Town and Country Planning () Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 1983

South Council

Report of Public Local Inquiry into Objections to the Finalised Local Plan Part 2: Housing Sites

Volume 1:

Reporters: E D K Thomas BSc(Hons) MBA MRTPI Hugh M Begg MA(Hons) MA PhD DipTP FRTPI

Dates of Inquiry: 24 August 2004 – 31 March 2005 File Reference: IQD/2/370/1

SALP Contents

Contents

PAGES

ABBREVIATIONS i

INDEX TO REPORT AND SUMMARY OF REPORTERS‟ ii-v RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1-.4

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND 2.1-.24

SECTION 3 STRATEGIC OBJECTIONS 3.1-.74

SECTION 4 BACKGROUND (2) 4.1-.9

SECTION 5 HOUSING SITES ASSESSMENT 5.1-.3

SECTION 6 STRATEGIC HOUSING SITES 6.1-.82

SECTION 7 OTHER HOUSING SITES 7.1-.183

SECTION 8 RETAIL, COMMERCIAL AND RELATED USES 8.1-.22

SECTION 9 INDUSTRIAL AND RELATED USES 9.1-.17

SECTION 10 OTHER MATTERS 10.1-.88

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 APPEARANCES AT PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY A1.1-.2

APPENDIX 2 LIST OF DOCUMENTS A2.3-.12

APPENDIX 3 NOTE OF BUSINESS MEETING 1 A3.13-.15

APPENDIX 4 NOTE OF PRE-INQUIRY MEETING A4.16-.24

APPENDIX 5 NOTE OF BUSINESS MEETING 2 A5.25-.26

SALP Contents

PAGES

APPENDIX 1(A) APPEARANCES AT PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY A1(A).1-.4 (PART 2)

APPENDIX 2(A) LIST OF DOCUMENTS A2(A).5-.18 (PART 2)

APPENDIX 1(B) APPEARANCES AT PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY A1(B).1-.2 (PART 3)

APPENDIX 2(B) LIST OF DOCUMENTS A2(B).3-.5 (PART 3)

SALP Contents

ABBREVIATIONS

AOD Above Ordnance Datum ASP Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan ASP&TC Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan and Transportation Committee CDASP Consultative Draft Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan CDSALP Consultative Draft South Ayrshire Local Plan DETR Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions FRLtd Fordham Research Limited GROforS General Register Office for Scotland HAG Housing Association Grant HforS Homes for Scotland HHLtd Hope Homes Ltd M&M MacTaggart & Mickel NET North East NPPG National Planning Policy Guideline PAN Planning Advice Note RSL Registered Social Landlord SAC South Ayrshire Council SALP Finalised South Ayrshire Local Plan SE Scottish Executive SEA South East SEAC South East Ayr Consortium SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency SMH Stewart Milne Holdings SMs Scottish Ministers SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SofSS Secretary of State for Scotland SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SPP Scottish Planning Policy 1997 T&CPA Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

SALP i Abbreviations

Index to Report and Summary of Reporters’ Recommendations

No Objection Page Recommendation

2. Background

2.1 Policy Background 2.1 -

3. Strategic Objections

3.1 Strategic Housing Land Supply 3.1 Change to Plan 3.2 Affordable Housing 3.25 Change to Plan 3.3 Strategic Green Belt 3.56 Change to Plan

4. Background (2)

4.1 Policy Background (2) -

5. Housing Site Assessment

5.1 Housing Site Assessment 5.1 -

6. Strategic Housing Sites

6.1 NET 6.1 Change to plan 6.2 SEA 6.20 Change to plan 6.3 Greenan 6.46 Change to plan 6.4 Holmston 6.70 No change to plan*

7. Other Housing Sites

7.1 Ayr: Ayr Rugby Club 7.1 No change to plan* 7.2 Ayr: Braston Farm 7.5 No change to plan*

ii

No Objection Page Recommendation

7.3 Ayr: Burton 7.12 No change to plan* 7.4 Ayr: Craigie Campus 7.18 No change to plan* 7.5 Ayr: Doonholm Road 7.22 Change to plan 7.6 Ayr: Northpark 7.30 No change to plan* 7.7 Ayr: St Catherine‟s School 7.38 No change to plan* 7.8 Heathfield (Residential) 7.42 (i) Site 1 (Seaforth Road) Change to plan (ii) Site 2 (North of Heathfield Road) No change to plan (iii) Site 3 (South of Heathfield Road) No change to plan (iv) Site 4 (Heathfield Road/Forbes Drive) No change to plan 7.9 Heathfield: East Sanquhar Farm 7.52 No change to plan 7.10 : St Cuthbert Golf Course 7.59 No change to plan* 7.11 Prestwick: New Dykes Farm 7.63 No change to plan* 7.12 Troon: Bentinck Crescent & Ottoline Drive 7.67 No change to plan* 7.13 Troon: South Beach Road 7.75 No change to plan* 7.14 Troon: Templehill 7.78 No change to plan 7.15 : Road 7.81 No change to plan 7.16 / 7.84 (i) Site 1 (Brocklehill Farm) No change to plan* (ii) Site 2 (Brocklebank Farm) No change to plan* (iii) Site 2 (a part of) No change to plan* (iii) Site 3 (Drumley Farm) Change to plan (iv) Site 4 (Mauchline Road) No change to plan (v) Site 5 (Land by the Tap of the Brae No change to plan* Public House) 7.17 7.98 (i) Site 2 (Gallowhill Farm) No change to plan (ii) Site 3 (East of Hole Road) No change to plan (iii) Site 4 (Barngore) No change to plan (iv) Site 5 (South of Corsehill Farm) No change to plan (v) Sites 6a and 6b (North and South of Corsehill Farm) No change to plan (vi) Site 7a (West of Manse Road) Change to plan (vii) Site 7b (East of Manse Road) No change to plan (viii) Site 7c (Carbieston Avenue/Lorne Terrace) No change to plan 7.18 Crosshill 7.114 (i) Site 1 (South of Road) No change to plan (ii) Site 2 (Rear of Dalhowan Street) No change to plan 7.19 Fisherton & 7.122 (i) Site 1 (Fisherton) Change to plan (ii) Site 2 (Fisherton) Change to plan (iii) Site 3 (Fisherton) No change to plan (iv) Site 4 (Dunure) Change to plan 7.20 Loans 7.131 (i) Site 1 (North of Seaview Terrace) No change to plan (ii) Site 2 (Robertloan Farm) No change to plan

iii

No Objection Page Recommendation

7.21 7.138 (i) Site 1 (Malin Court) No change to plan (ii) Site 2 (Harbour Road) No change to plan (iii) Site 3 (The Knowes area) No change to plan (iv) Site 4 (Ardlochan Avenue) Change to plan 7.22 Monkton 7.148 (i) Site 1 (Whiteside Farm) No change to plan (ii) Site 2 (Baird Road) No change to plan (iii) Site 3 ( Road) No change to plan (iv) Site 4 (Main Street) Change to plan 7.23 Symington 7.160 (i) Site 1 (Symington Mount) No change to plan (ii) Site 2 (Symington Road North) No change to plan (iii) Site 4 (Townend Brae B) No change to plan (iv) Site 5 (Townend Brae A) Change to plan (v) Site 6 (Townend Terrace A) Change to plan (vi) Site 7 (Townend Terrace B) No change to plan 7.24 Tarbolton 7.174 (i) Site 1 (Croft Street/Garden Street) No change to plan (ii) Site 2 (Ayr Road) No change to plan (iii) Site 3 (Mansefield Road) No change to plan (iv) Site 4 (Westport/Croft Street) No change to plan (v) Site 5 (Burns Street) No change to plan

8. Retail, Commercial and Related Uses

8.1 Heathfield Retail 8.1 Change to plan 8.2 Retail 8.18 No change to plan 8.3 Funeral Parlours 8.20 No change to plan 8.4 Alloway & 8.21 No change to plan

9. Industrial and Related Uses

9.1 Fairfield, Monkton 9.1 No change to plan* 9.2 Falkland Yard 9.7 No change to plan* 9.3 Troon Marina 9.9 No change to plan* 9.4 Railway Matters 9.11 No change to plan 9.5 Waste Transfer Site 9.13 No change to plan 9.6 Minerals 9.15 Change to plan

iv

No Objection Page Recommendation

10. Other Matters

A. Site related

10.1 Low Green 10.1 No change to plan 10.2 Monkton: Station Road 10.7 No change to plan 10.3 Troon: Crsobie Road 10.11 No change to plan 10.4 Coylton Scenic Area 10.17 Change to plan 10.5 Barr 10.19 Change to plan 10.6 10.22 No change to plan 10.7 Craiksland Farm 10.25 No change to plan 10.8 Girvan: Coalpots Road 10.26 10.9 Travelling People Site 10.28 No change to plan 10.10 Wildlife Corridors 10.29 No change to plan 10.11 Forestry Matters 10.31 No change to plan 10.12 Bogend 10.33 No change to plan 10.13 Seafield Hospital 10.35 No change to plan

B. Policy Related

10.14 Policy STRAT2 10.37 Change to plan 10.15 Policy RE1 10.43 Change to plan 10.16 Policy RE2 10.47 Change to plan 10.17 Policies IND4 and OPP1 10.52 No change to plan 10.18 Policy AIR3 10.55 Change to plan 10.19 Policy BE8 10.57 Change to plan 10.20 Policy ENV12 10.59 No change to plan 10.21 Policy H5 10.61 No change to plan 10.22 Policy H9 10.63 No change to plan 10.23 Policy H12 10.65 No change to plan 10.24 Policies SERV2 & SERV3 10.66 Change to plan 10.25 Policy SERV8 10.69 Change to plan 10.26 Policy SERV17 10.71 No change to plan 10.27 Policy SERV18 (Girvan Community Hospital) 10.73 No change to plan 10.28 Policy TOUR4 10.75 No change to plan* 10.29 Policy ENV13 10.77 No change to plan 10.30 Policies ENV5 and ENV6 10.78 Change to plan

C. Others

10.31 Glossary 10.83 Change to plan 10.32 Light Pollution 10.85 No change to plan 10.33 Strategies: Wildlife and Coastal 10.87 No change to plan

* There are implications arising for all of these sites either from our recommendations in chapter 3.3 (Green Belt) as outlined in the individual chapters in sections 6, 7 and 9 of the report, or from our recommendation in chapter 10.30 (policies ENV5 & ENV6).

v

4. Background (2)

vi

4.1 POLICY BACKGROUND (2)

The following extracts from SE advice in NPPGs, SPPs, PANs and Circulars are a continuation of those contained in chapter 2.1 (Policy Background) of this report. The extracts in both chapters relate to evidence given to the inquiry on housing matters and taken into account in the preparation of this report (where reference is made to a particular sub- paragraph, only that sub-paragraph is shown). Other policies and guidance are referred to in individual chapters.

National Policy Guidance

4.1 NPPG17: Transport and Planning

Policy Context (General)

6. This NPPG promotes an integrated approach to land use, economic development, transport and the environment, based on the following objectives:

to meet Government commitments and targets on greenhouse gases and local air quality; to maintain and enhance the quality of urban life, particularly the vitality and viability of town centres; to reinforce the rural economy and way of life; to maintain and enhance the natural and built environment, through restricting adverse environmental impacts, minimising environmental intrusion and retaining, improving and enhancing areas for biodiversity; to support sustainable economic development within a pattern of land use and integrated transport which serves the economy and communities, promotes genuine choice of transport mode, facilitates a reduction in car use, and supports more use of walking, cycling and public transport; to ensure that the impact of development proposals on transport networks does not compromise their safety or efficiency.

7. Land use planning can contribute to achieving the Government‟s broad policy objectives for integrated transport and land use planning through:

reducing the need to travel by regulating the pattern of land uses in relation to each other and to transport facilities; enabling people to access local facilities over local networks by short walking or cycling trips, in turn contributing to social inclusion; supporting provision of high quality public transport access to development, in order to persuade motorists that public transport is more attractive to them than car use; and supporting the management of motorised travel to enable it to undertake its essential role effectively, but in all other respects to contribute to sustainable transport objectives.

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

Policy Guidelines (General Principles)

18. Much existing development can be expected to be adapted or maintained in productive use for many decades. Changes of use will affect travel patterns, but it is in the location of new development that development plans can have greatest influence. As the majority of trips start or finish at home the location of new residential development can have a significant influence on travel patterns. There is also significant scope to influence travel through land use change at the destination end of trips. The location of major travel generating uses are critical to the number and length of trips, particularly for shopping, industry, offices and leisure. The ability to control such developments, by locating them in places well served by public transport, especially town centres, and by restricting associated car parking, should gradually have an effect on traffic growth. Councils should also attempt to promote change by seeking, in conjunction with public transport operators, to improve public transport access to existing developments which attract a high level of private car trips.

20. Within the general approach set out…, there is a need to prioritise accessibility within the integrated transport system both in terms of mode and of best value. For individual travel, the general hierarchy of priorities should be:

 walking….;  cycling….;  public transport….;  private cars….

Policy Guidelines (Policy Approach to Integrated Transport and Land Use Planning)

21. A framework for delivering better integration of transport and land use planning will be a key policy tool. The objective should be to locate key travel generating uses to support more sustainable travel patterns. Such a framework will consist of:

 location policy, ensuring specified development takes place in locations which support sustainable mode share;  a set of maximum parking standards for specified uses;  replacing the system of Traffic Impact Assessments with broader Transport Assessments which cover access by all modes; and  the use of Green Transport Plans and planning agreements to promote sustainable transport solutions.

22. The methodology is intended to ensure that access to significant travel generating developments by non-car modes becomes significantly greater than at present. The emergence of Transport Assessments and maximum parking standards will focus attention on the requirement to deliver an appropriate modal split in accessing new developments. It is no longer appropriate for minimum parking standards to be a requirement of development proposals. Green Transport Plans described below will raise awareness of the need to deliver sustainable travel patterns to these travel generating uses. Further work is being commissioned on how this framework might be applied and detailed guidance will be issued in due course.

Policy Guidelines (Settlement Strategy and Housing)

26. Planning authorities should ensure that their settlement strategy is consistent with the aim of reducing travel demand and puts greater reliance on means of transport other than the SALP4 Policy Background(2)

private car. In considering the transport implications of future patterns of development in their area, planning authorities should seek out opportunities to help redress the impact of traffic on the environment.

27. Housing is the most extensive development land use in any settlement. The relationship of homes to other uses has a large potential to influence travel demand in terms of transport type and length of journey.

28. The development of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements and built up areas for housing should in future give greater weight to locations able to be well integrated into effective networks for walking, cycling and public transport. Access to jobs and facilities across the urban area should be a prime consideration. In determining planning applications full consideration should be given to provision of walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure directly related to the travel demand generated by the new development. NPPG3 (Revised 1996) Land for Housing (at paragraph 47) gives guidance on settlement strategy and small scale new settlements; they should also be assessed against the guidance in this NPPG.

29. Locations that are highly accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, including land most accessible to stations or interchanges, should be developed at highest densities. Priority should be given to development linked to the existing rail network. Where good access to public transport exists or can be provided by the developer, authorities should consider setting lower maximum standards for provision of residential car parking. These accessibility advantages should not be dissipated by low density development. This principle should not however be interpreted as encouraging car-based low density sprawl away from high density nodes, as a sustainable transport policy should nevertheless ensure that significant urban expansion areas have provision made for modes of transport in addition to the private car.

30. Care should be taken to ensure that the appropriate use of high density development embodies the best practice from the Scottish urban tradition. Good urban design should aim to minimise local congestion, and not lead to a loss of amenity through over development, or a deterioration in the quality of life.

Policy Guidelines (Rural, Remote and Island Communities) 31. Inevitably, major facilities are concentrated in the larger settlements, and the dispersed population in remote rural and island communities makes public transport less viable and likely to exist in many places on a basic level if at all. However, the objective of sustaining rural communities as set out in the Rural Strategy Framework should be set alongside the desirability of maximising the use and viability of whatever public transport services exist, including community run and other innovative services. Development plans should indicate where development will require new public transport services to be provided, if necessary at the developer‟s expense.

Providing for Public Transport

52. Development plans should provide clear guidance on requirements for public transport access to new development areas. Rail services with their fixed infrastructure offer certainty for developers and provide a focus for urban regeneration and redevelopment. Where available, sites adjacent to stations should be the preferred location for development

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

generating a large number of workforce and visitor trips. Planning authorities may wish to explore with rail authorities the potential for reopening rail lines, providing new stations or reviving passenger services on existing lines. Sites at major nodes on the bus network should also be favourably considered for urban redevelopment and regeneration, consistent with other planning policies. All such sites should give priority to ease of pedestrian movement from the public transport facility to the development over access from car parks.

