Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space, PAN38, Housing Land, and PAN44, Fitting New Development into the Countryside.

2.1304 In particular, SPP1 encourages the creation of a development framework that looks beyond the prescribed 5 year period of the local plan. SPP3 recognises that greenfield release next to built-up areas may be necessary: extensions to towns and villages can sustain and utilise

317 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

capacity in local services and facilities. Similarly, the proximity to facilities is the underlying theme of NPPG17 which encourages the use of other means of transport in preference to the private car. PAN38 reiterates the importance of development in sustainable locations and SPP3 requires account to be taken of visual impact, not only from the urban area but from major roads, public transport routes and other vantage points.

2.1305 Dundee and Angus Structure Plan seeks to maintain the area as a viable economic and social entity with attractive and inclusive places in which to live, invest and work, all in the context of sustainable development. An overall 8.5% decrease in population is forecast with a 10% increase in the number of households in Angus by 2016. There is a requirement for 12,730 new residential units between 2001-2016 with 8,625 in the Dundee and South Angus housing market area. Should the annual housing audit reveal a need, alternative land should be identified to make up any shortfall.

2.1306 Structure plan strategy allocates the majority of greenfield release to the west of Dundee and seeks not to prejudice the Dundee Western Gateway development. The allocations are at the expense of Angus, particularly Monifieth, which is a vibrant, desirable and highly sought after living environment. The structure plan approach is flawed as it will lead to Monifieth stagnating for the benefit of Dundee. Longer term development, as proposed on the objection site, would not threaten the viability of the Western Gateway, where substantial delays are anticipated, and would redress the imbalance created in the structure plan. The allocation of additional housing land in the local plan review would also accord with the guidance contained in SPP3 to provide an effective land supply for at least 5 years from the date of adoption and to provide for the medium and longer terms. In any event, the structure plan statistics derive from 1998 and the housing need projections are now out-of-date. The 2002 projections give a clear indication that the number of households in Angus is rising. It is important to take account of the guidance in SPP1 and SPP3 which have both been published since the approval of the structure plan in 2002.

2.1307 Structure plan Policy H2 requires additions to the effective housing land supply to be focussed on the main settlements of Monifieth and Carnoustie and contribute to a range and choice of sites throughout the wider housing market area. There is a general thrust towards making best use of existing and proposed transport infrastructure and ensuring that development proposals provide sustainable methods of transport. Transport Policy 4 seeks to ensure that development takes place in the most accessible locations and provide safe, convenient and attractive facilities for pedestrian, cycle and public transport access with walking and cycling routes linking to existing or established networks. Accessibility to existing or proposed public transport networks and the availability of local road network capacity are required. Policy ER2 requires development to respect the main features and characteristics of the natural heritage and contribute to landscape restoration or improvement, bio-diversity conservation and enhancement and environmental quality.

2.1308 The local plan review directs the majority of development to the main settlements, the towns being the natural focus. New development containing a range of services and facilities is encouraged along with a mix and range of housing within developments. The terms of structure plan Policy T4 are echoed and new development is required to take account of the guidance of

318 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment. Flood risk assessments are required where necessary. There is a presumption against the permanent loss of prime agricultural land or detrimental impact on the viability of farming units.

2.1309 Although the local plan review includes a well-intentioned strategy of utilising infill and brownfield sites for residential development in Monifieth, the number of such sites within the boundary of the town is limited. This situation curtails the prospect of fulfilling the aspirations of both the structure plan and local plan as it is to be anticipated that Monifieth, where levels of housing development have been virtually static for some time, will be without any additional planned housing land releases for at least a further 7 years. Development should not be precluded simply to protect Dundee. This is contrary to national guidance which seeks a long term development strategy to allow the proper planning of settlements. Ad hoc decisions leading to piecemeal development along the A92 is a likely consequence.

2.1310 The effective sterilisation of Monifieth will restrict opportunities for inward investment and constrict natural development contrary to the local plan objective to maintain and improve the environment and local shopping provision in the town centre. Affordable housing requirements, which the local plan review shows to be significant, will not be met.

2.1311 Natural development of Monifieth is restricted to expansion over an existing golf course to the east or northwards across the objection site, the latter being the only logical alternative. Defensible boundaries would be created by the A92 and B962. Although development at this location would lead to the loss of prime agricultural land, the expansion of Monifieth can realistically only take place across Ardestie and Ashludie Farms. In any event, Government policy in respect of the protection of agricultural land is now less restrictive than in the past.

2.1312 It is envisaged that approximately 2,000 new houses and new offices could be provided on the objection site over a 10-15 year period. There would be a range of residential opportunities including a “retirement village” and an element of affordable housing adjacent to existing housing to the south of the site. It is desirable to concentrate growth in large sites in order to generate the momentum required to achieve a continuing level of investment. Phased development would reduce the impact. The local plan review acknowledges a lack of usable open space in Monifieth and the development would offer the opportunity to provide a new parkland area for the town. This may also allow the re-establishment of the culverted burn. Existing main tree lines would be maintained and reinforced to screen the site from prominent vistas and integrate development into the surrounding landscape. Any required contributions would be made in respect of upgrading both primary and secondary schools although phased development would ensure that demand for school places would be gradual.