Action Required

72. Development plans and Local Transport Strategies should complement and reinforce each other. Development plans provide the means for examining the relationships between transport and land use planning, for promoting their integration and co-ordination, and for ensuring that they contribute to strategies to reduce the need to travel. In reviewing their development plans, planning authorities should…:

 co-ordinate their objectives and policies for land use, transport provision and the environment at the outset of the planning process;  locate and integrate new development, including development of new settlements and expansion of existing built up areas for housing, with existing or planned transport infrastructure, particularly for walking, cycling and public transport, and with provision of public transport services;  plan development to bring together related land-uses which can benefit from being accessible to one another, and thereby reduce the length of journeys and the need for multiple journeys;  establish green networks, protect and enhance green spaces and footpath provision in and around towns and cities, to provide high quality opportunities for informal recreation locally, without the need to travel by car;  take into account the impact of development proposals on demand for transport, including effects on traffic flows in urban areas, and on the need for, and subsequent environmental impact of, consequent transport infrastructure;  ensure that trunk roads and other through routes (including by passes) serve as corridors of movement and, although in rural areas they will also serve local traffic needs, do not have their national and strategic role undermined by new development which encourages their use for short local trips;  where new transport infrastructure is justified on environmental, social and economic grounds, design it to gain maximum benefit for walking, cycling and public transport in relation to existing and proposed patterns of development, and safeguard it through development plans.

Local Plans

76. Local plans should express the detailed relationship between development proposals and transport in accordance with the strategy of the appropriate structure plan. They should set out:

 policies and proposals for the specific allocation of housing, employment, schools, retail, leisure and other development integrated into effective networks for walking, cycling and public transport, and where relevant into freight facilities, and taking advantage of schemes to reallocate road space away from the private car;  designation of routes which are reserved as corridors for through movement and on which development requiring access will be resisted;  proposals for provision of infrastructure or other facilities as an integral part of major developments, or as improvement to local networks, to encourage people to make more journeys by walking, cycling, and public transport;  proposals for improvement of local roads and other transport infrastructure, consequent on the development patterns proposed in the plan;  review of transport proposals including safeguarding of routes proposed in the structure plan, but limiting those included in the plan to schemes intended to be commenced during the plan period, and removal of blight by deletion of safeguarding for schemes now unlikely to be proceeded with…. SALP4 Policy Background(2)

Conclusions

79. Land use planning has a crucial role to play in giving coherence to the future pattern of development and its relationship with the developments and actions of many public and private transport interests. It is therefore essential through partnership/joint working to promote a more co-ordinated view of transport and land use planning, so that over time, the disposition of land uses can assist in reducing the need to travel; and in creating the right conditions for maximising the proportion of travel on foot, by cycle and by public transport; and in restricting adverse environmental impacts….The positive interaction of land use and transport planning will thereby contribute to meeting the Government‟s environmental, economic and social objectives for sustainable development.

4.2 PAN44: Fitting New Housing into the Landscape

Introduction

1. …A cumulative loss of landscape quality has already become apparent as suburban housing estates – often devised with little appreciation of local character or a sense of place – have taken shape around the fringes of our towns.

3. The (design) manual is not intended to provide a blueprint for housing design, but sets out approaches which should help to relate housing layout more sensitively to the existing landscape.

The Policy Framework

4. The Government‟s Environment White Paper, This Common Inheritance, indicates that as most people inhabit towns and cities, it is vital that they are pleasant places in which to live and work. New buildings and development of all kinds should improve the quality of life there. The White Paper recognised that attitudes to new housebuilding are strongly influenced by the quality of their design. Good buildings, well designed and well maintained, good planning and layout, and adequate green space within and around the town all contribute to a good environment. In the White Paper‟s words “It is important that new housing on „greenfield‟ sites is carefully placed to preserve the open countryside and respects the quality of the landscape.”

5. Both at national and international levels, the Government has stressed its commitment to sustainable development…Conserving local environmental quality is a key element of this commitment to sustainable development. The housing we build today must demonstrate that commitment. Not only will it help to shape our environment in the immediate future, it will also be a legacy determining the environmental quality of many areas throughout much of the 21st century.

6. The government‟s commitment to sustainable development is fully reflected in recently published Scottish Office planning guidance. NPPG1…indicates that maintaining and enhancing the quality of the built environment is to be considered a prime objective. It can be achieved, amongst other measures, by promoting good urban and building design and by safeguarding the character and setting of towns and villages. NPPG1 also draws attention to the fact that the appearance of a development and its relationship to its surroundings are

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

material considerations to be taken into account in determining a planning application. Recognising that good design is first of all the responsibility of designers and their clients, the NPPG notes that it is for development plans to guide developers on any broad design matters relevant to particular locations, avoiding the prescription of excessive detail.

The Need for Advice on Landscape Fit

9. Scotland enjoys a long and distinctive tradition of urban design, with urban form closely fitted to the landscape. The pattern, evolved over centuries, has now seen some additions at best mediocre or indifferent in quality. Lack of integration with the landscape is particularly noticeable on the edges of our small and medium sized towns. Many new housing developments have been planned and carried out without evident regard to existing urban form and the local landscape, or to their wider visual impact particularly when seen from road and rail approaches. Insensitive development can undermine the special environmental quality of towns and their setting in the countryside which have drawn people to live and invest in them in the first place.

10. The Government – in answer to growing concern about insensitive new housing developments – wishes to ensure that proposals are made sufficiently responsive to the sense of place, and to the general and particular character of the landscape. The capacity of the landscape to absorb development must be given proper attention, alongside other considerations such as the need and demand for housing, the availability of land, energy efficiency and the provision of infrastructure.

Action in Plans and Development Control

13. Policies and proposals for housing development in structure and local plans should be guided by a better understanding of the characteristics of the landscape and its suitability for development. Where appropriate, plans should show any specific design requirements which follow from this.

Design Manual – Characteristics of Recent Development

19. With extensive and dispersed layouts, modern, large scale development rarely sits well in the landscape without substantial new planting.

Major, low density residential developments require a strong landscape framework:

 to ameliorate the visual impact of development;  to improve and enhance their setting;  to help unify urban form and disparate architectural styles;  to provide shelter;  to facilitate the phasing of development; and  to create local identity.

Where landscape is planted it is often of mean proportion and takes years to become effective. This underlines that landscape is a supplement to, and not a substitution for, good townscape and sensitive siting.

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

Design Manual – The Need for Site Planting

38. In practice, the (design) process is complex with analysis and design interacting. Sometimes it is not possible to find a design solution to satisfy all conditions because constraints are so restrictive. On other occasions several feasible alternatives present themselves, permitting a choice. At all times the designer must aim to keep options open until the most appropriate solution has evolved.

Design Manual – Analysis Checklist (page 32)

 Ascertain Land Ownership in and around site  Refer to Local Plan  Examine Landform, Slope and Contours  Undertake Landscape Analysis  Define Landscape Character  Undertake Visual Assessment  Make Photographic Record  Compile Climatic Information  Identify Vegetation around Site  Establish Ground and Subsoil Conditions  Refer to Existing Services Information  Confirm Developers Requirements

Design Manual – Design A – Landscape Capacity)(page 34) i. Landscape capacity is a measure of the degree of acceptable modification that the landscape can absorb. It embraces:

 the capacity or sensitivity of the landscape; and  the potential of new elements to strengthen positive attributes…and ameliorate the impact of elements which detract from the overall integrity of the landscape… ii. Landscape capacity can be established by recording and integrating the natural features of the landscape…Essentially, capacity is a function of topography, ie landform and groundcover vegetation. The interplay of these can combine to create a landscape of high capacity, eg undulating with tree cover or low capacity, eg open, expansive and bare. iii. The character of the landscape is used to interpret its capacity to absorb development and can be described using a standard vocabulary and associated plans, sketches and photographs… iv. Generally speaking, undulating and complex topography will create opportunities to absorb new development as will wooded or afforested areas. This will not be the case with flat lowland landscapes or open and expansive upland landscapes. v. The principles of landscape analysis can be applied to the landscape around a settlement in order to come to a view about the capacity of a landscape to absorb further development…

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

Strategic Policy Guidance

4.3 ASP 1999

Working

Strategic Industrial and Business Development Land Portfolio

A key role for ASP is to provide a strategic framework for an industrial and business development land portfolio which will act as a major building block for future economic development in the area…

Policy W1

Local plans will safeguard and support the following strategic locations for industrial and business development…

C Strategic Industrial and Business Development Sites:… Cockhill, Ayr Prestwick, Monkton…

General Industrial Land Shortfall

…The conclusion drawn is that in order to rectify deficiencies in the general industrial land supply, further industrial land should be found in…Ayr and Girvan in South Ayrshire…

Policy W2

Local plans will identify and bring forward the following additions to the strategic industrial land supply:

Ayr 30ha (gross)… Girvan 10ha (gross).

Local Industrial Land Supply

Policy W4

Local plans will identify, review and maintain an adequate supply of local industrial land to meet future needs and seek to review surplus industrial land for other uses.

Strategic development guidelines

Context for Local Plans

The emerging local plans in Ayrshire will be the main vehicle by which the structure plan policies are implemented. Their role in translating strategic policy to site specific action will be fundamental to the success of the strategy. In the same way that development proposals will have an immediate impact on the overall quality of development, how a local plan allocates land for development, is also crucially important over its plan period for the

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

achievement of both quality and sustainability. Policy G8 therefore draws together the general principles which should guide the release of new development land.

Policy G8

In allocating land for development, local plans shall seek to ensure that sites:

A maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; B make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land; C maximise the use of existing service infrastructure where sustainable forms of development can be achieved; D avoid the use of prime quality, or locally important good quality agricultural land; E avoid increases in, and if possible reduce, the need to travel, particularly by private car; F are well related to public transport routes; G avoid the loss of existing recreational and amenity open space; H conserve all natural environment and built heritage locations; I respect the landscape character of an area; J are not located where there is a significant risk from flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability; and K do not have an adverse effect on land, air and water quality.

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

5. Housing Sites Assessment

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

5.1 HOUSING SITES ASSESSMENT

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 This chapter places our conclusions and recommendations on individual housing sites within the context of our conclusions and recommendations on housing land (chapter 3.1).

1.2 We concluded in chapter 3.1 that there is an insufficient supply of housing land in SALP to ensure at least a 5 year housing land supply from the likely date of adoption. We also indicated that adequate regard had not been given to the medium term. We recommended amongst other things that additional releases of land be made to meet the housing land shortfalls identified through the assessment of the 2004 housing land audit against the ASP annual housing requirement over the SALP period, and that account be taken of the increased shortfalls identified against the outline annual housing requirement of CDASP post 2010 only. We also recommend that 2 major greenfield releases could be warranted in total, provided that suitable sites can be identified.

1.3 We acknowledged that it is not necessary to meet an exact shortfall figure, and that care must be taken to ensure that any release of housing land is not excessive. We treated all sites before the inquiry on a level playing field. We therefore removed from the 2004 housing land audit those sites which were both before us and in the audit. The adjusted figures in the 2004 housing land audit are, as follows:

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Total Post 14

Adjusted 04 audit: 331 385 349 307 241 174 59 38 40 35 1959 621

On the basis of these figures, the shortfalls identified are set out in chapter 3.1, paragraph 5.25. In the 5 year period from the likely date of adoption of SALP, there would be a shortfall of 524 houses using the ASP housing land requirement and a shortfall of 673 houses using the combined ASP/CDASP (preferred option) requirement. Regardless of which requirement is taken, the shortfall increases in later years.

2. SITE ASSESSMENT

2.1 In total, there were over 60 housing sites before us, covering around 700ha of land and proposing in excess of 10000 houses. Although the sites promoted by the objectors are

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

mainly concentrated in the northern part of the SALP area around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon and the nearby villages, they extend as far south as Maidens and Crosshill. A full assessment of the housing sites considered is contained in the site specific chapters (chapters 6.1-6.4 [strategic sites] and chapters 7.-7. [other sites]). In the following paragraphs, we provide a very brief overview of the releases proposed by SAC, which have been objected to, and those promoted by others. The relative merits of each site can only be assessed by reading the overview below within the context of our reasoning in the site specific chapters.

2.2 Of the 4 strategic sites before the inquiry, we are clear that NET is the most appropriate for development notably because it is served by a range of means of transport and it would allow the rounding off of the north eastern edge of Troon. We also consider that Greenan is suitable for release on the basis that we have outlined in chapter 6.3. In particular, it would be within the line of the A77, and it offers an opportunity to round off the southern edge of Ayr. At SEA we do not consider the sustainable transport measures (rail halt and train service) as proposed are sufficiently well advanced to justify breaching the A77 and developing an area which is significant in terms of its contribution to the landscape setting of Ayr. We do not consider that SEA should be safeguarded under policy STRAT6, although we believe that it would be helpful if SALP refers to SEA in the text for the reasons we state in chapter 6.2. There is no prospect of a rail service at Holmston and it too makes a significant contribution to the landscape setting of Ayr. The provides an obvious constraint on the westerly expansion of Ayr and increases the attractiveness of breaching the A77. However, we are satisfied that, at this stage, there are sufficient appropriate opportunities available in South Ayrshire that this fundamental and irrevocable breach need not be made.

2.3 We have recommended the release of a number of smaller sites in the northern part of the SALP area, and the deletion of some others. At Ayr, we have found that the sites at Seaforth Road and Doonholm Road were suitable for housing, and that they could be brought forward in the short term. The former has the advantage of being a vacant brownfield site. We have recommended the release of small sites at Coylton (Manse Road) and Monkton (Main Street), each of which would be a natural extension of these settlements. While we have given serious consideration to recommending the release of further sites at Coylton, we are not persuaded that the other proposals fit comfortably with a holistic approach to land use planning in this vicinity. We have found those sites already identified in SALP, as changed, at Mossblown (Mauchline Road), Symington (Symington Road North) and Tarbolton (Croft Street/Garden Street) should be retained in SALP. In particular, we believe that the releases at Mossblown and Tarbolton could contribute to the regeneration of these communities. Similarly, we believe that Annbank could benefit from a further small housing allocation, and SAC may wish to give this some consideration. We have also recommended the release of a site at Fisherton, but have not included this in our calculations because the burden represented by the Conservation Agreement affecting the site has not been lifted. We note the contribution that the release of sites in settlements such as these can make to sustaining their vitality and viability, and promoting their regeneration. The sites proposed for deletion in SALP, as changed, are at: Dunure; Ardlochan Avenue/Ardlochan Grove, Maidens; St Catherine‟s School, Ayr; and Townend Terrace A and Townend Brae A, Symington, all for the reasons set out in the site specific chapters.

2.4 The outcome of our recommendations for the housing land supply, as based on the draft 2004 housing land audit, is set out in the table below:

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Total Post 14

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

Adjusted 04 audit: 331 385 349 307 241 174 59 38 40 35 1959 621 NET - - - - 25 50 50 50 50 50 275 275 Greenan - - - - 25 50 50 50 50 50 275 155 Mauchline Rd - - 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 70 4 (Mossblown) Manse Rd - 10 10 ------20 - (Coylton) Doonholm Rd - - 10 20 20 - - - - 50 - (Ayr) Seaforth Rd - - 10 20 20 20 - - - 70 - (Ayr) Main St - 10 10 10 10 - - - - 40 - (Monkton) Symington Rd N - 6 12 ------18 - (Symington) Croft St/Garden St - - 10 25 25 25 15 - - 100 - (Tarbolton) Other sites 85 previously discounted Total 331 385 375 379 376 359 214 163 150 145 2877 1140

2.5 The recommended releases would result in a small surplus in the 5 year housing land supply from the likely date of the adoption of SALP when using the ASP annual housing requirement (+ 48 houses). Using the combined ASP/CDASP (preferred option), there would be a shortfall (- 101 houses). There would also be a surplus against the period 2004-11 using the ASP requirement (+102 houses). However, for the other scenarios (2004-12; 2004-14), there would be shortfalls, including when the combined ASP/CDASP (preferred option) is used. The above table indicates that SALP, when measured against ASP, can make provision for a 5 year housing land supply from the likely date of adoption. Nonetheless, there must be concern about the supply of housing land at the end of the SALP period and into the medium term. This is particularly so when account is taken of the emerging thrust of CDASP. In the circumstances, we believe that SAC may wish to review the situation in the light of our recommendations on housing sites.

SALP4 Policy Background(2)

6. Strategic Housing Sites

SALP6 6.15 NET

6.1 NET

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 29, 34, 39, 40, SMH 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, Loans Community Council 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, Councillor W McIntosh 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 103, 104, Mr H Osborne 105,106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, Mr J Sawers 117, 121, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, Mrs N McFarlane 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, (+ Written submissions) 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 214, 215, 216, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 345, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 369, 388, 398, 399, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 423, 456, 480, 485, 491, 492, 494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 536, and 538

Objecting to: Policy H3A and supporting text Policy H5 (criterion b) Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The proposed NET site is situated in countryside, on the edge of Troon, and it extends to around 45ha. It is bound to the east by the A759, beyond which is a narrow strip of ground and the A78, and then countryside; to the north by Kilmarnock Road, beyond which is housing development; to the west by housing development and Struthers Primary School beyond which is further housing and Deveron Road; and to the south by a field boundary that follows Struthers Burn, and countryside, beyond which lies the village of Loans around 360m away. To the north west, there is Barassie Railway Station, which is approximately 600m away from the nearest point of the site. Troon Railway Station and the town centre, which provides a range of services, are to the west of the site around 2.5 to 3km away. The site lies over 10km from the centre of Ayr. National Cycle Route 7 passes to the north of the site.