2.1313 Access to the site is good and the recently upgraded A92 provides excellent road links to nearby major employment centres. New cycle paths and walkways would connect to existing routes which pass through or near to Monifieth and provide easy access to the town centre and railway station. Scottish Water has confirmed there is currently sufficient capacity to service the development. However, capacity cannot be reserved and, because of the size of the proposal, a development impact assessment would be required. A sustainable urban drainage system

319 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

(SUDS) would be provided. There is a historic burial site within the proposed development area and further archaeological investigation may be required. Detailed design would be adapted as required. There are no natural heritage designations.

2.1314 The objection site extends over allocation Mf 4 which reserves land for a cemetery. An alternative cemetery site is proposed in the vicinity of Mains of Ardestie. A re-cycling centre is also proposed to the east of the B962.

The council's response

2.1315 Dundee and Angus Structure Plan provides the basis for the provision of housing land in local plans. It is necessary to firstly consider the effective land supply prior to assessing site factors such as location, landscape setting and infrastructure.

2.1316 Structure plan Housing Policy 1 and Schedule 1 require 1,045 houses in the South Angus housing market area for the period 2001-11. The local plan review meets this requirement as follows:

Completions, 2001-04 401 Planning permission 552 Allocated sites 263

Total 1,216

2.1317 Brownfield opportunities and windfall development could add to the total.

2.1318 On the foregoing basis there is no requirement for further housing land allocations as this would give rise to conflict between the local plan review and structure plan. When adopted, the local plan must conform to the structure plan.

2.1319 Structure plan Housing Policy 2, Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area, requires local plans to ensure that:

priority is given to the reuse of previously developed land to provide a 5 year land supply;

the Dundee Western Gateway provides a focus for planned integrated development:

proposals for major development on greenfield sites elsewhere in the Dundee and South Angus housing market area will not be permitted where this would seriously prejudice the implementation of the Dundee Western Gateway development …

2.1320 Policy 2 also states that in the Monifieth, Carnoustie and Sidlaw area, additions to the effective housing land supply will be focussed on the main settlements of Monifieth and Carnoustie and contribute to the range and choice of sites throughout the wider housing market area.

320 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1321 Housing land performance is subject to annual monitoring, a process in which Dundee City Council is involved. The 2004 audit showed that housing land supply in the South Angus housing market area exceeded the structure plan allowance by 380 for the period 2004-09. The full structure plan allowance for the period to 2011 could therefore be met along with the first 2.4 years of the following 5 year period for which the structure plan requires an indicative allowance. Accordingly, there is an effective housing land supply well beyond the local plan period and further land allocations are not required.

2.1322 The 2005 audit augments this position showing a supply of 1,325 houses compared to 1,216 identified in the local plan review. The situation is as follows:

Completions, 2001-05 605 Planning permission 635 Allocated sites 85

Total 1,325

2.1323 The current level of supply suggests that the first 4 years of indicative allowance of 350 for the period 2011-16 could be met. However, should a shortfall in the effective land supply emerge, this would be remedied through additional local plan allocations rather than planning applications.

2.1324 The structure plan strategy is not flawed. As recognised in the report of the Dundee Local Plan Review inquiry, although there are outstanding issues in respect of the Western Gateway development, there is progress towards resolution. Implementation of the development would not be helped if the strategy on which the proposals are based were to be set aside within a relatively short period of the structure plan having been approved.

2.1325 Alteration of the strategy would require a structure plan review, and subsequent approval by the Scottish Ministers. At present there is no evidence to suggest that the required land allowances cannot be met through sites with planning permission and local plan allocations. In turn, there is no requirement for additional allocations. In particular there is no justification for a further housing land allocation at Monifieth, especially on the very large scale proposed by the objectors.

2.1326 The extent of the proposed development gives rise to particular concerns. The development of the land between the A92 and the town would have significant visual impact which has not been analysed through a landscape assessment. It is understood that there are drainage problems which prevent the site coming forward in total. Much of the site would involve walking distances in excess of the recommended maximum. Secondary school provision would require to be augmented. The alternative cemetery site is not suitable and is beyond walking distance from much of the town.

2.1327 In terms of the town centre, the problems in Monifieth have been recognised and an initiative has been launched to bring about improvement.

321 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1328 All-in-all, the plan-led approach should be supported and the local plan review must conform to the terms of the structure plan, a document which remains current. Regularly undertaken audits show that adequate housing land is available. There is accordingly no strategic context for the allocation of the objection site, the scale of which is more than the total for the housing market area and is almost as large as the requirement for the whole of Angus.

2.1329 No technical assessment of the site has been completed in terms of landscape, transport and drainage. This is significant in the context of the guidance in SPP3 which emphasises that extensions to settlements need careful planning, a requirement that is especially applicable in this instance where over 2,000 houses are envisaged. Monifieth is a small town with a population of about 8,000 and the proposed extension would involve a 50% increase.