1.2 The site is roughly rectangular in shape. It comprises gently undulating agricultural land, and with the exception of some flatter areas, it generally slopes down towards the west. Barassie Burn flows east to west across the central part of the site. At the site‟s western edge, the burn turns at right angles, and follows the western boundary, before passing under Kilmarnock Road. Barassie Burn appears to merge with Struthers Burn to the north of

SALP6 6.16 NET

Kilmarnock Road. There are 2 high points defined by the 25m AOD contour at the northern and south eastern parts of the site. The lowest point (in the north western part) is 12m AOD. The principle group of buildings is the Barassie Farm Steading, which has been neglected and is in a state of disrepair. Just outwith the boundary, towards the south eastern corner, there are some dwellings which were originally associated with the community of small holdings at Collenan. The site is within a belt of good quality agricultural land, with around 86% being classified as grades 2 and 3.1 (prime agricultural land) and the remainder being largely grade 3.2.

1.3 NET comprises a proposal for up to 600 houses on the site. A distributor road would be provided through the site, running from the south eastern corner (A759) up to the north western (Kilmarnock Road) corner. Access to the site at these junctions will be via a roundabout. A further roundabout will be formed at the north eastern corner at the junction between the A759 and Kilmarnock Road. Landscaped corridors would run along the distributor road, Barassie Burn, and around the boundaries of the site. Other areas of open space would be provided. A possible extension is shown to the school which is adjacent to the south western corner of the site. Detention basins are also proposed. Provision would be made for bus services through the site and for improvements at Barassie Railway Station. The proposals were supported by a Masterplan Report and a Transport Assessment.

1.4 In the adopted North Kyle Local Plan, NET falls outwith the settlement boundary of Troon. Policy H(POL)1 of the local plan indicates that SAC would permit no housing expansion beyond the defined settlement boundary. NET is also recognised as high quality agricultural land, which policy TE(POL)7 protects against non-agricultural development. Policy T(POL)1 presumes against development along the A759. NET was identified as a potential greenfield housing release in the 1994 Consultative Draft Structure Plan. It was seen in the draft plan as one of 2 broad locations which would be particularly suitable in meeting long term housing needs. The other suitable greenfield location identified was SEA. The Consultative Draft Strathclyde Structure Plan noted that both locations seemed to offer transportation benefits related to the rail network. Following an updating of the housing requirement, NET was brought forward as a greenfield release in the 1995 finalised Strathclyde Structure Plan. The total release was to be for 500 houses, and there was a requirement for structural planting to define the green belt edge and for public open space where appropriate. However, in subsequently modifying the structure plan, SofSS deleted NET (and another site at Ayr/Prestwick) because it was for SAC to determine where sites should be identified to meet the housing shortfall and to reflect that in SALP. NET had been seen as particularly suited to meeting longer term needs.

1.5 The 1996 draft District Local Plan Housing Strategy sought to accord with the provisions of the 1995 finalised Strathclyde Structure Plan. Policy H2 of the draft strategy proposed the development of NET for 500 houses. In the supporting text, it was stated that:

The site area will accommodate….the expected consequential service requirements in terms of public open space, playing fields, shops, community/leisure facilities and, if required, school(s). The whole of the development area will be set within a landscape framework which will seek to integrate it with existing adjoining development, provide a soft landscaped edge on its eastern and southern sides, and maintain the separate physical identity and integrity of Loans village. The District Council will prepare a detailed development brief which will set out its specific requirements for this land release. Of the overall total of 500 dwellings, it is expected that 100 will be built by 2001, the remainder being completed by 2006. The size of the overall allocation is sufficient to enable the inclusion of an

SALP6 6.17 NET

additional number of social/rented dwellings to assist in meeting demand within local communities for this form of accommodation….

In addition, the strategy indicated that the existing water courses would be unlikely to have the capacity to deal with the expected surface water run-off from the development. It would therefore be necessary to undertake a hydrological survey to assess the capacity and to design measures which would prevent flooding problems downstream. The draft local plan was overtaken by local government reorganisation and was not progressed.

1.6 CDSALP (published in 1999) indicated that ASP would set out the housing requirements to be met and the basic structure within which SALP would operate. It explained that a larger site, which could be developed in phases, offered the most satisfactory solution in terms of meeting the overall need for housing and SALP‟s overall objectives. CDSALP set out 4 reasons why the search for the site should be concentrated in and around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon: development pressure; marketability; sustainability; and the provision of affordable housing. The site selection process involved 3 stages. The first was to identify the criteria against which the sites would be assessed. The second was to identify the sites and to carry out an assessment using the 10 criteria established by SAC. The third involved consultation with basic utility service providers in order to identify significant development constraints. The process resulted in 3 sites being short listed: NET, SEA and Greenan. CDSALP outlined the relative merits of each of these, listing their positive and negative features.

1.7 In relation to NET, the positive features were given as: long term release site; enhance settlement setting; sustainable urban boundary; existing local services; within A77/A78 by pass; physical and functional links to Troon; provide necessary rate of house completions; good market performance of locality; strong developer interest; no statutory environmental designations; no statutory heritage designations; A78 access; and close to 2 rail stations. The negative features were: prime quality agricultural land; reduction of Barassie/Loans strategic gap – land of green belt quality; low lying ground – drainage infrastructure required; secondary school capacity (Marr College) is insufficient; and major utility services investment needed. SAC estimated the capacity of NET as being around 600 houses.

1.8 CDSALP indicated that a key factor was the need for any new development to be as sustainable as possible. Impact on the environment, the containment of new development, the availability of local services, and the opportunities to use a variety of modes of transport were therefore vitally significant considerations. A further factor of key importance was the need to ensure that the allocated site provided the necessary numbers of houses and a choice of housing, including affordable housing. The infrastructure investment requirements were considered to be such that allocating only a part of each site was not considered a realistic option. The final site chosen would be the subject of a development brief which would cover issues of landscape, open space, general design/layout, infrastructure, services, community facilities, affordable/social rented housing needs, and transport links to the wider urban area.

1.9 The public response to CDSALP included a number of alternative sites for meeting the longer term housing requirement. However, SAC concluded that none of the alternatives were of sufficient merit to warrant detailed assessment. SAC undertook a comparative assessment in early and mid 2001 of the 3 sites identified (which is contained in a report prepared in September 2003). The assessment was based on 17 detailed criteria grouped under the key statements of strategic intent given in ASP. It concluded that development at

SALP6 6.18 NET

NET could commence relatively quickly. The impact on the landscape and urban form would also be within acceptable limits. The location would provide ready accessibility to local services, and would offer a genuine choice to residents of a range of modes of transport other than the private car. The assessment identified NET as the most appropriate location for longer term housing development, with SEA as a second choice if required.

1.10 SALP (published in 2002) proposed the development of both NET and SEA. NET was seen as benefiting from strong boundaries, and was felt to be an acceptable extension of Troon. It was also seen as being close to a range of employment opportunities, retail and commercial facilities, as well as education and other public services, and railway stations, which would all provide opportunities for minimising car usage. Policy H3B stated that:

Residential development on 44.3ha of land at NET will be considered to be acceptable by SAC, subject to conformity with masterplans which will be prepared or otherwise approved by SAC.

SALP indicated that planning permission would not be granted for the development until masterplans had been completed and approved by SAC. It was expected that there would be a steady rate of development which would cover a period extending beyond 2008. This would allow continuity of supply towards the projected longer term housing demand in South Ayrshire. The masterplan would be required to address a number of matters:

 The overall disposition of land uses within the site; including housing densities and public open space.  The provision of vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access to and from the site including any and all necessary consequential off site works.  The provision of all utility services to serve the site including any and all necessary consequential off site works.  The landscape framework for the site.  The location of the main distributor roads within the site.  The specific treatment of the southern boundary of the site to ensure an appropriate transition to the open countryside beyond and to ensure that there is no opportunity for further development closer to Loans.  The reservation of land which may be required for a new primary school.  The reservation of land for small scale retail premises to serve the development.  The necessary consequential requirements for augmenting the provision of secondary education.  The provision of affordable rented housing on the site.  Measures to maximise the attractiveness of Troon and Barassie Railway Stations for use by residents of this site.  Measures to maximise car parking provision and minimise traffic congestion in Troon Town Centre.  The provision of community facilities either by on site provision and/or upgrading/extension of existing off site facilities.  The overall building design concept for the site.

1.11 In SAC‟s initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), they indicated that the objections received to NET covered a number of concerns, including environmental, infrastructure, traffic and transport, educational, and community facility matters. SAC did not consider that any of the concerns were sufficient to prevent the

SALP6 6.19 NET

allocation of NET for housing. Accordingly, they concluded that NET remained an appropriate location for a major new release in the terms set out in policy H3B.

1.12 CDASP (published in June 2004) identifies Ayr, Prestwick and Troon as lying within the Core Investment Area. South and east Ayr is identified as a preferred location for up to 8000 houses, and it is proposed the rail passenger capacity be developed through, amongst other things, the extension of the /Ayr electrified line to Ayr Hospital/SEA and the provision of a small number of rail halts to link with housing land releases. The Local Transport Strategy (for 2001 onwards) seeks the introduction of 20 minute rail services from Glasgow to Ayr, with trip times of about 45 minutes.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, many of the objectors sought the deletion of NET from SALP, including policy H3A and the supporting text. SMH raised objections to a number of the matters that SALP required the masterplan to address, including those relating to the primary school, the retail premises, the railway stations, affordable housing, Troon town centre, and community facilities. In addition, SMH objected to policy H5, criterion b, which relates to open space standards.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR OBJECTORS

3.1 The concept of building 600 houses at NET was flawed. Such a development, which would be nearly as big as Loans, would be out of scale with the existing size of Troon, and could not be readily absorbed. This was particularly so when account was taken of the existing permissions in place, which would take the total size of development proposed in the area to more than 800 houses. A concrete and urban sprawl would be created, which would offer no recreational opportunities or significant long term employment opportunities. Troon was being asked to carry the burden of meeting a disproportionate share of the housing land shortfall identified by SAC. There were a number of sites in South Ayrshire where a smaller number of houses could be more satisfactorily built. A reasonable number of houses, targeted at people who had grown up in South Ayrshire, would be more acceptable. The indicative masterplan showed that the proposed allocation would be an intense development. It was also not clear how the masterplan satisfied its own objective of creating a hierarchy of open space.

3.2 The proposal would result in a loss of prime agricultural land and an attractive landscape, and it would leave only a small area of green belt in the vicinity. Troon was only 300m to the west of Loans, and the southernmost part of the site would extend as far as the northern end of Main Street. While the proposal would not result in physical coalescence, the houses would be visible to many residents of Loans, and a lot of the sense of a rural community would be lost. The existing settlement boundary at NET was weak, and the proposal would not create a sufficiently structured edge to contain the development. The proposed settlement boundary facing Loans would not be sufficiently well defined to given confidence that it could be sustained, and the remaining narrow gap would be vulnerable to further proposals. It was essential that clear, strong and defensible boundaries were created around NET.

SALP6 6.20 NET

3.3 It would be some time before the bus companies would consider serving the development, and it would be likely that private car usage would become well established before that. The site was some distance from the centre of Troon, not readily accessible on foot from there, and those residents at NET without cars would be isolated. The diversion of existing bus services into the proposed housing site would make services less convenient for people along other parts of the route. The town centre of Troon was congested and parking was at a premium, and that would discourage use of local facilities. It was a considerable walk to the stations, the parking facilities at Troon and Barassie Stations were fully occupied every week day, and there was no prospect of expanding the area at the latter. Although there was a good train service to Glasgow, particularly at peak times, there was no service from Barassie to Kilmarnock. The vast majority of commuter journeys from Troon were made by car; and there was nothing to back up SMH‟s assertion that 5-10% of trips could be made by rail. Troon‟s already significant role as a dormitory town for Glasgow would grow, but this would bring no benefit to the existing community.

3.4 The overall increase in road traffic arising from the proposal would have an unacceptably adverse impact. There was no guarantee that the reduction in the speed limit required to accommodate the proposal could be achieved. Although the indications were that that there would be a capacity issue at the A758/A759 junction on the north bound slip road in the design year, no mitigation measures were proposed.

3.5 Marr College, the local non-denominational secondary school, was leased by SAC, from the C K Marr Educational Trust. The school buildings were not in a good condition, and an £11m investment was required to bring them to a satisfactory standard. Marr College was a prime candidate for a Public Private Partnership proposal, but it could not be included in the latest programme of proposals because of the ownership position. It was also not clear that the extension of the school would be straightforward, even though land might appear to be available. The school was not fit for the purpose of providing twenty first century education and there was no short term solution. There was insufficient capacity at the school, and this was likely to be the case for the next 10 years. Indeed, the capacity was due to decrease to 1296 pupils once inadequate hutted accommodation had been removed. Children of secondary school age at the proposed development would require to travel to schools outwith the area. There were also issues of school capacity at Struthers and Muirhead Primary Schools. The masterplan did not make provision for a site for a new primary school, and no allowance for that had been made in SAC‟s latest Public Private Partnership proposal. Funding of the educational facilities required to accommodate the development was an issue.

3.6 Flooding occurred regularly on parts of the site, and houses should not be built in an area where flooding was known to take place. Although SAC indicated that flooding would be at an acceptable level, with never more than a few centimetres of water at one time, children had been known to drown in very little water. A development of this scale could worsen the flooding that already occurred on the Struthers Burn, in particular, at the open culvert to the west of the Barassie Links Estate some 250m from NET. The hard surfaces on the proposed development site would result in a considerable additional flow of water from the 2 burns. The effect on Struthers Burn could be magnified because the 900mm pipe serving that burn had an invert level 3m or 4m below that of the pipe serving Barassie Burn, and it was not constrained because of the presence of the open culvert. Further problems could arise from flash flooding and the discharge of storm water. The main Ayr to Meadowhead sewerage network had capacity related problems, and further work required to be carried out to strengthen the pipe.

SALP6 6.21 NET

3.7 In relation to ASP policy G8, the community benefits arising from the requirements placed on SMH would only be modest, and would not add to the range of facilities or amenities available at either Troon or Barassie. If it was necessary to adjust the school catchment area boundaries in order to accommodate the proposal and maximise the use of existing service infrastructure, there would be a potentially lengthy statutory consultation process, which could affect the programming of the site. The proposal failed the guideline on agricultural land. It had not been confirmed that the public transport services proposed would provide a sustainable transport solution.

3.8 The consultation on this proposal had been inadequate. SAC should now accept the strong feelings of local residents and withdraw the proposed release. Housing land releases of this scale were not just about making a contribution to SAC‟s housing land strategy, but about assessing their contribution to shaping communities for people to live in. SEA should be preferred to NET. Holmston was also preferable. If the proposed allocation was to proceed then the southernmost part of the site should be deleted and Kilmarnock Road should be rerouted in order to reduce the adverse effects arising from this busy and noisy road.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 Sections 11, 15 and 17 of the 1997 T&CPA set out the obligations imposed on SAC in considering the objections to SALP. The Structure and Local Plans (Scotland) Regulations were also relevant. The test of whether a local plan conformed to the structure plan was one of planning judgement (Commission for the New Towns v Horsham District Council [2000] PLCR (Part 1) 70; R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods [1998] Env LR277; and Freeport Leisure plc v West Lothian Council [1999] SLT452). The correct approach in interpreting a structure plan was to look at the policy, the relevant text supporting the policy, and the policy and text in the context of the relevant chapter. An example of the correct approach was contained in the City of Edinburgh Council v SMs [2001] SC957.

4.2 NET was specifically identified in the 1995 Strathclyde Structure Plan as a development opportunity to address the housing land shortfall. It was not deleted from the plan by SofSS because of any problem with the site. Given this, and the fact that Kyle and Carrick District Council had also identified NET, it was understandable that SAC considered it when formulating CDSALP. The conclusion of the whole assessment process carried out by SAC was that NET was the most appropriate greenfield release. That remained SAC‟s position, given that there was still a requirement for a strategic release of greenfield land in South Ayrshire. NET would result in the population of Troon expanding by roughly 10%, and it would be a substantial extension of the town, particularly when taken together with the proposal for around 180 houses by NET‟s north western boundary.

4.3 Throughout the local plan process, extensive public consultation had taken place. It was understandable that people had concerns about change in their community. However, it was clear that all the issues raised had been considered and addressed. None of the objectors giving evidence at the inquiry stated that they were opposed to any residential development on the site.

4.4 SMH‟s position (set out in July 2004) had been that 175 houses would be delivered by 2010, and this had been agreed with SAC and HforS. It was also consistent with the position

SALP6 6.22 NET

that SMH had adopted since 2002, the documents before the inquiry, and the precognitions of their witnesses. No new information on infrastructure constraints or the timetable for SALP had come forward since July 2004. There did not appear to be any planning justification for the change in SMH‟s view at the inquiry. SAC could see no reason why 175 houses could not be built at NET by March 2010. Indeed, SMH had indicated that, even with a later start, the site could be developed at a faster rate (on the basis that another developer would be involved). Both SAC and SMH agreed that the site was effective, and SAC contended that there was every prospect of a start to development early in 2006. NET had not come forward earlier because SAC considered that there was no immediate justification in housing land supply terms.

4.5 Regarding landscape matters, SAC accepted that the management and planning guidelines for the Lowland Coastal Landscape Character Area should not apply in this case, and that the Lowland Hills Landscape Character Area should apply. The principle concern was the reduction in the separation between Loans and Troon. However, the narrowest part of the gap would not be reduced. The evidence indicated that sustainable, defensible settlement boundaries could be created along NET‟s southern and eastern boundaries. Their detailed design had not yet been agreed, and would be the subject of further discussion. The land to the east and south of NET was designated green belt in SALP, and the proposal would result in sustainable urban boundaries and defensible green belt boundaries. While there had been no change in the area, the capacity of the site had been increased by SAC in CDSALP from that set out in the finalised Strathclyde Structure Plan. SMH had concluded that the revised capacity of 600 houses could be accommodated in terms of the existing urban form and its wider setting. SAC acknowledged that the Masterplan Report did not describe the impact of the proposal on views, but considered that this would not undermine NET‟s allocation for housing in SALP, even though there might be some local adverse visual impact, for example, from houses overlooking the development area and the A759. NET represented the most logical extension to an existing settlement in that it promoted the opportunity to consolidate that part of Troon with a recognisable physical boundary (A759). The remaining strip of land, to the east of the site, between the A759 and the A78, which was between a 100m and 170m wide, continued to justify its proposed green belt designation.

4.6 On transportation matters, it was rare to find a residential development site of this type close to 2 railway stations. The service from Barasssie Railway Station linked NET with Ayr, Prestwick, Prestwick Airport, Irvine, Paisley and Glasgow. While SMH proposed to provide additional parking at this station, it was accepted that the car park would remain small and that, in the main, the station would be accessed on foot. Troon Station was a 15 minute bus ride away but better facilities could be provided for cycles. Although it had a much larger car parking facility, that could not be augmented. NET‟s overall accessibility to a wide range of public transport was the principal reason for its selection by SAC. The potential for upgrading the services on the Ayr/Glasgow railway line was being investigated. Bus services would provide frequent linkage to Ayr, Kilmarnock, Irvine and the remainder of Troon. There was support from a local bus operator for diverting services through the site. This would be unlikely to have any great impact on the existing community. The pedestrian and cycle linkages proposed from the site to the surrounding area would provide sufficient access opportunities and the National Cycle Route was close by.

4.7 The proposed access strategy and road hierarchy were acceptable, and the trip distribution methodology (based on local observations) was also reasonable. There was no objection to the use of the national low growth traffic flow prediction rate. The

SALP6 6.23 NET

Transportation Assessment showed that 2 junctions would operate at levels close to absolute capacity. However, SAC believed that the impact at the A759/A78 junction would be negligible and accepted that the impact at Central Avenue/Troon Road was a worst case scenario. The car parking assessment for Troon Town Centre showed that 3 car parks operated within their capacity. Although the former Safeway Car Park at Academy Street was the most convenient, all the car parks were within 250m of the town centre (around 3 minutes walk). The survey did not take account of cars from NET parking on street or elsewhere in Troon.

4.8 SAC had been aware for some time that the forecasts relating to NET indicated that there would be a shortfall in educational provision. The options for the non-denominational primary school were: either to build a new primary school at NET (or another site in the area) or to extend Struthers Primary School. The former would almost certainly involve a statutory consultation process on altering school catchment boundaries. However, the latter would not necessarily involve that process and Struthers Primary School had the space to accommodate additional requirements. At secondary school level, SAC believed that space was available at Marr College and they did not envisage any difficulty in implementing an extension there. That would be required at an early stage, and SAC would consider the best approach after a final decision had been made on NET. SMH had indicated that they would be prepared to finance the additional provision required. While a school extension might take up to 1½ years to implement, there was no reason to believe that educational matters would delay the commencement of development.

4.9 The Masterplan Report had dealt adequately with the potential for flooding and the effects of the proposal on existing watercourses and the surrounding area. The area of the site proposed for development was not a part of the functional flood plain. Struthers Burn would not receive any run off from the site. The open culvert to the west of the Barassie Links Estate was an unusual feature, but the existing flooding at that point would be unlikely to get worse as a result of NET. The potential increase in run off to Barassie Burn could be dealt with through a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. The retention basins would be designed only to contain water for a short period of time (maximum 24 hours after substantial rainfall). If Barassie Burn was to flood, it would overflow on to Kilmarnock Road. There would be no loss of floodwater storage from the catchment of the watercourses, and there would be no increase of flood risk upstream, downstream or adjoining the site. The site could be developed in accordance with SPP7. There was no constraint on the relevant sewerage network serving the site. Scottish Water had confirmed that all aspects of the system were capable of supporting the projected foul discharge from the proposed development.

4.10 SAC had indicated in SALP policy H3A, and the supporting text, that the masterplan should address the proposed impact and consequential requirements of NET. SMH had now come some way towards agreeing many of the relevant matters, many of which would benefit the existing community. The masterplan process would allow for the proper planned development of the site, and ensure the provision of off site facilities. The masterplan was required to properly address all the items referred to in the text of SALP. The Masterplan Report did not represent an agreed position between SAC and SMH. SALP indicated a requirement to reserve land for small scale retail premises because SAC were mindful of the needs of local residents and the need for NET to be a community. The matter of the minimum separation distance from a boundary to a house was a matter for discussion at the detailed layout stage. It would be highly likely that a section 75 Agreement would be required.

SALP6 6.24 NET

4.11 SMH had indicated at the inquiry that, having considered SAC‟s evidence, they no longer sought any change to SALP. They could, therefore, no longer be considered as an objector to that part of SALP relating to NET. Their objection to affordable housing remained, but that was a matter considered at a different session of the inquiry. SMH‟s evidence in support of the proposal remained relevant and should be taken into account.

4.12 The identification of NET represented sound planning judgement. It was important to SAC‟s strategy on housing land releases, and its development would be consistent with national guidance and ASP. There was no reason to recommend a change based on the objections considered at this inquiry session.

5. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SMH

5.1 SAC had identified NET as the most appropriate greenfield release. There was no objection from M&M as far as NET was concerned. Great care should be taken with the submissions of SEAC because they did not take issue with NET until SAC had removed the allocation of land in which they had an interest (policy H3B) by modification. Their belated attempt to challenge SAC‟s comparison of the strategic sites was opportunistic; and by not attending this session of the inquiry, their submissions on NET could not be tested by cross examination.

5.2 In the development plan process leading up to SALP, NET had been the subject of significant scrutiny. The site had been assessed on 4 separate occasions. SAC had assessed it to be in accord with ASP, most notably policy G8. The proposal also complied with national planning guidance, in particular SPP3, PAN44 and the effectiveness criteria in PAN38. The evolution of NET through the planning process provided a very robust basis on which to reject the objections which had been made. If a significant greenfield release was required, it was inevitable that there would be impacts on local residents. However, on the basis of the evidence given by the local objectors at this session of the inquiry, it could be reasonably concluded that some form of housing development at NET was accepted by them as being appropriate in principle.

5.3 The passage of time and delays in the preparation of SALP meant that the need for a significant release to comply with ASP was becoming ever more acute. If NET was removed from SALP, the consequence would be a failure by SALP to meet the housing land requirement within any “realistically conceivable timescale.” NET was effective and development could begin as soon as the requirements of policy H3A had been satisfied. Taking into account the likely SALP process, SMH believed that the output from NET could be 125 houses by March 2010, and that this figure should be the one used in any draft housing land audit. There were no infrastructure reasons to delay the development. However, after the approval of the masterplan, the planning application would likely require a hearing; in addition, a section 75 Agreement would need to be completed, and roads construction consent and a building warrant would be required. If SALP was adopted in 2006 and all the necessary consents were granted by mid 2007, the essential infrastructure would be installed by the end of 2007, and the initial phase of house construction would commence in the latter part of 2007. The diversion of existing services and the provision of new services would be provided during 2007/08, with the strategic structural landscaping being put in place between mid 2007 and mid 2009.

SALP6 6.25 NET

5.4 Although the Masterplan Report contained an unusual degree of detail for an allocation in a local plan, SMH accepted that some further work was required. Nonetheless, the work undertaken to date had provided a substantial basis for what would ultimately be needed. Each of the specific requirements listed in SALP had been addressed, and it could be that the masterplan would be formally approved as early as the end of 2005. SAC had agreed that they would be willing to consider the upgrading of existing adjacent open spaces as a reasonable method of achieving the open space requirements for the development. The “focus” and “heart” of the community would be likely to be Struthers Primary School and the open space that wrapped around it.

5.5 The objectors had not submitted a landscape and visual assessment and, given the lack of cross examination on this matter, it was not an issue of any significant weight. In the absence of substantial evidence from objectors on landscape impact, it would illogical for an allocation in a local plan to be rejected. An open boundary had been proposed by SMH to the east because this would be sympathetic to the existing landscape. However, the alternative of a closed shelterbelt was feasible and would be unlikely to result in serious pressure on the land available for development. In any event, this was a matter of detail which would be dealt with as a part of the masterplan process. The fact that there were proper alternatives available demonstrated the robustness of the allocation at NET. The existing edge of Troon had an unfinished appearance. In addition, a contour line with a physical feature could be used as a reasonable limit to building, particularly where it was the basis, as here, of the division between SNH‟s landscape character types. The edges of the development needed careful design so that they could contribute to the setting of Troon, and the southern boundary required to take account of the need to maintain a reasonable gap with Loans. The Lowland Hills Landscape Character Type was the most applicable to NET. NET occupied a prominent position and was an important part in the view of a small number of properties. It was also visible from local roads, but the view from the A78 was less important. In total, SMH had assessed NET from 50/60 viewpoints. NET had the landscape capacity to accommodate the scale of development proposed. However, if NET‟s boundaries had to be more substantial that could possibly affect the site‟s capacity. SMH considered that NET could be developed with an acceptable landscape and visual impact, and that it represented a logical and sound culmination to the expansion of the north and north eastern parts of Troon.

5.6 SMH had undertaken a Transportation Assessment for the proposed allocation. This had assessed the accessibility of NET to the road network, to public transport, and for pedestrians and cyclists. It could be properly concluded that NET was accessible and that its development would accord with the principles of sustainability. A large part of NET had reasonable pedestrian accessibility to Barassie Railway Station., and that supported the allocation in SALP. The service to Barassie was part of the electrified network which served the Glasgow conurbation. There were regular services to and from Ayr and Glasgow, and also occasional non-electrified services to Kilmarnock. While there could be overcrowding on the peak hour trains, access to such a facility would clearly be attractive to potential residents at NET. There were at least 6 services stopping at Barassie and going on to Glasgow up to 07.38, and thereafter a further 2 services before the hourly service commenced. In addition, SMH believed that the car park at Barassie Railway Station could be expanded with additional spaces on both sides of the access road, which would increase the capacity from 14/15 spaces up to 25 spaces or more. SMH would be prepared to fund these works in accordance with the masterplan requirements in SALP. SMH did not believe

SALP6 6.26 NET

the works would be prohibitively expensive. There were bus services on all roads bounding NET, with the main bus corridor being along Deveron Road.

5.7 The Transport Assessment demonstrated that, with one exception, there was no link or junction which would suffer from any degree of pressure on capacity. The exception was at the A759/A78 north bound off slip, in particular at 2015 when there would be a higher than desirable ratio of flow to capacity. However, this could be reduced to an acceptable level by alterations within the road boundary, which would increase the entry width by 800mm and the flair length by 4.8m. The result would be a ratio of flow to capacity of 0.834, with a queue of 5 vehicles. The relevant authorities had agreed to the assessment being based on the National Road Traffic Forecast low growth prediction rate. When analysed, the car parking situation in Troon, with the development taken into account, would be acceptable. The development of NET would conform to the transport related requirements of strategic policy H3A.

5.8 The masterplan requirements as they related to education could be fulfilled and the issues raise by the objectors raised no significant material considerations. SMH would make a contribution to provide for the necessary improvement of Marr College, and there was no reason why these improvements could not take place. As far as additional primary school provision was concerned, one option would be to extend Struthers Primary School. A new primary school within NET, if this was required, would take up no more than one of the “blocks” of housing shown on the indicative masterplan.

5.9 The proposal would make no difference to the flow of water into Struthers Burn. For Barassie Burn, the evidence at the inquiry confirmed that there would be no material adverse effect arising from NET either within the site or downstream against the standard 1 in 200 year event (a very low risk of flooding). The Masterplan Report included appropriate attenuation measures including an oversized storm pipes (for storage), gravel infiltration trenches, and swales. In addition, detention basins could be provided but, as their primary purpose was to filter out debris rather than to control flow, they could be omitted on safety grounds if necessary. The system implemented would be designed to comply with the principles of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. It was unlikely that past development in the area would have incorporated such principles, and that might account for the existing problems experienced by local residents. It was important to bear in mind that NET was not on a flood plain. The meeting of Struthers Burn and Barassie Burn in a common culvert would be unlikely to be an issue because this was below the level of the site. As long as there was no increase in flow from the site, then the impact would be acceptable, and in accord with SPP7. SMH did not accept that no further significant development should be allowed because of the problems with the Ayr to Meadowhead sewerage network. The problems had related to corrosion in the iron pipes in the southern part of Troon, and Scottish Water had put out the necessary works to contract. Sewage from NET would proceed to Barassie Pumping Station, and thereafter it would be directed northwards to Meadowhead by a route avoiding the area where problems had been experienced. Scottish Water and SEPA had both indicated that they were satisfied with the proposals as they related to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, and surface water and foul drainage.

5.10 In relation to the masterplan requirements outlined in SALP, SMH did not consider that retail premises were required because there were existing facilities in the vicinity. However, the issue did not require to be resolved at this stage, and they would be prepared to reconsider the matter as a part of the masterplanning process. Regarding the objections that

SALP6 6.27 NET

SMH had raised in relation to this session of the inquiry, and specifically in relation to SALP‟s masterplan requirements, they should now be viewed as merely concerns rather than as fundamental objections which required deletion or modification. In relation to policy H5 criterion b, the requirement for a minimum distance of 3m from the common boundary for a house with an integral garage was excessive. The problem of parking in front of the building line, which was caused by converting integral garages to living accommodation, and its effect on the appearance of residential areas could be addressed by the withdrawal of permitted development rights or restrictions in the title deeds.

5.11 SEAC‟s resistance to SAC‟s modification to SALP at SEA did not undermine the allocation at NET, which was a quite separate issue. In relation to the comparative exercise undertaken by SEAC, SEA would also require to be the subject of a masterplan, and the process was not as far advanced as at NET. SEA was also dependent on a considerable range of road improvements and, in contrast, NET required minimal road alterations. SEA had only plans for a railway station and these might take some time to come to fruition, if they ever did. SEA faced considerable landscape issues, including its location to the east of the A77.

5.12 In conclusion, there was no basis upon which any objection to NET and SALP strategic policy H3A could be upheld. The policy and its supporting text required no modification or deletion, and the allocation at NET should be included in SALP.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 On a preliminary matter, SMH have indicated that they are no longer seeking recommendations regarding the deletion or modification of any of the bullet points outlined on SALP page 58 (the factors that the masterplan should address). SAC have indicated that there is no requirement for us to consider the evidence submitted by SMH requesting changes to SALP. Accordingly, we have not considered SMH‟s objections to the list of bullet points. However, that still leaves SMH‟s objection to policy H5 criterion b to be addressed. This policy refers to the SPG on the Provision of Private and Public Open Space within Residential Areas. SPG, amongst many other things, requires that where there is an integral garage, a minimum distance of 3m should be left to the common boundary on the side of the integral garage, and it is this matter which is of concern to SMH. The non-statutory guidance in SPG is not technically before us. However, there is clearly a close association between the policy and SPG and, in similar situations in other parts of this inquiry, SAC have requested our comments. We agree with SAC that leaving adequate space at the side of houses with integral garages for possible car parking can have a significant beneficial effect on the appearance of a housing development as a whole if the integral garages are converted to living accommodation, because it would provide an alternative to parking vehicles in front of the building line. In general terms, it seems to us that SAC‟s aim is a reasonable one. On the basis that all proposals would require to be treated on their own particular merits within the context of SPG, and that this is a matter which could be the subject of discussion and negotiation at the detailed layout stage of a housing proposal, we are satisfied that SALP policy H5 criterion b requires no qualification, and that SPG requires no change.

6.2 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation

SALP6 6.28 NET

of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

6.3 There are 7 factors which have to be taken onto account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We are satisfied that the NET site has the potential to be effective. In particular, we note that in SALP housing is the sole preferred land use. While there are infrastructure difficulties to be overcome, it does not appear to us that they are of such a magnitude, that they would make the site ineffective. However, they do have the potential to delay the commencement of development. At the start of this session of the inquiry, SMH indicated that development would be delayed by one year, and that they would be likely to complete only 125 houses rather than 175 houses, by March 2010. While SAC see no reason why 175 houses cannot be delivered by this date, we note that this is a large and complex proposal and, in our experience, these are often delayed in coming forward. We note that the masterplan is not finalised and neither are the significant issues relating to affordable housing and education. In addition, the relevant consents have to be obtained and agreements finalised. In the circumstances, we believe that SMH‟s revised estimate of the delivery of NET is to be preferred. There could yet be further slippage.