Conclusions

2.1330 The objectors’ argument turns in the first instance to the strategic context established by the structure plan. The document is criticised as being out-of-date, the housing requirements being derived from 1998 projections. In effect, it is suggested that the guidance contained in SPP1 and SPP3 in respect of providing housing land for the longer term should be preferred. Difficulties in delivering the Dundee Western Gateway are emphasised but, more generally, the objectors do not believe that housing development in South Angus should be limited to protect Dundee. The restrictions imposed by the structure plan have a detrimental impact on Monifieth where, despite the popularity of the town as a place to live, new development will be precluded for several years to come. On this basis, the objection site should be allocated for phased development over a 10-15 period.

2.1331 The council relies on the terms of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan contending that the document has been approved relatively recently and pointing out that, on adoption, the local plan review is required to conform to the structure plan. Attention is drawn to the terms of Housing Policy 2 with an emphasis on brownfield sites, a focus on the Dundee Western Gateway, and opposition to the release of greenfield sites elsewhere in the housing market area that would seriously prejudice the Western Gateway. The annual housing audits for 2004 and 2005 have revealed an increasing supply of housing land in the housing market area. The most recent analysis suggests that there are adequate allocations for not only the local plan period to 2011 but for a further 4 years into the period to 2016 for which the structure plan requires indicative allocations.

2.1332 Objections to the strategic housing land supply have been dealt with under Policy SC1. It was concluded that the inquiry into objections to the Angus Local Plan Review does not provide an opportunity to consider alleged shortcomings of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan, which was approved relatively recently, or to suggest changes to the strategic context provided by the document. This strategy anticipates a relatively modest scale of development. Similarly, it would not be proper for the inquiry to consider the perceived problems of the Dundee Western Gateway. Accordingly, it was concluded that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan are those that should be reflected in the local plan review.

322 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

2.1333 It was further concluded, insofar as South Angus is concerned, that the objectors’ requirement for the release of more housing land beyond the city boundary is very clearly at odds with the strategy that runs through the structure plan. Whilst South Angus is a popular area for housing, it is part of the larger Greater Dundee Housing Market Area which contains not only Dundee city but also parts of Fife and Perth and Kinross. As stated in PAN38, housing market areas provide an established basis for calculating the housing land requirement. South Angus should therefore not be regarded as an automatic choice to make good any perceived shortfall within the housing market area. It was also concluded that there is merit in the council’s argument that it is necessary to have regard to the continuing regeneration of Dundee. Again, this in accordance with the structure plan strategy.

2.1334 I have no reason to revisit the earlier conclusions in respect of housing land supply in the light of the arguments put forward in support of these objections. On this basis I conclude that the local plan review is required to conform to the extant structure plan, the terms of which have statutory approval, and which cannot be the subject of review as part of this inquiry. The council has demonstrated that the housing land supply in the South Angus housing market area is sufficient to extend well beyond the 2011 horizon of the local plan review. I also believe this meets the terms of the guidance in SPP1 and SPP3 to provide a long term vision.

2.1335 Notwithstanding the requirement of Housing Policy 2 to focus additions to the effective housing land supply on Monifieth and Carnoustie, there is no specific requirement to allocate land in either or both settlements. To re-iterate, PAN38 indicates that housing market areas provide an established basis for calculating the housing land requirement. In view of the very rapid growth of Monifieth in recent years, I do not believe it is critical that continued expansion is either necessary or desirable. Consolidation of the community would be beneficial and provide the opportunity to align facilities and services with the current size of the town. In this respect I have noted that the council is mounting an initiative intended to improve the town centre.

2.1336 Although the objectors are concerned about the prospect of restricting development in South Angus in order not to prejudice development in Dundee, I agree with the council that this is a fundamental strategic requirement. Nevertheless, in terms of Housing Policy 2, proposals for major development on greenfield sites will not be permitted where this would seriously prejudice implementation of the Dundee Western Gateway development. Accordingly, setting aside other considerations, greenfield release for major development could be permitted where it could be shown that the Western Gateway development would not be seriously prejudiced. Although it has been claimed by the objectors that the proposed development at Monifieth would not threaten the Western Gateway project, no evidence has been provided to convince me that this would be the case. Accordingly, if for no other reason, I consider it appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach and conclude that Housing Policy 2 points against the proposed expansion area.

2.1337 The objectors assert that the objection site represents the only realistic option for the expansion of Monifieth but I do not believe that this should be the determining factor in allocating the land as required. Other than the strategic arguments for not releasing greenfield land at this location, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the site itself. In my

323 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

opinion, there is little doubt that the size of the development over a site of 90 hectares, even phased over 10-15 years, has the potential to inflict a significant impact in several respects. As the council has pointed out, the scale of the development could increase the population of the town by some 50%. The implications of such an increase require very careful assessment.

2.1338 Although the objectors have stated that major planting and landscaping is intended, it is inevitable that a degree of visual impact would occur. In this respect, I believe that the current views of Monifieth across the open land from the A92 are pleasing and place the town in an attractive landscape setting. The proposed development would inevitably disturb this situation. In my opinion, this would lead to an unacceptable adverse impact.