6.4 NET lies in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, NET is identified as being within the Lowland Coastal Landscape Character Area, and it is close to the boundary with the Lowland Hills Landscape Character Area. NET is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above).

6.5 There is an issue of potential coalescence between Loans and Troon. The gap between the settlements from the west side of Loans to Muirhead is at present only around 240m; and, on the north side of Loans, the gap would be substantially reduced to around 350m. The effect of the proposal would therefore be that Troon would be separated from Loans by only a narrow strip of ground. While we acknowledge the policy to be put in place to maintain that gap, we believe that there would be an increased risk of coalescence as a result of the proposal, particularly as there is no substantial restraining physical feature on the ground. Nonetheless, we accept that NET, in itself, would not give rise to physical coalescence. There would be increased visual coalescence, but we are satisfied that this would be unlikely to have such a significantly adverse effect that it would undermine any allocation in SALP.

6.6 This part of Troon‟s eastern physical boundary is generally weak and unattractive, comprising a part of Deveron Road and the rear fenceline of recent housing estates adjoining NET. The boundary, which largely forms the western edge of the objection site, does not therefore contribute to maintaining the identity of Troon. The proposal would involve moving Troon‟s boundary out to the A759. This is a main road, and it would be an effective, defensible boundary, particularly when taken in combination with the A78, a short distance further to the east. Notwithstanding this, we believe that it is necessary to provide an

SALP6 6.29 NET

appropriate boundary treatment within the site itself in order to round off the settlement and to provide a reasonable transition from the built up area to the countryside. We believe that in this location and for this scale of development that the boundary treatment should be a minimum depth of 25m along the site‟s entire length, whatever the planting measures proposed. The southern edge of NET would be formed by Struthers Burn, and this is a weak boundary. Taking this together with our concerns about the increased risk of coalescence (paragraph 6.5 above), we believe that the minimum depth of boundary treatment along this edge should be 30m. Boundary treatments of this depth would potentially serve to properly maintain the identity of Troon. We do not consider that the options contained in the Masterplan Report for these important “edge of settlement” boundaries would be likely to result in a satisfactory outcome.

6.7 While the site is not used for countryside recreation, it contributes passively to the countryside scene at this location for people living on the edge of Troon and Loans, and those using the A759 and local roads. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting the proposed residential allocation.

6.8 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the fact that the study identifies the site as being both “highly vulnerable” and “high contribution.” We acknowledge that the site currently contributes to the clear division between town and country. However, we note the encroaching housing to the west and north, and accept that the northern part of the site could be regarded as a landscape in decline. Overall, this is a neglected farmland landscape situated on the urban fringe. The best features are Barassie Burn, Struthers Burn and the associated planting. The site is visible from various points within the adjoining housing developments in Troon, from Loans, from roads (including the A78 and A759), and from higher points in the countryside to the east of the A78. While NET provides a large area of open space, we do not consider it to be a landscape of great value, and we do not believe that it makes a particularly significant contribution to maintaining the landscape setting of Troon. However, we believe that it is an important part of the openness to the north of Loans and, as such, contributes to maintaining the landscape setting of that built up area.

6.9 The proposal would extend development further eastwards and, with adequate boundary treatments, would be likely to enhance the existing distinction between town and country in that vicinity. It is unfortunate that there is no assessment of the impact of the proposals. However, we consider that, in views from the countryside and the surrounding roads, the development would be largely seen within the context of the existing housing. We do not consider that the effect on the views from Troon and Loans would be likely to be sufficient to prevent a residential development proceeding on NET. We recognise the constraints that its location within the Lowland Coast Landscape Character Area impose on NET but, given the extent of development to the west and north of the site and the prospect of rounding off this part of Troon, we do not consider that this would significantly inhibit the site‟s development. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the gross density figure proposed, the indicative masterplan suggests that NET would be a relatively dense residential development, largely dependent for facilities on improvements to those already existing in the surrounding area. Within this context, we have concerns about the indicative capacity of 600 houses and the lay out and design of the development that may result. It has not been clearly explained why the estimated capacity increased from 500 to 600 houses between the Finalised Strathclyde Structure Plan and CDSALP. The Masterplan Report seeks to justify 600 houses,

SALP6 6.30 NET

but it was published after CDSALP. While it may be possible through the detailed design process to properly justify 600 or more houses, at this stage, it seems to us an ambitious target, which may result in the development lacking distinctiveness and identity. Taking this into account with the matters raised above (paragraph 6.6 above), we believe that a more appropriate indicative capacity would be 550 houses. Overall, we believe that the allocation of NET for housing would be a natural extension of the existing suburban area. An acceptable level of integration with the existing built up area of Troon would be provided, and we consider that there is the potential to develop an appropriate landscape framework and mitigation measures, and achieve a reasonable landscape fit. As such, we do not consider that a housing allocation on site would materially conflict with the broad terms of PAN44 or SPP3. In the circumstances, we are broadly satisfied that an allocation would not significantly erode the landscape setting of Troon or Loans, or have a materially adverse effect on landscape character.

6.10 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles (A-K) which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 2.1 above). We find that G and H do not apply, and that all relevant matters in I are dealt with above. In relation to A, new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available. In addition, SMH make provision for further facilities (in the wider area as well as on site), including educational and community facilities, improvements to open space, and a local shop. Given this, we are satisfied that the proposal could give rise to some community benefit. On B, the site is greenfield and it would therefore not make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, the development would require the extension of the existing service infrastructure (electricity, water, and gas), and there is nothing to indicate that this could not be satisfactorily achieved. We note the concerns expressed by the objectors about the sewerage network, but the evidence points to it being able to cope with the proposal without any significant adverse effect. There are potential capacity problems at the non- denominational primary and secondary schools, and the allocation of the site would place further pressure on these facilities. However, the indications are that school capacity would be unlikely to be an insurmountable obstacle to the development. This remains the case even though the position at Marr College is complicated by the fact that SAC only lease this facility from the C K Marr Trust. Turning to D, while we acknowledge that the majority of the objection site is classified as grade 2 and 3.1 quality agricultural land, it does not appear to be in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine any housing allocation on site.

6.11 In relation to E and F, NET offers access to 2 rail stations. Barassie Railway Station is within a reasonable walking distance of the northern part of the site, and it offers a range of services to Ayr and Glasgow. There is a small park and ride facility at this station which, based on site inspections, appears to be well used. While SMH‟s proposals offer a prospect of increasing the size of this facility, it would still remain relatively small. Troon Railway Station offers a good range of services, but it is further away from NET, and most passengers would access it by car, bus or cycle. There are bus services around the site at present, and at least one operator has expressed an interest in diverting a service through the site. We are satisfied that the pressure put on bus services by NET would be unlikely to significantly inconvenience existing users.

6.12 Irrespective of the presence of train and bus services, we recognise that the private car would remain the predominant mode of travel at NET, and that suitable provision for

SALP6 6.31 NET

walking, cycling and public transport would change the modal split only at the margin. The indications are that the proposal could be satisfactorily accommodated on the road network. The difficulties with the ratio to flow capacity at the A759/A78 north bound off slip road appear to be capable of resolution. The relevant authorities had agreed that the Transport Assessment be based on the National Road Traffic Forecast low growth prediction rate, and we can see little wrong with this approach. There would be the potential to integrate NET into the adjoining residential areas of Troon through cycle and pedestrian links. We accept the criticism that the car park survey of Troon was carried out in February when demand for spaces was not at its peak, and we also accept that the car parks offer varying levels of accessibility to the town centre. However, we note that Troon has a number of car parks, supplemented by on street parking, and it appears to us that, taken together, these are generally well situated in relation to the facilities in the town centre. Taking the results of the car parking survey along with our own observations made on a number of occasions, we are persuaded that the existing facilities would be likely to be able to cope with the increased demand generated from NET.

6.13 In terms of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17, NET would be reasonably well served by rail and bus services, and it would have adequate walking and cycling connections. The development would therefore be served by a range of means of transport. Overall, as in all greenfield locations on the edge of settlements, it is unlikely that any development at NET would avoid increases in, or reduce, the need to travel, particularly by car, and we therefore consider that there would be difficulty in meeting general principle E. The objection site would be well related to public transport routes, and general principle F could therefore be regarded as satisfied.

6.14 For J, there is no evidence to suggest that tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability represent a significant problem for the development of NET. There have been problems with flooding in the surrounding area. However, the evidence suggests that there would be unlikely to be any alteration to the flow of water into Struthers Burn, and the potential increase in run off from NET to Barassie Burn would be offset by the use of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. The proposal should result in a neutral impact on water flow. NET would be unlikely to result in a materially adverse effect either within the site or downstream against the standard 1 in 200 year event. Within this context, we accept that the common culvert where Struthers Burn and Barassie Burn meet would be unlikely to be affected by any significant additional flows. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that NET complies with SPP7, and we do not believe that this matter represents an insurmountable obstacle to the allocation. In relation to K, we are satisfied that it would be unlikely that a properly constituted scheme would result in any unreasonable adverse effects on land, air or water quality. Taking into account all of the above, we recognise that there are limitations affecting this site, which result in some conflict with ASP‟s strategy and the general principles contained in policy G8. However, the site has many advantages, particularly relating to accessibility to the public transport network, and we believe that it represents an appropriate location for a housing development.

6.15 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield nature of NET and its location means that it serves to control the growth of the built up area and complements the process of urban renewal. It also serves to preserve the character of

SALP6 6.32 NET

Loans and, to a lesser extent, that of Troon. Nonetheless, we do not consider NET‟s potential green belt role to be so strong that it would prevent the release of NET for housing.

6.16 CDASP sets out 9 criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be on the edge of Troon, and it would be reasonably accessible to the core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. We accept that CDASP is generally more supportive of development at south and east Ayr rather than at Troon. However, we note that Troon would be within the Core Investment Area, and that it is identified as a Service Centre where development opportunities should be anchored. NET would have the potential to maintain and improve existing community services and facilities, and it would provide additional housing choice. While there would be only a limited opportunity to improve public transport links, we believe that this requirement at NET is not so great because there is already a genuine choice of travel available. We are satisfied that there would be the potential to achieve a development on site which respected the character and setting of the community through good design, and we believe that the limitations on environmental capacity at this location have been recognised, subject to the changes outlined above. Although the proposal would not conflict in broad terms with economic development priorities, it would not be a catalyst for regeneration and renewal. In the circumstances, we acknowledge some conflict with the underlying thrust of the criteria for new housing releases in CDASP, but do not consider that this would be sufficient to prevent the allocation of NET for housing.

6.17 We can see no advantage in the proposal of one objector who requested that NET be reduced in size by pulling back part of the southernmost boundary from Struthers Burn and replacing the area lost with a new allocation for housing adjacent to Loans. We consider that this adjustment to NET would be likely to have the unfortunate effect of further weakening its southern boundary. We are not persuaded that it would be necessary to reroute Kilmarnock Road away from the existing housing as a result of this allocation. We are also not satisfied of the practicality of that proposal given that it appears that planning permission has already been granted for housing on land immediately to the north west of NET. A substantial number of objections have been received to the proposed allocation of NET in SALP. However, in light of the above conclusions, we are satisfied that the concerns expressed would be insufficient to prevent the allocation of the site for housing. As outlined in chapter 6.2, we have not placed significant weight on the Comparative Exercise carried out by SEAC.

6.18 In conclusion, we believe that NET could serve to round off the north eastern edge of Troon and, despite the likely reliance on the private car, that it would be served by a range of means of transport. We consider, therefore, that it would be an appropriate location for a housing development. We believe the site to be effective, albeit that SAC‟s views on the number of houses that can be delivered by March 2010 appear optimistic. We acknowledge that there is some conflict with ASP and CDASP; however, we are satisfied that this is not of such a scale that it would result in any allocation having difficulty in conforming to either plan. In addition, we do not consider that an allocation would involve undue tension with the thrust of national guidance and advice. Overall, we are of the view that the objection site should be retained as a greenfield housing release in SALP, and that it should continue to be taken forward in partnership through a masterplan, revised along the lines outlined above.

6.19 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

SALP6 6.33 NET

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that NET be retained as a strategic housing allocation in SALP under policy H3A;

(ii) that NET‟s indicative capacity of 600 houses, as stated in SALP (page 58), be reduced to 550 houses;

(iii) that the bullet point on SALP (page 58) relating to the treatment of the southern boundary be amended to read as follows:

“(The masterplan) will therefore be required to address:….

 The specific treatment of the southern and eastern boundaries of NET in order to round off the settlement and ensure an appropriate transition to the open countryside beyond and, in the case of the southern boundary, to ensure that there is no opportunity for future development closer to Loans (depth of boundary treatment along NET‟s eastern edge to be a minimum of 25m; and along the southern edge to be a minimum of 30m);” and

(iv) that no other changes be made to SALP in respect of these objections.

SALP6 6.34 NET

SALP6 6.35 NET

6.2 SEA

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 335, 336, 345, 347, 369, 372, 382, 388, 427, 454, M&M 474, 475, 480, 490, 491 1123, 1127, 1129, 1132, SEAC 2001, 2002 and 2003 (+ Written submissions)

Objecting to: Strategic policy STRAT6 and supporting text Strategic policy H3B and supporting text Strategic policies STRAT5, IND3, and RET2 Policy SERV1 Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The proposed SEA site is situated in countryside, on the eastern side of the A77 and to the south east of Bankfield Roundabout. It extends in total to some 224ha, and it is broadly triangular in shape. To the north and east, the site is bound by the A713 to Dalmellington, beyond which is countryside, a small group of housing and Mosshill Industrial Estate. To the south, the site is bound by High Corton Road, a minor road, and the southernmost edge of Cockhill Wood, beyond which is countryside and the Ayrshire Equestrian Centre. A part of the area to the south is proposed as an area of green belt in SALP. To the west, the site is bound by the main A77 trunk road, beyond which is the built- up area of Ayr.

1.2 A large part of the site comprises undulating agricultural land, and it rises above the A77. In the easternmost part of the site lies Cockhill Wood, and a number of extensive tree belts. In the northern, more central part of the site Ayr Hospital, Ailsa Hospital and Carrick Glen Hospital each cover a significant area, and are contained in large buildings with extensive car parking. Alton House lies immediately to the west of Ailsa Hospital. An area of land immediately to the east of Ayr Hospital is identified for industrial and business development in the East Kyle Local Plan (adopted in 1990) and in SALP. This allocation reflects the terms of ASP policy W1. The Glasgow to Stranraer railway line crosses the site. There are 3 farmsteadings in the area to the south of the railway and, in Cockhill Wood, a further farmsteading is being used as an SAC depot. There are high pressure gas mains crossing the western part of the site in a north/south direction. The Corton Burn and a tributary of Slaphouse Burn run through the site. Around half of the site is grade 3.2 agricultural land; and the rest is grade 4.2, with the exception of a small area in the south west corner which is grade 3.1.

1.3 SEA comprises a mixed use development, including housing, business space, retail units (a neighbourhood centre, anchored by a 2000sqm food store), transport services and community facilities. The full proposals include provision for 2000-2500 houses, a primary school, a community hall and a health centre, along with a 10ha business park (30000sqm of office/business floorspace and around 1500 jobs) which would replace the site currently

SALP6 6.20 SEA

allocated for industrial and business purposes. In addition, the development would contain a new rail halt and bus services, supported by a park and ride facility with 200 car parking spaces. Vehicular access would be taken from the A77 (2 points), the A713 (2 points), and High Corton Road (2 points for buses only). The A77 and A713 would require alteration to accommodate the development, and 2 pedestrian bridges would be provided over the A77 to link the development and Ayr.

1.4 In broad terms, 5 phases are proposed in the development of the site: Corton (years one to 7) which is to the south of the railway; Alton (years 8-9) which is to the south east of Bankfield Roundabout; Glenpark (years 10-13) which is to the east of Ailsa Hospital; Cockhill Wood (years 14-18) which comprises the south eastern part of the site; and Ailsa (years 19-20) which contains Ayr Hospital, Ailsa Hospital, and Alton House. The initial phase at Corton would include: building up to 1000 houses; constructing phase one of the business park and the primary school; commencing work on the retail and community facilities; providing the rail halt, bus services and the park and ride facility, forming the vehicular accesses, upgrading the trunk and local road network, erecting a footbridge link to Ayr, and relocating a gas pipeline. Developer contributions would fund the proposed accesses, the footbridges, the A77 upgrade (including the Bankfield Roundabout), a new rail halt (including support for an improved rail service), the primary school and a contribution to secondary education, affordable housing, a primary electricity substation, and communal open space (including recreational and play areas). In total, the development would result in the creation of around 1700 mainly in the Corton phase. Corton would be accessed through one distributor road, and the other 4 phases would be accessed through another.

1.5 The proposals were supported by an indicative masterplan report, an environmental review, a design statement, a transportation assessment, a public transport strategy, an outline STAG part 1 appraisal, an outline feasibility study, and an outline business case. The latter 2 documents related to the provision of the rail halt. During the course of the inquiry, the transportation assessment, the outline feasibility study and the outline business case were amended to reflect the position at January 2005.

1.6 Apart from the provisions made for industry and the hospitals, the site is covered by a countryside allocation in the East Kyle Local Plan which, in general terms, seeks to prevent development. A site to the south east of Ayr was identified as a potential greenfield housing release in the 1994 Consultative Draft Strathclyde Structure Plan. It was seen in the draft plan as one of 2 broad locations which would be particularly suitable in meeting long term housing needs. The other suitable greenfield location identified was NET. The draft plan noted that both locations seemed to offer transportation benefits related to the rail network. However, in the 1995 Strathclyde Structure Plan, following an updating of the housing requirement, only NET was brought forward as a greenfield release.

1.7 CDSALP (published in 1999) indicated that ASP would provide the housing requirements to be met and the basic structure within which SALP would operate. It explained that a larger site, which could be developed in phases, offered the most satisfactory solution in terms of meeting the overall need for housing and SALP‟s overall objectives. CDSALP set out 4 reasons why the search for the site should be concentrated in and around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon: development pressure; marketability; sustainability; and the provision of affordable housing. The site selection process involved 3 stages. The first was to identify the criteria against which the sites would be assessed. The second was to identify the sites and to carry out an assessment using the 10 criteria established by SAC. The third

SALP6 6.21 SEA

involved consultation with basic utility service providers in order to identify significant development constraints. The process resulted in 3 sites being short listed: NET, SEA and Greenan. CDSALP outlined the relative merits of each of the 3 sites, listing their positive and negative features.

1.8 In relation to SEA, the positive features were given as: no statutory environment or heritage designations; not prime agriculture land; potential rail link; some developer interest; clear site boundaries; and very long term site provision. The negative features were: major infrastructure constraints of water supply, drainage, road access (capacity of A77 junction with A713) and school capacities; land of green belt quality; breaches A77 by-pass line; no local services other than hospital; would not represent as logical a physical extension to the urban area as either NET or Greenan; problems in fitting new development into the landscape; very poor strategic access; and development would require a long lead in time with doubts over the achievement of the necessary house completion rates within the required time. CDSALP continued that while the 59ha identified for development (the Corton area) had strong physical boundaries defining the extent of possible development, it would be capable of accommodating 830 houses and that was likely to be more than the number required in the period to 2006.

1.9 CDSALP indicated that a key factor in the choice of site(s) was the need for any new development to be as sustainable as possible. Impact on the environment, the containment of new development, the availability of local services, and the opportunities to use a variety of modes of transport were, therefore, vitally significant considerations. A further factor of key importance was the need to ensure that the allocated site provided the necessary numbers of houses and a choice of housing, including affordable housing. The infrastructure investment requirements were considered to be such that allocating only a part of each site was not considered a realistic option. The final site chosen would be the subject of a development brief which would cover issues of landscape, open space, general design/layout, infrastructure, services, community facilities, affordable/social rented housing needs, and transport links to the wider urban area.

1.10 The public response to CDSALP included a number of alternative sites for meeting the longer term housing requirement. However, SAC concluded that none of the alternatives were of sufficient merit to warrant assessment. SAC undertook a comparative assessment in early and mid 2001 of the 3 sites identified (which is contained in a report prepared in September 2003). The assessment was based on 17 detailed criteria which were grouped under the key statements of strategic intent given in ASP. For the purposes of the assessment, SAC considered the whole of the SEA site rather than restricting themselves to the Corton area. The assessment concluded that such a larger site would provide a planned context not only for the medium term but also for the longer term development demands of South Ayrshire, including a strategic industrial site. The importance of the railway running through the site was emphasised, and the provision of a railway halt was seen as a vital component of any development programme. SAC believed that before the site could become a confirmed allocation, they would need to be confident that a rail service would be provided at an appropriate stage. SAC would also need to be satisfied that the substantial level of off- site physical works required had been identified, and that the expected level of developer financial contribution would not threaten the viability of the development. In addition, the landscape impact would require careful attention, particularly to the south of the railway, while to the north of the railway, retention of key landscape features would be necessary. The assessment identified NET as the most appropriate location for longer term housing

SALP6 6.22 SEA

development, with SEA as a second choice if required, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the above matters.

1.11 SALP (published in 2002) proposed the development of both NET and SEA. It identified the larger SEA site (including Corton) as an appropriate area for the expansion of Ayr. The site was seen as benefiting from readily identifiable boundaries, an operational railway line which could provide access to Ayr town centre and beyond, direct access to the A77, the presence of existing development, and a long established industrial land allocation. Policy STRAT6 stated that:

224ha of land at SEA is allocated as a major settlement expansion area. Any development will require to conform to the provisions of the master plan for this allocation as approved by SAC.

SALP indicated that only in exceptional circumstances would planning consent be granted for development proposals within the site prior to the final approval by SAC of the master plan for the whole area defined in policy STRAT6. In addition to residential and industrial land, the masterplan would include provision for:

 A substantial amount of affordable rented housing development.  A site for a new primary school.  Land for shops and community facilities to serve the local area.  A comprehensive scheme of traffic management and a transport plan to encourage use of a variety of modes of transport.  A rail halt and line extension to provide a passenger rail service to the whole of the development area.  Safe and adequate links across the A77 trunk road for pedestrians and cyclists.  A comprehensive landscape scheme including areas of community woodland.  A comprehensive inventory of the infrastructure consequences of the development.  The principles of layout and building design.

1.12 The purpose of policy STRAT6 was to provide for the planned expansion of Ayr in the longer term. SALP policy H3B brought forward the Corton phase of the development. It stated that:

Residential development on the settlement expansion greenfield release site of 63ha at SEA will be considered acceptable by SAC, subject to conformity with masterplans which will be prepared or otherwise approved by SAC.

The masterplan would need to cover at least 12 matters, and it would require to address them to a level of detail which would ensure the proper implementation of the development. It was expected that this phase (Corton) would accommodate around 800 houses, and that a steady rate of development would cover a period extending beyond 2008. SALP policy IND3 indicates that SAC would safeguard and promote for industrial and business development 30ha of land at Cockhill, within the site. The master plan preparation process would examine whether the site was the most appropriate location within the master plan area for a strategic industrial use.

1.13 In SAC‟s initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), they indicated that the objections received to SEA covered a number of concerns, including environmental, and traffic and transportation matters. They acknowledged that since SALP‟s

SALP6 6.23 SEA

approval, significant progress had been made in addressing technical matters, and explained that SEAC were currently finalising their masterplanning work. However, the one key element that remained outstanding was transportation matters. In particular, no satisfactory answers had been provided by SEAC to the questions raised about the proposal‟s consequences for the A77 and the provision of a passenger rail service. SAC noted that the railway had been a key factor in the selection of SEA ahead of other possible locations. Notwithstanding these difficulties, SAC remained of the view that SEA was an appropriate location for a major settlement extension and decided to maintain the allocation in the expectation that the key transport elements would be satisfactorily resolved. These elements had not been resolved by the time of the Planning Committee meetings in September and December 2003.

1.14 In the changes made to SALP in March 2004, SAC was identified as a longer term strategic growth area rather than a major settlement expansion. In order to reflect this change, SALP policy STRAT6 was amended as follows:

STRATEGIC POLICY STRAT6

224ha of land at SEA is identified as a longer term strategic growth area, should a requirement for additional housing land be identified through the structure plan process. Any residential, or associated development in this location will be required to conform with the provisions of a master plan which has received the prior approval of SAC and which has been prepared in consultation and agreement with key service providers in order to ensure appropriate mitigation measures to address the consequential impacts arising from the development are incorporated within the overall master plan. It is an essential requirement that the site will not be made available other than for development in accordance with Strategic Policy IND3, until such a time that a comprehensive masterplan has been prepared.

SAC believed that SALP‟s housing strategy provided sufficient land to meet ASP‟s requirements, but that it was reasonable to provide clear direction on the location of future housing development beyond the housing plan period of 2012, should the need for further greenfield land be identified in any subsequent structure plan. Until a housing land requirement had been established, the land was to remain outwith the settlement boundary of Ayr, with the land to the south of the railway (Corton) being covered by a green belt designation and the balance of the site (to the north of the railway) by a rural protection area designation. Policy H3B was deleted.

1.15 There are several reasons given for this change. These include: substantial uncertainty over whether a rail service could be provided within a reasonable timescale, which would reduce the site‟s sustainable transport merits; the failure to quantify adequately the scale of consequential trunk road improvements; SEA‟s prospective impact on the local road network and Ayr town centre; the absence of a robust business plan to demonstrate the economic viability of the project; and the reduction in the housing requirement which meant that there was no justification for promoting 2 greenfield housing land releases. In the Planning Committee report of 30 March 2004, it was noted that more time was required to establish clearly that SEA could be developed properly in accordance with SALP‟s requirements. It was explained that the technical feasibility of the rail halt together with the business case for the provision of a passenger rail service still required to be proved. In addition, it was pointed out that SE Trunk Roads Division had reminded SAC about their significant concerns over the site‟s merits in sustainable transport terms. Within this context, and given SAC‟s reservations about the Transport Assessment, there was doubt over SEA‟s effectiveness. NET therefore became the only major greenfield release promoted by SALP.

SALP6 6.24 SEA

1.16 CDASP (published in June 2004) identifies Ayr, Prestwick and Troon as lying within the Core Investment Area. South and east Ayr is identified as a preferred location for up to 8000 houses, and it is proposed rail passenger capacity be developed, amongst other things, through the extension of the Glasgow/Ayr electrified line to Ayr Hospital/SEA, and the provision of a small number of rail halts to link with housing land releases. CDASP refers to the increasingly high volumes of traffic on the Ayr by pass and other sections of the A77, and explains that if the potential from new development opportunities is to be realised then improvements over these sections of road should continue. It is proposed that Cockhill be deleted from the current list of strategic industrial sites and that options related to more mixed use development be examined, all within the context of confirming an alternative strategic business location at SEA, adjacent to the A77.

1.17 Further changes were made to SALP in July 2004. In relation to SEA, the changes arose because SAC believed that designating Corton as green belt represented an inherent contradiction because they had identified the area as a potential location for future development under policy STRAT6. SAC therefore proposed that this part of the site be designated Rural Protection Area, as well as the area to the north.

1.18 SEA was considered at the inquiry in 2 sessions. The first session was held between 15 and 23 September 2004 and focussed on the evidence of SEAC. The second session was held between 17 and 23 February 2005 and heard the evidence of the remaining witness for SEAC and the witnesses for M&M and SAC.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, a number of parties who submitted representations to SALP, including SEAC, sought the reinstatement of policy H3B in SALP, and generally supported the designation of SEA for settlement expansion purposes. Some parties sought amendments to the requirements for SEA as outlined in the supporting text to policies STRAT6 and H3B. Other parties, including M&M, sought the deletion of SEA from SALP, including policy STRAT6.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SEAC AND OTHERS

3.1 SEAC outlined the representations they had lodged in relation to SALP and the various changes, since 2002. They commented on the terms of policies STRAT3, STRAT5, STRAT6, H3B, IND3, RET2, SERV1 and on affordable housing issues. SEAC also objected to the March 2004 changes to SALP. They believed that 2 strategic greenfield housing land releases could be justified, and they questioned SAC‟s decision to retain NET in preference to the Corton phase of SEA. Following the close of the first session of this part of the inquiry, the ongoing dialogue between SEAC and SAC had continued. Although a substantial volume of analysis and level of detail had been made available to the inquiry, only the principle of the proposal was at issue at this stage.

3.2 SEA would be one of the largest greenfield developments in Scotland, and SEAC believed that they had established that the proposal was realistic, practical, and capable of implementation. There would be an expectation of early delivery from SEA. Both the Corton phase of SEA and the wider development area could be considered effective against

SALP6 6.25 SEA

the PAN38 criteria. The site was not constrained for reasons of marketability. On site and off site infrastructure costs had been currently estimated at over £20m (£13m for transportation infrastructure), and SEAC confirmed that, at this level of contribution, the development proposal remained viable. Developer contributions and the full details of the masterplan had yet to be agreed with SAC. However, the details available were sufficient to ensure that SAC‟s concerns were resolved, and to allow at least the Corton phase to be allocated. A statement of commitment (containing a schedule of works) had been prepared and lodged by SEAC. Development at Corton would satisfy the requirement to provide an effective 5 year housing land supply to 2010. While the rate of development at SEA would be determined by market circumstances, it was envisaged that it would continue for 20 years. A possible programme for development would be to submit an outline planning application in mid-2005, to submit a reserved matters application for the Corton phase at the end of 2005, and to commence site engineering works in mid 2006. The site could be developed at the rate of about 120-150 houses per annum, and the first completions could be expected at the end of 2007, or beginning of 2008.

3.3 ASP policy ADS2 acknowledged the role of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon as one of the 3 primary locations for all major residential, commercial and other development in Ayrshire. Considerable emphasis was placed on the principles of sustainable development throughout ASP, including policy ADS8. While CDASP had some way to go before it could be considered a final statement of policy, it foreshadowed a shift in emphasis away from ASP‟s “approach of consolidation to a more broadly based strategy of realising potential throughout the area to create economic prosperity through competitive advantage.” SEAC believed that substantial growth in the housing requirement, sufficient to justify SEA in full, would arise in the future ASP. CDASP also recognised Ayrshire‟s wider role in relation to markets, economic opportunities and employment.

3.4 To argue that SALP policy STRAT6 did not enjoy ASP support required that the longer term strategic planning context in Ayrshire be ignored. In any event, ASP‟s housing policies justified both Corton and the remainder of SEA. There was no significant distinction to be drawn between Corton, NET or Greenan in terms of providing an appropriate response to the strategic numerical requirement of policies L3 and L4. ASP policy G8 then had a major role in directing the local plan allocation in a manner consistent with ASP‟s development strategy. SEAC believed that SEA complied with the requirements of this policy. They also believed that the indicative masterplan before the inquiry was in accord with SALP‟s expectations, as outlined in policies STRAT6 and H3B.

3.5 There was justification for safeguarding the balance of SEA for future development. There was a necessity for longer term planning, and government policy supported such an approach. Within the context of a future housing requirement, SAC‟s desire to have completed the “ground work” on a site which could then be brought forward, could not be faulted.

3.6 Only the narrowest of interpretations would consider that the business park proposed in the Corton phase would not meet the ambition of ASP policy W1 to provide a strategic industrial and business development site at Cockhill. SEAC had given a clear commitment to a limited test build at the business park (1000sqm). While the market was untested, the proposed location in Corton, next to the A77, would be a good one. SEAC‟s proposal would provide a more practical way of attracting jobs into the area than the existing allocated site in SALP. The business park would not be built with public authority funding, and no one

SALP6 6.26 SEA

expected SEAC to provide SAC with a business park. The requirements of ASP policy W2 would also be met.

3.7 SEAC accepted that ASP policy L9 militated against their proposal for retail provision within the development. However, they had no plans to build a district centre in the sense envisaged by NPPG8. The proposed 2000sqm of retail floorspace was also modest in the context of SEA‟s scale. SEAC‟s proposal would not represent a threat of the sort that policy L9 sought to address. While the proposal might have to be justified against this policy, it was possible that the proposal could be revised to ensure that there was no conflict. It was also necessary to take into account ASP policy L8.

3.8 SEAC had carried out a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the proposal‟s visual and landscape impacts, and SAC were satisfied that they would be acceptable. The SEA site was a series of discreet areas, and it was physically suitable and appropriate for a settlement expansion. The Corton phase did not have any essential landscape function, or any essential landscape contribution to make to the green belt. The proposal took account of the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, and the indicative masterplan demonstrated a comprehensive vision for a structured and integrated expansion of Ayr. Matters of detail could be left until a later stage in the planning process, including those relating to design, landscaping, development impact, and the public utilities.

3.9 The visual impact of the proposal would be significant in some areas and insignificant in others. M&M had placed unwarranted emphasis on views into the site from the A77, and they had inappropriately dismissed the visual significance of the existing hospital buildings on site. In this instance, the exercise carried out by M&M, based on the zone of visual influence, was not overly useful. SEAC were committed to working through the details of the proposal, particularly in respect of the Alton phase. However, no part of the site needed to be crammed and areas could be left undeveloped if necessary. The proposal represented an urban expansion bridging into areas which were already modified in character and value by development.

3.10 An evaluation of the site‟s landscape and visual functions had informed the initial design framework. The process had balanced a traditional survey, analysis and plan approach with a PAN44 appraisal. The Corton area would be the area of greatest activity within SEA, and had been zoned to contain elements which would be seen. The A77 should not be seen as a barrier, but as a means of access and communication. As the development moved eastwards, it would be integrated into, and visually diluted by, existing development and landscape features. The existing landscape features on site would contribute to achieving a rich and interesting housing environment, which promoted a sense of place. The consolidation of development on SEA would allow an intelligent and defensible settlement edge to be formed.