2.1339 The objectors claim that drainage and water could be provided although the council has expressed some concern. Scottish Water has confirmed capacity at present but this cannot be guaranteed and a development impact assessment would be necessary. I therefore conclude that it cannot be assumed at this time that a development of the size proposed could be supported by the existing network infrastructure. Although it appears school places would be available, or could be provided through developer contributions, there is no conclusive evidence to this effect. As the council has pointed out, a transport assessment has not been undertaken and so the sustainable nature of the site cannot be proved conclusively.

2.1340 I believe that the release of land the size of the objection site should not be contemplated without detailed analysis including assessments of landscape impact, transport and infrastructure. In this respect I share the concern of the council about the generalised nature of the objectors’ arguments.

2.1341 Notwithstanding the potential for providing a range of choice of housing, including affordable housing and a retirement village, I conclude that strategic considerations point against the allocation of the land as required by the objectors. Even if there was a case for setting aside the provisions of the structure plan, I conclude that, in land use terms, the release of the land has not been justified. In reaching this conclusion I have also noted the proposed sites for the cemetery and the waste recycling facility, neither of which causes me to set aside my conclusions in respect of the allocation of the land.

2.1342 All-in-all, I conclude that the local plan review should not be modified in respect of these objections.

Recommendation

2.1343 I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.

324 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Montrose: Settlement Statement – Paragraphs 1-5

Objector Reference

Scottish Natural Heritage 45/1/14

Procedure Reporter

Written Submission Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.1344 The objection concerns the introduction to the finalised local plan review section dealing specifically with Montrose.

Basis of the objection

2.1345 It is argued by the objector that the introductory text and key issues sections relating to Montrose in the finalised local plan review should include reference to the Montrose Basin Special Protection Area and RAMSAR site.

The council’s response

2.1346 The council acknowledges that Montrose Basin is a unique feature which is important in terms of the landscape setting of Montrose, as well as for wildlife conservation and ecological interest. It recognises that the Basin, as well as other environmental features which are important to the character of the town, should continue to be protected from inappropriate development and points out that this is highlighted in the introductory paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Montrose section of the finalised local plan review (FALPR). Whilst noting that policies designed to protect important features of the natural and built environment are set out in the Environment and Resources section of the document it accepts that cross-reference to these policies would be useful in the Montrose section.

2.1347 Accordingly, the council in its Proposed First Round Modifications put forward two amendments. Firstly, the following text is proposed for insertion as an additional paragraph within the introductory text for the Montrose section of the finalised local plan review (after paragraph 4):-

“Environmental features including the Basin, mid and east links, seafront and historic town centre are important to the character and identity of the town and will continue to be protected from inappropriate development. Montrose Basin is a unique landscape feature and the wildlife and ecological importance of the area is recognised by its designation as a RAMSAR site, Special Protection Area, SSSI and Local Nature Reserve. Development proposals affecting such important environmental features will be assessed against relevant policies set

325 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

out within the Environment and Resources section of the Plan (Part 3).

2.1348 Secondly, in the Key Issues section of the Montrose part of the Plan, the council also proposes to amend Bullet Point 4 of paragraph 5 as follows:-

“the continued protection of the town’s important environmental assets including the Basin, Mid Links, South Links, seafront and historic townscape.”

2.1349 On the basis of these proposed amendments, which were agreed between the council and the objector, the objection was CONDITIONALLY WITHDRAWN.

Conclusions

2.1350 I note that there is agreement that Montrose Basin is important in terms of the landscape setting of Montrose, as well as for wildlife conservation and its ecological interest. I am satisfied that the council has sought to safeguard the important features of the Basin though relevant policies set out in Part 3 (the Environment and Resources section) of the FALPR. I conclude that the Proposed Modifications to the text set out above for insertion in the Montrose section of the plan document will serve to highlight the importance of Montrose Basin and draw attention to these policies to safeguard its inherent features.

Recommendation

2.1351 I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case by the inclusion of the two text insertions set out above, which formed part of the Proposed First Round Modifications put forward by the council.

326 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Montrose: Site M1 - Brechin Road & Omission - Marykirk Rd Hillside

Objector Reference

Robert Fleming & Co. 72/1/2 72/1/3

Procedure Reporter

Written Submissions Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.1352 The objections concern, firstly, the M1 allocation of 30ha of land at Brechin Road, Montrose for residential development and associated landscaping and community facilities. The policy proposes an initial phase of 200 dwellings to be released within the plan period to 2011, allowing for possible further land releases beyond that as the site has a potential capacity for 400 units. The policy specifies that 25 % of the capacity of the site should provide LCHO affordable housing. Secondly, the objector seeks a new housing land allocation at Marykirk Road, Hillside.

Basis of the objections

2.1353 It is argued that such a large allocation as M1 Brechin Road fails to meet the priority set out in Building Sustainable Communities which seeks to provide ‘a mix and range of housing developments to meet the needs and aspirations of all sectors of the community.’ It is contended that this allocation also prevents choice of sites and opportunities for local builders and developers. In the objector’s view, based on predicted completions rates, there is likely to be a shortfall in completions on the Brechin Road site and so the Housing Land Allocations 2001-2011 set out in Table 2.1 of the finalised local plan review could fail to be met. Accordingly, the objector seeks a reduction from 200 to 170 units at Brechin Road for the plan period to 2011. In addition it is proposed that the Development Boundary at Hillside be extended to include a site at Marykirk Road, Hillside. It is argued that 30 housing units should be allocated here to make up the shortfall and provide a better overall choice and mix of housing developments. It is pointed out that the Hillside site is non-prime agricultural land adjoining the A937 road and that it is accessible by public transport. It is also argued that it is well defined by having housing on three sides and a railway along its eastern boundary and that it could be adequately serviced.

The council’s response

2.1354 The council notes that Table 2.1 of the finalised local plan review indicates that the structure plan housing land allowance for the Brechin/Montrose Housing Market Area is 835 units for the period 2001-2011. The structure plan in Housing Policy 1 requires local plans to

327 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review allocate sites across the housing market area (HMA) as a whole not within each settlement and for each allocated site to provide a proportion of affordable housing. It points out that, taking account of the 224 completions in that HMA in the period 2001-2004, as well as the sites with planning permission, there is a net requirement for 320 units to be allocated for this HMA in the period to 2011. It argues that the finalised local plan review meets the structure plan requirement in full by allocating sites within the Development Boundaries at Brechin and Montrose. For Montrose the allocations are the greenfield site at Brechin Road and the brownfield sites at Lochside Distillery and Dungmans Tack.

2.1355 Since the publication of the finalised local plan review, some of these sites have been granted planning permission - including an outline permission for 200 housing units at Brechin Road, where the principle of housing development has been long established through the local plan framework. It notes that full planning permission has been granted for 112 units on the Brechin Road site and site preparation work has started there. In the council’s view, these approvals will provide a mix of housing types and sizes and include provision of affordable housing, in accordance with the development brief. In addition to the allocated sites in Montrose, the council states that there is potential for brownfield opportunity sites such as at Sunnyside Hospital to come forward during the plan period, as well as other greenfield and brownfield windfall sites in towns and villages. The council states that these will contribute to the housing land supply of Montrose and the wider HMA.

2.1356 The performance of housing land continues to be monitored thorugh annyal housing land audits. The draft Dundee and Angus Housing Land Audit 2005 identifies the Brechin Road site as part of the effective housing land supply with an estimated capacity of 400 units, where development has started, with an expected yield of 175 units in the period 2005-2010. Consultations with Communities Scotland, Homes For Scotland and the public have not raised any queries on the above position regarding Montrose. Whilst a similar completion rate of 35 per anum would give a total of 210 units by 2011 there is a condition that no more that 200 units should be constructed on that site during the plan period to 2011, in accordance with Policy M1.

2.1357 In summary, in the council’s view the various greenfield and brownfield sites in Montrose, referred to above, meet the requirement to provide a range of house types and sizes, including affordable housing on larger sites. In this context, the council argues that there is no requirement for additional housing land to be allocated in the Montrose area within the finalised local plan review. Accordingly, the council contends that there is no justification, in terms of the effective housing land supply for the Brechin/Montrose HMA, for the greenfield site at Marykirk Road, Hillside to be allocated as an addition to the existing housing land allocations in the finalised local plan review.

Conclusions

2.1358 I note that the objector has not sought to challenge the net requirement for 320 units to be allocated in the finalised local plan for Brechin/Montrose Housing Market Area in the period to 2011. This is based on the structure plan allowance and takes account of completions together with sites under construction or with planning permission. I am not persuaded by the

328 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

objector’s argument that there is likely to be a shortfall in completions on the Brechin Road site, based on predicted completion rates. Instead I consider that the council has set out a robust case defending its position that the Brechin Road site is expected to meet the 200 units allocated to it in Policy M1 for the period to 2011, based on completion rates set out in the latest housing land audit (draft 2005). I conclude that there is no justification, therefore, for the allocation at Brechin Road to be limited to 170 rather than 200 units during the plan period to 2011.

2.1359 I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the greenfield and brownfield sites allocated in the finalised local plan review, which are within existing Development Boundaries, will provide satisfactorily for Montrose and for the wider HMA in quantitative and qualitative terms and meet the structure plan requirements. In particular I am satisfied that these allocations - together with opportunity sites, such as Sunnyside hospital, and windfall sites - will combine to produce a range of house types and sizes, including affordable housing on larger sites, as required by the local plan and structure plan policies. I note that this would also be in line with national planning policy and guidance. I also note that the site put forward by the objector at Marykirk Road, Hillside is outwith the existing Development Boundary of Hillside. Notwithstanding the accessibility of that site, I find that no compelling case has been made either for this site to be incorporated within the Development Boundary or for the land concerned to be allocated for 30 housing units within the finalised local plan review. In summary, I conclude that there is no justification for modifying the finalised local plan in the manner suggested by the objector.

Recommendation

2.1360 For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the local plan review should not be modified in this case.