3.11 ASP‟s transportation policies openly supported SEA. A proper response to the problems facing Ayrshire‟s transportation networks required a long term, “joined up” approach. Piecemeal schemes which added to the current difficulties would be unsatisfactory. In March 2004, SAC were unconvinced that a sustainable transport solution had been established for SEA. However, SAC had now acknowledged that the work undertaken by SEAC had satisfied them that SEA could be supported by a sustainable transport package. It was crucial to understand that the establishment of a rail service was not a pre-condition for achieving the sustainability of SEA. Sustainability could be achieved

SALP6 6.27 SEA

through providing a range of alternative transport solutions, including: a 15 minute frequency, “turn up and go” bus service between the site and Ayr town centre (an extension of the A23 service), which would be subsidised initially by SEAC; good, useable and convenient walking and cycling routes both internally and externally to the wider area; the existing bus services serving the hospitals and the wider area; and the construction of a park and ride car park as part of the initial phase of SEA (stage 1 of the provision of public transport services to the site). This latter facility, when taken together with the rail halt, which would be constructed as a part of the stage 2 services, would constitute a multi-modal transport interchange. It was estimated that around 80% of homes would be within 400m of the bus route, and 90% within 800m. The development would be accessible by a choice of transport modes and would not be over reliant on the private car.

3.12 Of the sites before the inquiry, SEA enjoyed the unique advantage of straddling the railway line from Ayr to Stranraer. SEAC proposed to construct the rail halt at their cost on completion of the procurement procedures and receipt of planning permission. A number of parties would be involved in the delivery of the halt, including the Strategic Rail Authority. The outline feasibility study examined 5 possible locations for the halt, and 3 possible options for a train service (the existing diesel train service, a new dedicated train service, and an electrified service). Although none of the locations for the halt would be fully compliant with current standards, it was likely that an acceptable location, which minimised any deviation, could be identified. The preferred location would be to the north of the proposed underpass (option 1). This would maximise the size of the catchment area and would offer more favourable construction conditions. In terms of the Strategic Rail Authority‟s new station flow chart (outlined in New Stations: A Guide for Promoters), the halt was at the end of stage 2 (project scoping and initial evaluation) of the 6 stages identified in the process for developing a new station. £3m had been set aside for the construction of the halt, and this would include the development of the park and ride car park.

3.13 While the existing diesel service was not ideal (12 services per day), it would be wrong to conclude that it brought no benefits at all. Those people who could use it would have a genuine choice. It was not the case that a genuine choice could only be achieved through an electrified service. The evidence indicated that the rail halt and existing diesel service (option A) would be viable. This conclusion was not affected by the reduced benefit/cost ratios in the revised outline business case. Although not ideal, the option A service would provide modal choice at SEA, and would satisfy the approach advocated in NPPG17 and PAN57. This option would be unlikely to have an impact on the train timetable to the north of Ayr. The evidence indicated that, in due course, a higher level of service, including electrification (option C), would be feasible. However, achieving the desired level of service would require substantial funding, which in turn would require a major commitment from the relevant public authorities. SEAC would investigate the possibility of augmenting the existing diesel service at peak periods (a variation on option B), and they would continue to work with relevant interested parties to identify an appropriate service option (potentially electrification) and to investigate sources of both capital and revenue funding (for example, developer levies).

3.14 It was acknowledged that the outline business case had not included any allowance for passengers generated by the hospitals. However, historically, hospitals were not seen as significant generators of rail passengers, and it was appropriate to adopt a cautious approach to ensure a robust case was presented. Development at SEA offered the opportunity of starting a truly sustainable rail service, which could be constructed over the fullness of time.

SALP6 6.28 SEA

No other site at the inquiry could make that claim, and SEA could therefore be considered as the only genuinely sustainable development opportunity. Previous studies had indicated that, without a contribution from developers, the rail halt would not be viable.

3.15 While it was difficult to put timescales on the introduction of an integrated bus and rail service, SEAC hoped that this would be operating by 2011. Postponement of the start of the development programme at SEA would merely postpone the provision of the rail halt. The rail service should not be used as a reason to delay development at SEA if the public sector organisations involved did not make it a priority for action and implementation. It was accepted that certain issues, such as passenger loadings and possible time table modifications for an augmented service, required to be looked at in greater detail as the project progressed. Strathclyde Passenger Transport‟s officers supported the proposal in principle.

3.16 A crucial advantage of SEA was that it would facilitate a “step change” in road transportation provision. This represented an opportunity to go well beyond the usual “no net detriment” solution, and would result in the creation of spare road capacity which would not be taken up by the full development when completed. The A77 would suffer from congestion with or without further development, and this could prompt a requirement for action by SE. SEAC were committed to funding improvements on the road of over £7m. These included upgrading roundabouts on the A77 and the single carriageway sections of road lying between Bankfield and Whitletts. In order to ensure that the additional road capacity was not released too early, there could be some merit in phasing the works. In contrast, Greenan offered no contribution to the trunk road network. The traffic assessment for SEA was also based on “worst case” assumptions, unlike other major proposals before the inquiry. Matters such as the proposed financial bond, outstanding land ownership issues for off site works, and detailed costings (eg for works on the A77) could be resolved at a later date.

3.17 There was an outstanding issue between SEAC and SAC over trip distribution, but this could be held over for discussion as the proposal progressed through the planning process. There was no foundation to the concern about the distribution of trips to the north of the Dutch House Roundabout. The calculations in the Transport Assessment were based on the use of a simple gravity model, and those in the Public Transport Strategy on a modified version of the Glasgow City Council “method.” SEAC believed that of the proportion of trips going north beyond the Dutch House Roundabout only a limited number would go beyond Ayrshire to Glasgow (less than 10%) and the Central Belt. This view was supported by SAC‟s Local Transport Strategy. There was also no reason to have concern about the impact of SEA on the radial routes crossing the A77 because the issue had been satisfactorily addressed. In any event, neither of these concerns struck at SEA‟s suitability for development in transportation terms.

3.18 SEA was also inherently sustainable because it reduced the need to travel at source by incorporating a genuine mix of land uses. The proposal was consistent with NPPG17, Consultation Draft SPP17, the Strathclyde Public Transport Strategy 2000 and the Local Transport Strategy.

3.19 Regarding the comparative assessment of the various sites, SEA scored better than any alternative whether measured against the terms of ASP policy G8 or the method of SAC (which did not accord with ASP). SAC‟s comparative assessment paper was dated September 2003, but was based on work carried out over 2 years previously. This was long before the SEAC‟s detailed proposals had been formulated. The report to the Planning

SALP6 6.29 SEA

Committee of August 2003 was a much more accurate reflection of SAC‟s knowledge and understanding of the proposal. If SAC‟s comparative exercise had been carried out on the basis of this latest report, the conclusion would have been that SEA was significantly better than NET. SAC did not consult SEAC on the conclusions of the August 2003 report.

3.20 On education, SEAC proposed a 2 stream primary school (14 classrooms) at Corton, and this could be expanded to 3 streams if required. Financial contributions would be made to SAC in respect of secondary education facilities, as pupils from SEA would attend existing schools in Ayr.

3.21 Turning to the site‟s allocation as Rural Protection Area, SAC had been persuaded to remove the green belt designation from SEA because it was inconsistent with a clear intention to develop. The same argument could also be applied to a Rural Protection Area allocation because it was also designed to protect environmentally sensitive land from inappropriate development through policy STRAT3. There was nothing inappropriate about SEAC‟s proposal, and SAC accepted this. Given this, and in the interests of the clarity sought by SPP1, it would be illogical to maintain the Rural Protection Area allocation. SEA should be included within the settlement boundary of Ayr.

3.22 In addition, SALP should plan, with greater certainty, that SEA would be required for development. This would help avoid uncertainty and possible future challenge. SALP policies STRAT6 and H3B should therefore be augmented by proposals, which indicated the key elements of the development to be brought forward (including public transport nodes and facilities [rail and bus]), and the scale and phasing required. The requirement in SALP strategic policy IND3 to safeguard industrial land at Cockhill should be qualified, and a new strategic policy (IND3A) and proposal should be inserted, which dealt with future industrial and business development at SEA. Clarification was required in SALP strategic policy RET2 on the role and function of retail provision at SEA. To this end, criterion (a)1 should be inserted, which would allow for the provision of appropriate retail facilities at SEA. SALP policies STRAT5 and SERV1 should be amended to recognise the important role SAC and other public agencies had in implementing SAC‟s development strategy and the need for a partnership approach between the public and private sectors. Notwithstanding this, SEAC accepted that it was for a developer to address the infrastructure consequences of their proposal. These various amendments would produce a more relevant development framework for SEA, and would avoid any need to review SALP in the future. SAC should approve the indicative masterplan for SEA within 3 months of receiving the recommendations of this inquiry.

3.23 In written submissions by some objectors, the Corton phase was fully supported. An amendment was sought to policy H3B, which would be designed to ensure the provision of the new rail halt. NHS proposed that there should be a specific reference to the provision of healthcare facilities within the requirements for SEA. They also sought a requirement that they be fully consulted on future proposals for the site; and they expressed concern about the inclusion of the hospitals at SEA in the Rural Protection Area, fearing that this designation could affect future development proposals.

SALP6 6.30 SEA

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR M&M AND OTHERS

4.1 It was extraordinary that SEA did not attract a single sentence in ASP. In 1994, the previous planning authority had thought it relevant to identify SEA for development. In CDASP there was locational guidance to the effect that substantial housing and business development would be located to the south and east of Ayr. M&M believed that the current lack of strategic context for SEA meant that SALP did not conform to ASP, as required under section 17(3) of the 1997 T&CPA. This was the case irrespective of whether SEA was allocated or safeguarded. It would also amount to bad planning to safeguard SEA at this point in the development plan process because it would remove the opportunity to debate at the next local plan inquiry how CDASP‟s potential strategy could best be delivered in terms of location, and size and scale of development. In essence, safeguarding SEA would be to prejudge the outcome of CDASP.

4.2 SEAC‟s timescales for the delivery of SEA were over optimistic. For a development of the size and complexity proposed, it would inevitably take time to iron out the innumerable difficulties. SEAC had not taken account of any time allowance for an Environment Assessment of either the site itself or the significant trunk road upgrades required by SE. The housing on site would take a substantial time to deliver. SEA was a new and untested market area. The proposed 7 year timescale for completion of the Corton phase was ambitious given the scale of development proposed. This was particularly so when account was taken of the infrastructure provisions required, including the off-site road works. The lead in time required for a proposal of this scale and complexity also suggested that it would be difficult to make an early start. M&M did not believe that the Corton phase could be considered to be effective.

4.3 As things stood, the retail proposal for SEA would be contrary to NPPG8 and ASP policy L9. There was also no strategic context for a retail proposal of the scale envisaged without a full sequential test, and an analysis of the impact on the town centre and important neighbourhood centres. If the analysis to be carried out concluded that SEAC‟s proposal was unacceptable, then it might not be possible to deliver any retail (or leisure) facilities. If that part of the proposal was scaled back significantly, then it might be necessary to question SEAC‟s assumptions on trip generation and the conclusions that had been reached on the proposal‟s sustainability. In addition, there was a very real prospect that the aspirations of SEAC and SAC for a business park might not become a reality. In fact, SEA could result in a vast, highly visible and intrusive housing site, with inadequate retail facilities, virtually no employment opportunities, and a poor level of rail service (or perhaps none at all). Overall, Greenan was much better placed than SEA.

4.4 The proposal at SEA would result in the suburbanisation of 224ha of land to the east of the A77, which SAC had previously identified as proposed green belt. The A77 was a defensible boundary at the eastern edge of Ayr, and all the landscape witnesses had agreed that SEA contributed to the setting of the town. If the argument was accepted that the presence of the hospitals justified suburban development, then there would be no justification for SAC ever refusing such proposals around institutional uses in the countryside, including on land of green belt quality. SEA played an important part in views from the A77. In addition, the plan showing the zone of visual influence highlighted the site‟s potential visibility from the A713, the A79, Doonholm Road, the hospitals, sections of the railway, areas in Ayr, and locations in the wider landscape popular with tourists (eg the Brown

SALP6 6.31 SEA

Carrick Hills). SEA contributed to the landscape setting of Ayr, and this should be recognised by allocating it green belt.

4.5 In the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area, there was a general presumption against large scale developments. The proposal was contrary to the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment. There were concerns about the poor integration of the proposed development‟s edge with the surrounding countryside, the stark suburban designs, the general absence of screening, and the extensive impact that there would be on the landscape. The Corton phase would have very little planting to the south by Corton Road (abutting the green belt), and the boundaries to the Alton and Glenpark phases would not appear to be extensively screened. While the proposal might be at an early stage of development, these were fundamental issues which would have been addressed from the outset in a landscape led scheme. There were further issues over SEA‟s physical and visual integration with the existing urban edge of Ayr and fitting any development into the landscape. In addition, the adverse effects of a lack of substantial landscaping would be compounded if SEA constituted only the first 5 phases of an 8000 house development.

4.6 It was surprising that SEAC believed that they had done enough to satisfy SAC on the masterplan requirements at this stage. SAC indicated in evidence that there was still a considerable amount of work to be done. They indicated that the majority of the Alton phase should remain undeveloped, and had expressed concern about the development of the Cockhill phase (in particular, reference had been made to the need for substantial screen planting). This suggested a divergence in opinion between SEAC and SAC. If SAC‟s concerns were to be addressed, there would be a knock on effect on the number of houses that could be built.

4.7 The proposal would be extremely visible, in particular from the A77. It would change the character of Ayr forever by allowing the town to leap the trunk road into open countryside. SEA would not be a suitable site for housing, either through allocation or safeguarding, on landscape and visual grounds.

4.8 SE‟s view on the rail proposal was that the halt, with appropriate services, should be constructed before travel patterns were established. SEAC‟s scheme failed to meet these requirements. While M&M accepted that a number of policies were broadly supportive of a new halt at SEA, including NPPG17, ASP and the Local Transport Strategy, it was unlikely that a halt could be delivered within 5 years. A more likely timescale was 10 years because of the number of bids that there had been for new stations. SAC had also indicated that the electrified service would not be provided within the period of CDASP. In short, there would not be an appropriate level of service for at least 20 years. M&M were unaware of any comparable projects which had been implemented in the timescale now being proposed by SEAC. There were also issues about the capacity of the network to the north of Ayr, which would need to be addressed if an enhanced service was to be introduced. Although SEAC had received a letter from the Railway Inspectorate suggesting that a halt at SEA would receive favourable consideration, the Strategic Rail Authority‟s guidelines confirmed that representatives from all the rail industry would require to be involved in the decision taking process. In the absence of positive comments from other relevant organisations, it could not be assumed that a halt on a gradient of 1 in 70 would prove to be acceptable, particularly once the signalling implications were taken into account. It was not clear that the studies undertaken had considered all the costs that would be involved. SEAC‟s view that stage 2 of

SALP6 6.32 SEA

the Strategic Rail Authority‟s flow chart for providing new stations had now been completed, was incorrect.

4.9 The work done by SEAC and M&M had indicated that only one service option (option A) was viable, but it would deliver an extremely poor service which all parties (including Strathclyde Passenger Transport) accepted would not persuade people to leave their cars. One service in the peak period would not amount to a sustainable transport solution, and would not offer a genuine choice of travel. Accordingly, the proposed halt would be unlikely to be a high priority in the short or medium term. In addition, option A was only viable if the development was implemented in full, and there was uncertainty about this because of the issues that required to be resolved about house numbers, the speculative nature of the business park, and the possible impact of the proposed 15 minute frequency bus service. While SEAC had offered to fund further rail studies, there was nothing to suggest that the outcome would be any different to the conclusions already reached on service enhancement. To make rail an attractive option for travellers from SEA, an hourly train service would be required. It was clear that an enhanced service would be likely to require ongoing revenue support, and it could have an effect on the timetable‟s reliability. The high costs of electrification could not be justified by the likely projected demand for the service. If SAC wanted the housing allocations expected through CDASP to be served by rail, there might be better options available. A development of around 8000 houses would be far more likely to achieve an appropriate rail service than the current proposal by SEAC. It would be appropriate to reconsider SEA from first principles.

4.10 SE had confirmed that a prerequisite for the proposal was the upgrading of the A77 to dual carriageway standard, and they expected SEAC to meet the actual costs incurred. For the avoidance of doubt, the authority did not support the allocation of SEA at this stage. Furthermore, the figures quoted by SEAC for the works were based on something of an industry standard for the provision of a 7.3m wide carriageway with lights and drainage, but they would not cover the costs of embankments or railway and road bridge widening. In addition, no land acquisition costs appeared to have been included for either the “dualling works” or the junction upgrades. It was also not clear that SE would compulsorily acquire the land necessary to complete the works. Even if they were prepared to undertake the acquisitions required, a straightforward compulsory purchase order could delay the proposal by up to 18 months. If the matter was to progress to a public local inquiry, this timescale would be extended. If the costs of the various transportation projects were to be higher than expected, it could jeopardise the provision of all the improvements proposed.