329 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Montrose: M4 Opportunity Site – Sunnyside Hospital

Objector Reference

Sportscotland 56/1/1

Robert Fleming & Co. (Supporter) 72/1/1 (per The Charlton Smith Partnership)

Procedure Reporter

Written Submissions Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.1361 The objections concern the M4 Opportunity site - Sunnyside Hospital Estate in Hillside, Montrose where the land and buildings are identified as an opportunity for regeneration and redevelopment for a range of uses, as identified in an approved development brief. M4 states that development proposals for the re-use of the hospital buildings and associated parcels of greenfield areas (for housing or any other uses) will only be considered in the context of an approved Master Plan and will be assessed against the strategy and relevant policies of the local plan. It also states that development on greenfield areas will only be permitted where it is necessary to facilitate the re-use of the listed buildings here.

Basis of the objections and representations

56/1/1

2.1362 It is noted that part of the Sunnyside Hospital area shown as M4 in the finalised local plan review includes an existing football pitch by the hospital. The fact that the pitch is no longer required by the hospital is not evidence that there is no unmet demand for pitches locally. It is pointed out that NPPG 11 recommends a presumption against the redevelopment of playing fields as a community resource and Policy SC39 of the finalised local plan review affords such protection. In this context it is argued that before any redevelopment of this pitch it must be demonstrated that it is no long required for community use, after a detailed analysis of the Montrose area and usage of the pitches there.

72/1/1

2.1363 The other representation expresses support for the council in respect of Policy M4, noting that the hospital is still partly in use and no date for its closure has been decided.

330 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

The council’s response

2.1364 The council states that the development brief for the hospital complex allows for the redevelopment of greenfield parcels of land, including the playing field, where this would facilitate the re-use of the listed buildings. In line with local plan Policy SC29 the playing field concerned would require to be relocated within the site unless it was demonstrated that there is an excess of pitch provision in the area. Paragraph 2.78 of the finalised local plan review confirms that an open space audit, including sports pitches, is underway and this will form the basis for an open space and sports pitch strategy. In advance of this it is considered appropriate to highlight in the finalised local plan text that the playing field will require to be relcoated within the Sunnyside Hospital site. Accordingly, the council proposes in its First Round Modifications, September 2005, to make two amendments to the text of the finalised local plan as follows:

2.1365 Firstly, to insert a new paragraph before Policy M4 to read as follows:

“The development brief also allows for the development of associated greenfield parcels of land including a playing field to facilitate the reuse of the listed buildings. In line with Policy SC29: Open Space Protection, the playing field will require to be relocated within the site unless it is demonstrated that there is an excess of pitch provision in the area.”

2.1366 Secondly, to insert an additional sentence at the end of Policy M4 to read as follows:

“In accordance with Policy SC29: Open Space Protection, the existing playing field will require to be relocated within the site unless it is demonstrated that there is a clear excess of pitch provision in the area.”

2.1367 On this basis the objection has been CONDITIONALLY WITHDRAWN.

Conclusions

2.1368 I note that there is no disagreement that there should be a presumption against the loss of the playing field at the hospital site and that if the land concerned was required for redevelopment the pitch would need to be relocated within the hospital estate. The only exception to this approach would be if it was demonstrated that there was an excess of pitch provision in the area generally. I conclude that there is justification for modifying the finalised local plan in the manner suggested by the council and agreed by the objector, in order to clarify this position.

Recommendation

2.1369 I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case to incorporate the two insertions of new text, as put forward by the council in the First Round Modifications and detailed above.

331 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Montrose: M9, Railway Sidings - Montrose Station

Objector Reference

Network Rail (Infrastructure) Ltd 239/1/1 & 239/2/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

Background

2.1370 The objections concern the Policy M9: Railway Sidings – Montrose Station which states that the railway siding and goods yard at Montrose Station are reserved for rail related uses.

Basis of the objection

2.1371 The objector points out that there are other existing rail freight facilities which are available in the immediate Angus/ area. In this context it is argued that there is no need to allocate the whole 2ha of the Montrose Station rail sidings for rail freight purposes, when 0.3ha (the portion nearest to the operational rail lines) would be sufficient for this purpose. The remainder of the sidings land is surplus to operational requirements and so could be transferred to other (unspecified) uses, in the objector’s view.

The council’s response

2.1372 The council states that the site concerned is not allocated as a rail freight facility but is reserved for rail related uses. As the site is sandwiched between the east coast main rail line and the A92 road the council considers that it would be unsuitable for housing for amenity reasons. The objector’s previous suggestions that the site should be zoned for retail use were considered inappropriate - based on the existing range and distribution of retail development in the town, as well as existing planning permissions for additional retail development within the town centre and to the north of the town. Whilst the council considers that a leisure facility may be appropriate at this location, there is no evidence of demand or pressure for that type of facility to justify allocation of the site for leisure use. In the council’s view, development of the site should maximise its accessibility to the road and rail network. Potential uses might therefore include road or rail based storage and distribution activities or uses generating a large number of workforce or visitor trips, such as leisure or office uses – with an emphasis on those uses with potential to use rail travel for goods or people movement. The council acknowledges that the wording of Policy M9 could be amended to remove any ambiguity over the council’s intentions for the site concerned. Accordingly, the council proposes in

332 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

its First Round Modifications to add the following margin text to the section of the finalised local plan review associated with Policy M9:

“Rail Related Use: freight generatng uses such as storage and distribution where freight by rail can be used as an alternative to road for all or part of a journey; or development generating a large number of workforce or visitor trips with potential for use of rail travel as an alternative to the private car.”

2.1373 The objector considered that the proposed amendment, as set out above, does not give sufficient flexibility for alternative uses on the part of the site not specifically required for rail fraight purposes. In the objector’s view retail use may be appropriate in this location.

2.1374 The council points out that the objector has not substantiated the assertion that the site surplus to rail freight operational needs may be suitable for retail purposes. Meanwhile the council considers that such a use would be contrary to NPPG8 and the development plan, based on the likely impact on the vitality and viability on Montrose town centre and site accessibility considerations. The council contends instead that reservation of the site for rail related use would be in line with SPP17: Planning for Transport. It points out that an economic study of Montrose was recently commissioned by Angus Council, Scottish Enterprise Tayside and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). A key finding of that study was that the mainline railway passing through the town and the availability of land adjacent to the station for rail freight is a considerable asset in relation to the future of Montrose Harbour and future marketing of parts of the GSK site that are surplus to operational requirements, and so it should be retained and reserved as a rail head facility. The council states that no evidence has been submitted to suggest that 0.3ha would be sufficient for this purpose. In this context the council contends that its proposed modification to the margin text, as outlined above, is the only amendment appropriate at this time and that the case for the release of the railway land for alternative uses is unsubstantiated and would be premature.

Conclusions

2.1375 The case put forward by the objector for the majority of the site concerned to be released for other commercial uses, such as retailing, has not been substantiated. Furthermore, based on the available evidence it appears that retail use would be contrary to national planning policy set out in NPPG 8 and the development plan, for the reasons given by the council. I am persuaded instead by the council’s argument, supported by the findings of a recent economic study of the town that, at least for the local plan period, the site concerned should be reserved for rail-related uses, as specified in Policy M9. I agree with the council, however, that that this should be supplemented by new margin text to provide clarity of the types of use envisaged. I conclude therefore that there is justification for modifying the finalised local plan, by means of new margin text in the manner put forward by the council in its Proposed Modification.

333 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Recommendation

2.1376 For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case to incorporate the insertion of new margin text as put forward by the council in the First Round Modifications and detailed above.

334 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Montrose: Omission - Glaxo site

Objector Reference

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Ltd 823/1/1 (per Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden

______

Background

2.1377 The GSK site, which extends to approximately 19ha, commenced operations in the 1950’s and expanded to become an important manufacturing centre (of ingredients for pharmaceutical products) in Montrose. The company announced that it would be closing its operations in Montrose in late 2006 or 2007. The objection concerns the fact that whilst various policies of the finalised local plan review provide scope for flexibility regarding its future use, there is no explicit policy relating to the GSK site.

2.1378 Following a comprehensive review of operations across its manufacturing network, in April 2006 GSK announced a reversal of its earlier decision concerning the future of its Montrose site. The announcement confirmed that the Montrose site will no longer be closed, but instead will remain operational. Its continuing role in manufacturing (existing and new ranges of pharmaceutical compounds) will involve a £25million investment in the Montrose site and retain a workforce of around 250 people on the site, which formerly had 750 permanent employees.

Basis of the objection

2.1379 In the original objection, it was explained that an earlier decision in 2001 to market the Montrose site for sale to a single pharmaceutical user has not secured its future, due to a lack of demand, over-capacity in the industry and strongly competing alternative locations. Furthermore, the bespoke nature of the existing facilities at the site makes it difficult for them to be adapted for new purposes. This large brownfield site within the town occupies a gateway location at the entrance to the harbour and close to Montrose Port, as well as being near to the town centre and the rail station. Whilst Policies ENV5 and replacement Policy S1 of the finalised local plan review offer some flexibility regarding possible future uses, in the objector’s view those policies do not provide sufficient clarity regarding the early introduction of new uses. In this context, it is argued that there should be an explicit designation of the GSK site as an opportunity site encouraging its regeneration with a range of land-use options, and a suggested text for this was put forward. New uses could take advantage of significant investment that has made by GSK concerning flood defence of the site. The only potential constraint on

335 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review future development is the site’ inclusion within a Health and Safety Consultation Zone related to a nearby fertiliser storage facility.

The council’s response

2.1380 The council recognises that closure of the GSK pharmaceutical operation in Montrose would result in the site concerned becoming available for re-use and redevelopment. Accordingly, the council agrees that the site should be highlighted as an opportunity site within the local plan and in its proposed First Round Modifications it put forward the following suggested amendment to the finalised plan review text and a new Policy M5 as specified below:

2.1381 The proposed amendment is to insert the following under Opportunity sites:

“Following the anticipated closure of the Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) pharmaceutical facility in late 2006, the site will provide a major opportunity for reuse and regeneration. Covering some 19 hectares and located in the southern part of the town, the site has boundaries with the harbour, housing and important recreational areas including the links, caravan park and the beach. Given the scale of the site, its unique coastal location and proximity to the harbour the site has potential for a number of land uses. However various issues will require to be investigated prior its redevelopment for alternative use including the impact of the Health and Safety Consultation Zone on development proposals, a Contaminated Land Assessment and a Transport Statement highlighting transport issues.

The close proximity of the GSK site to Montrose Harbour (North Quay) may also offer the potential for a joint approach towards economic regeneration in the southern part of Montrose including linked development opportunities.

M5: Opportunity Site – GSK Site

This 19 hectare site provides a major opportunity for regeneration. The site could be redeveloped exclusively for employment uses including business (Class 4)*, general industry (Class 5)* and storage and distribution (Class 6)*, or alternatively for a mix use development which may include employment uses (as above), residential, leisure, recreational and tourist related uses.

Given the combination of possible land uses and issues to be resolved, a development brief will be required to provide a framework for the coordination and delivery of development.

As a consequence of the above associated amendments require to be made to the Introduction, Key Issues and Development Strategy Sections of the Montrose chapter in respect of GSK as follows:-

336 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

Insert the following new paragraph after paragraph 3:-

The anticipated closure of the Glaxo Smith Kline site early within the plan period has emerged as a key issue for Montrose. The local plan seeks to encourage the regeneration of this major site for alternative uses which are appropriate for the area.

Insert a new bullet point under Key Issues:-

* the closure of the Glaxo Smith Kline site and the need to encourage its regeneration;

Amend 2nd bullet point under Development Strategy to read:-

* promote as a priority the reuse of available brownfield land including the GSK site for appropriate alternative uses.”

2.1382 Based on the proposed modification the objection was CONDITIONALLY WITHDRAWN.

The current position

2.1383 Following the latest announcement by GSK in April 2006, as outlined above, the objectors reviewed their earlier representations in respect of the finalised local plan review and concluded that the proposal by the council for the GSK Montrose site to be designated as an “opportunity site” in the FALPR should remain, for the following reasons:

• The new investment now planned for the Montrose site may result in manufacturing being concentrated in a small part of the total GSK site, leading over time to parts of the site being surplus to requirements and available for alternative uses • GSK have worked closely with Scottish Enterprise Tayside and Angus Council over many years to address the decline in the local economy and to support the local community. Most recently a more formal Partnership was formed to address issues arising from the impact of GSK leaving Montrose. GSK has contributed funding to the recently completed Montrose Economic Study and has taken an active interest in the Montrose Harbour Study – noting that the GSK site forms part of the operational harbour area where there are redundant harbour buildings, including some of archtiectural and historic interest • In seeking to promote regeneration of the South Montrose area, including the GSK site, there are also various other related issues arising regarding environmental quality, redundant brownfield land, access and circulation and linkages to the surrounding area, including the town centre

337 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

• Securing regeneration of the area is likely to be a long term venture and the local plan review can assist by establishing an appropriate policy foundation for future studies and detailed planning related to that regeneration.

2.1384 In this context, the objectors suggest retention of the proposed modifications put forward by the council, but excluding the first sentence (referring to the anticipated closure) and it also points out that the changes to the text put forward at the end (starting from “As a consequence of the above …onwards) are also now no longer necessary or appropriate and should be deleted.

Conclusions

2.1385 There is complete agreement that closure in whole or part of the 19ha GSK operations in Montrose would result in redundant land and buildings offering a major brownfield opportunity for re-use and regeneration. Its proximity to the coast, the town centre and the harbour provides potential for a number of land uses although various issues, including contamination and wider health and safety concerns, will need to be investigated prior to any redevelopment. I agreee with the council that the site’s close proximity to the harbour may offer potential for a joint approach geared to economic regeneration of this southern part of the town. I conclude that the council’s proposed First Round Modifications to add introductory text and a new Policy M5 in the Montrose section of the finalised local plan associated will highlight the scope for new initiatives on this important site.

2.1386 Notwithstanding the recent announcement made by GSK that much of their site will remain in operational use with new investment planned here, I endorse the comments made on behalf of the objector to justify retention of the Proposed Modifications put forward by the council, including the inclusion of a new Policy M5 within the FALPR. The only qualification is that I would agree with the objector that the opening sentence (referring to closure of the plant) and the reference made, towards the end of the proposed modification are now no longer applicable and so should be deleted.

Recommendation

2.1387 I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case to incorporate the insertion of new text and a new Policy M5, all as put forward by the council and as detailed in the Proposed Modifications, but excluding both:

• the first sentence (referring to the anticipated closure); and • the proposed changes to the text put forward at the end (starting from “As a consequence of the …”), for the same reason that they are no longer applicable.

2.1388 Accordingly, the existing Policy M5 and subsequent text and policies of the finalised local plan review document would be retained but moved forward (and renumbered where appropriate) when the proposed new insertions outlined above have been incorporated.

338