4.11 SEA would be contrary to advice on trunk roads because there was a likelihood that the residents would use the A77 for short trips, for example, from the Glenpark and Alton phases to Corton. In addition, given the traffic increases projected north of the Dutch House Roundabout (33% in the am peak, and 31% in the pm peak), SEA would not comply with the spirit of ASP‟s sustainable development strategy, in particular, it would be contrary to policy ADS7, and it would make the implementation of policy ADS8 more difficult. There would also be difficulties with ASP policies T1 and G8, NPPG17, Consultative Draft SPP17, PAN66, and other policies within SALP. The proposal could not be described as a development which would result in no net detriment to the road network because the STAG appraisal indicated that it would result in an increase in road traffic accidents on the A77. An issue yet to be addressed was the possible impact of SEA traffic north of the Dutch House Roundabout, and the possible requirement for further upgrading of the A77. Furthermore, the

SALP6 6.33 SEA

improvements proposed to the A77 would only increase the traffic capacity on the “links” within the trunk road network.

4.12 The timetable proposed for the 15 minute frequency bus service showed that it proposed not just an extension to the existing bus service, but additional buses as well. This had not been costed and, given SEAC‟s approach to funding, if additional buses were to be introduced then other transport proposals would have to be dropped. It also appeared that SEAC would only be willing to provide funding over the first 3 years of the development. Thereafter, the service would have to be self supporting. The operator could then choose to curtail or even withdraw the service, which could potentially result in the development having no bus service at all if public authority funding was not available. This contrasted poorly to the proposal at Greenan.

4.13 In terms of the comparative assessment of the sites, SEA had less benefits than Greenan. This remained the case when the 2 sites were considered against the general principles contained in ASP policy G8. In particular, SEA failed general principles A, B, C, E and I, and it partially failed general principles F and K. SEA also failed to satisfy the thrust of SPP3.

4.14 There could be no question of SEA being allocated in SALP. If SEA (including Corton) was to be allocated, SEAC would have had to have reached agreement with the relevant authorities on landscaping, transportation and rail matters, but this had not been achieved. SEA should also not be safeguarded. There was no strategic context for this approach, and SAC could not be confident at this stage that all the outstanding matters could be satisfactorily resolved. M&M‟s objection to SEA should be upheld.

4.15 In written submissions, other objectors also sought the deletion of SEA, including the Corton phase, from SALP. In particular, SEA would set an inappropriate precedent for allowing development to cross other major roads, such as the A78. The apparent difficulties in achieving a satisfactory and viable solution at SEA meant that it should be allocated as green belt. SAC had consistently made clear that those sites identified as possible strategic greenfield releases which were not selected would be allocated green belt. SEA failed to take into account the development potential of other sites, such as Greenan, Holmston, the sites at Heathfield, and Doonholm Road. It was inferior to the site at Holmston, and could not be developed in a reasonable timescale. It was difficult to see where development would stop if sites such as SEA went ahead.

5. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

5.1 SAC had followed the most logical course of action in relation to SEA once ASP, national policy, and all relevant information had been taken into account. A great deal of work and analysis, stretching back to the early 1990s, had been undertaken in investigating whether the objection site would be suitable for development. There were concerns about the effectiveness of the Corton phase on its own because it was not clear that a site of that size could deliver the scale of transport infrastructure required. However, SAC accepted that SEA as a whole was effective, and could deliver the transport infrastructure required. SAC did not expect an outline planning application to be lodged by SEAC before the autumn of 2006, and did not believe that there would be any housing completions on SEA until 2007/08 at the

SALP6 6.34 SEA

earliest. If it became apparent that there was no reasonable prospect for development at SEA for 10 years, then it would be necessary to review the approach in SALP.

5.2 Safeguarded land required the “trigger” of a strategic justification if it was to be released for development. ASP provided the settlement strategy, and it identified the Ayr, Prestwick and Troon area as the location for major developments. The strategy was not a short term one because ASP‟s text envisaged its benefits coming forward in the longer term. In addition, specific locations for new housing development were not identified. ASP had recognised the possibility of major strategic development taking place to the south east of the A77, with the identification of Cockhill as a strategic industrial and business site in policy W1. The housing land position was complicated because ASP set out a housing requirement to 2010, but did not indicate the requirement for the medium term (5-10 years). Given the terms of SPP3 and CDASP (which looked ahead to 2025), and the uncertainty about the future housing land requirement, SAC believed that it was prudent and reasonable to safeguard SEA. The land would be protected from inappropriate development by its Rural Protection Area designation.

5.3 SAC did not agree that the safeguarding of land in SALP would reduce or restrict the options available to the emerging ASP. In particular, there was no indication that the existing settlement strategy for major development locations would change. SAC was jointly responsible, with the other Ayrshire councils, for the preparation of the emerging ASP, and there was sharing of information and regular meetings. Neither the ASP team nor the 2 other Ayrshire councils, or any Government body, had objected to SEA‟s safeguarding. If the emerging ASP was to identify a different strategy for major development which made SEA an inappropriate location, then there would be no strategic trigger for development. In addition, the provision of a rail halt and transport interchange provided flexibility in relation to future development to the south east of Ayr and beyond. The safeguarding of SEA would provide an opportunity for a planned and sustainable expansion of Ayr. Identifying the Corton phase on its own for development, would be inconsistent with ASP and Government policy, and would be poor planning. To justify crossing the A77 required the type and scale of development proposed, supported by appropriate masterplanning.

5.4 The requirement of ASP policy W1 had been met in SALP by retaining the allocation at Cockhill, but recognising that it might be reallocated within the masterplan area. The retail element of the proposal was a matter for the future. SAC did not envisage this element providing for more than SEA, and it would have to be justified against ASP policies and NPPG8. There was no justification for a district centre on site.

5.5 SNH had at no stage raised an objection to the identification of SEA. It was accepted that there were areas of SEA which were of high scenic quality, which should be protected and not developed (for example, the Alton phase). Parts of SEA were visible from countryside up to, and including, the Brown Carrick Hills, Ayr, the A77, and the A713. A strong, defensible green belt boundary could be provided along the site‟s southern edge. SEA already contained roads, a railway, and other built forms on it, and it was adjacent to Ayr, the A77 and Mosshill Industrial Estate. Part of the site was already allocated for development. SEA‟s rural character had already been, and would continue to be, diluted by development. The undulating topography and the woodland in the northern and eastern parts of SEA would provide screening for future development. Views from the A77 could be screened by appropriate planting, and the indications were that large parts of Alton would not be developed. Although further landscape, townscape and visual assessments were required,

SALP6 6.35 SEA

SAC believed that, with suitable landscaping, the other phases could be developed without having an adverse effect on the landscape. They were satisfied that there was no impediment to safeguarding the site for landscaping reasons.

5.6 Sustainable transport solutions were central to the recognition of SEA as a site for future development. It was recognised by all parties that a rail halt at SEA was feasible. NPPG17, the Consultation Draft SPP17 and ASP accepted the desirability of identifying sites close to railway stations. The Local Transport Strategy promoted the greater use of rail and identified a railway halt at SEA as part of SAC‟s transport strategy. SAC believed that it was reasonable and appropriate that developers played a key role in providing facilities to access their proposals. SAC were prepared to work with other organisations to develop a partnership approach to implementing strategic transport projects.

5.7 SAC were content with the conclusion in the Outline Feasibility Study that a halt within the development site was feasible and that there were no fundamental matters which would prevent provision of the infrastructure required. The capital and operational costs were sufficiently robust to inform the outline business case at this stage, and would be further refined as the proposal was taken forward. Further work was required on the Outline Business Case, particularly on trip generation and revenue estimates. SAC broadly agreed with the conclusions that a 30 minute frequency diesel or electric service (options B and C) would require a significant level of revenue support, and that an additional stop on the existing service would generate a positive business case (option A). SEAC would fund the halt, and any requirement to subsidise an enhanced service would be considered at a later stage. It was accepted that in assessing any subsidy proposal, the relevant public authorities would need to consider the issue of “value for money.” The enhanced service now proposed would be based on extending existing services, and it would therefore incur lower costs than option B.

5.8 SEAC had accepted that the commitments they had provided initially were insufficient. They had now committed: to providing the schedule of works in the statement of commitments, rather than just a fund to cover the capital cost of the works; to producing a prudent business case for a halt and rail service; to considering in detail the rail service options, and undertaking the necessary studies to identify a practical level of service, offering genuine choice; to considering in a consistent manner, and in detail, trip distribution across the Transport Assessment, the Public Transport Strategy and the studies concerning the rail service; to providing a frequent effective bus service, which would be put in place before any houses were occupied, and funding such a service for 10 years if necessary.

5.9 While it was agreed with SEAC that a 15 minute bus service would be provided, there had been no discussions on bus size or capacity. These would take place in due course. The proposal for the bus service would comply with SALP policy SERV5. SE had clearly taken a pragmatic approach on the potential need to assess traffic to the north of the Dutch House Roundabout. The necessary works on this section of the A77 (dualling of the carriageway, upgrading to motorway, and introducing grade separated junctions) were all either completed or in hand. There would therefore be little SEAC could do in the way of further measures. The primary mode of transport for the proposal would remain the car, and that would have an impact on Ayr town centre. Early provision of the park and ride facility would help set beneficial travel patterns from an early date. However, if traffic continued to grow, road based solutions would become less effective, and that would increase in general terms the importance of providing a rail service. While clearly a substantial amount of work still

SALP6 6.36 SEA

required to be undertaken on the transport elements of the proposal, there was sufficient information to conclude that SEA could be supported by a sustainable transport package. However, without the halt and rail service, the proposed transport interchange would be less attractive.

5.10 M&M‟s work on the feasibility of a new halt underestimated the size of the future residential population, took very little account of the trips that would be generated by the hospitals and the proposed business park, and no account of the potential to link the various components of SEA by a frequent bus service going to the transport interchange. M&M‟s view that a 30 minute train service was not sustainable highlighted the lack of objectivity in their evidence. Both Strathclyde Passenger Transport and SE supported SAC‟s position.

5.11 The process carried out by SAC when considering the potential sites for strategic greenfield release had been the correct one. It comprised: identifying all relevant considerations; assessing each site against them; attaching weight to them; and then forming a planning judgement on each site‟s suitability. Once this analysis had been carried out, a planning judgement could be made on which site(s) should be allocated. One of the relevant considerations for the Corton phase was the site‟s potential to provide for future long term development. A number of assessments had been carried out, including at the CDSALP stage, when a wide range of possible sites were investigated on the edge of Ayr, Prestwick, and Troon. The analysis carried out in the August 2003 report was based on the Corton phase being allocated in SALP and the remainder of SEA being safeguarded for future development. The particular merits of SEA meant that its allocation would not set a precedent for further development at other locations to the east of the A77. The catchment area for the new primary school proposed would probably be SEA itself. St John‟s Primary School, within Ayr, would also potentially serve the development. Belmont Academy and Queen Margaret Academy would be the secondary schools serving SEA.

5.12 SEAC‟s criticism of SAC‟s comparative assessment softened as the inquiry progressed. SAC indicated, amongst other things: that the comparative assessment undertaken in early and mid 2001 identified the appropriate relevant considerations; that it took account of ASP policy G8; and that it paid particular attention to the comprehensive submissions of each developer. No weight should be attached to SEAC‟s alternative assessment of the strategic sites. Their assessment was inappropriate and over simplistic. It failed to weight the criteria so that their importance in planning terms could be gauged, and many of the entries recorded were factually inaccurate. In updating their assessment of SEA against ASP policy G8, SAC had concluded that further progress was required on sustainable transport and landscape issues. However, they still believed that SEA had very significant attributes, ie strong physical boundaries, some existing development, and the opportunity to use the railway to achieve a sustainable transport solution. SAC considered that the merits of developing SEA outweighed those of designating any part of it as green belt. A decision on whether a formal environmental assessment would be required could be taken at a later stage in the master planning process.

5.13 It would be inappropriate to include SEA within the settlement boundary of Ayr because it would make it difficult for SAC to avoid granting planning permission to proposals coming forward. There would also be no strategic “trigger” in place controlling the development of SEA, and a large area of countryside would be included in Ayr. This would be inconsistent with national policy. The Rural Protection Area designation would provide protection against inappropriate development in SEA, without signalling a long term

SALP6 6.37 SEA

presumption against development that a green belt allocation would imply. In relation to the hospitals on site, any planning application that NHS Ayrshire and Arran submitted would be assessed against strategic policy STRAT3; in appropriate circumstances, the criteria in the policy could be interpreted favourably (notably criteria [a] and [e]). In SAC‟s view, NHS Ayrshire and Arran should be involved in the preparation of the masterplan.

5.14 Regarding SALP policies STRAT5 and SERV1, it was not SAC‟s function to take an active role in the securing and implementation of developments. SAC encouraged development in accordance with the development plan‟s strategy, and SEAC‟s proposed modifications were inappropriate and unnecessary.

5.15 The objections advanced were not of sufficient weight to justify any alterations to SALP. The identification of SEA under SALP policy STRAT6 allowed for a co-ordinated, sustainable approach towards longer term development within South Ayrshire. The proposal was of a scale which enabled the full range of consequential infrastructure requirements to be properly addressed.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 On a preliminary matter, M&M raised concerns about whether safeguarding/ allocating land at SEA would conform to ASP. Although that does not identify individual sites for housing, it provides general locational guidance and, through ASP policy ADS2, promotes Ayr, Prestwick and Troon as one of the primary locations for major developments. ASP makes no specific reference to the breaching of the A77 but, given that SEA lies on the edge of Ayr, albeit on the eastern side of the A77, we are satisfied that it would meet the locational requirements of ASP. Bearing in mind our conclusions and recommendations in chapter 3.1 (paragraph 6.2 below), it seems to us that an allocation at SEA could be justified if it is found to be a suitable site. Balancing the uncertainty over the future housing land requirement against the terms of ASP policy L1 and SPP3 (on the 5 year land supply), it also seems reasonable to us for SAC to have considered the safeguarding of SEA. This is particularly so given the context provided by CDASP, which highlights land to the south and east of Ayr as a broad location for housing. Furthermore, SAC only propose that the land that they have safeguarded at SEA be brought forward if CDASP triggers a requirement for additional housing. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the safeguarding/allocation of land at SEA could conform to ASP. The relocation of the strategic industrial site within SEA (from Cockhill to Corton) would not undermine the intention behind ASP policy W1. Provided that the retail/leisure facilities proposed were designed as an integral part of a mixed use development and were broadly of the scale required to serve SEA, we do not believe that any conflict with ASP policies L8 and L9 would be sufficient on its own to prevent the safeguarding/allocation of SEA.

6.2 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it

SALP6 6.38 SEA

will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

6.3 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). The proposed development is closely linked to the delivery of significant improvements in transport infrastructure, including the provision of a rail halt and service. For the reasons set out below, it is not clear to us that these improvements are sufficiently certain of delivery to allow the site to be classified as effective. This remains the case even taking into account the agreed position statements submitted by SEAC and SAC at the start of the second session of this part of the inquiry. In the circumstances, we believe that the timescales put forward by SEAC and SAC for the delivery of the first houses are overly optimistic. While M&M‟s approach could equally be regarded as unduly pessimistic, we are uncertain when the site could be expected to contribute to the housing land supply. Indeed, we believe that in order to achieve a properly co-ordinated approach to land use and transportation at SEA, it may not be possible for the area to deliver any houses within the medium term.

6.4 SEA lies in the countryside. Following the changes made to SALP in March 2004, the Corton phase of SEA was allocated green belt, but this was changed to a Rural Protection Area designation in the further changes made in July 2004. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, SEA is identified as being within the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area, and as being bound by the Lowland River Valleys Landscape Character Area. SEA is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above). In this case, there are no issues of coalescence with other settlements. We do not consider that any allocation would be undermined by the physical or visual coalescence that would occur with the existing developments on site and in the immediate vicinity.

6.5 The A77, and planting on either side of the road, provide strong visual features and establish a clear definition of this part of Ayr‟s eastern physical boundary. The western edge of SEA therefore contributes to maintaining Ayr‟s identity. The proposal would result in this clearly defined edge between the countryside and built-up area being breached and we have inevitable and serious concerns about that. We accept that a main road, such as the A713, supported by appropriate planting, could provide an acceptably defensible boundary for Ayr and any development at SEA. However, we have doubts about the long, southern boundary of SEA, which comprises the minor Corton Road and an insubstantial tree belt at Cockhill. That would provide an identifiable but rather fragile boundary for a development of this scale; and the indicative masterplan does not indicate that it would be significantly strengthened. The result would be a much weaker boundary than that which currently exists at the limit of the built up area (A77). The land to the south of SEA is proposed green belt in SALP and, as matters stand, we are not satisfied that the boundary proposed at Corton Road would be defensible or that it would serve to maintain the identity of Ayr.

6.6 While the site does not appear to be used for formal countryside recreation, we note that there is an equestrian centre on its southern boundary, and that it contributes positively to the countryside at this location for people using the A77 and local roads, and those living nearby. Although it is not entirely clear what the implications for the equestrian centre would

SALP6 6.39 SEA

be if the development were to proceed, we are satisfied that its presence would not justify rejecting an allocation for a mixed use development.

6.7 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on its findings as they relate to the “vulnerability”, “merit”, “contribution” and “sensitivity” of the surveyed parcels that make up the site. Although there are 3 hospitals within it, and to the north east lies Mosshill Industrial Estate, SEA is an attractive, undulating, rural landscape. Parts of the eastern and northern areas are contained by tree belts while the western area is more open. A large area at Cockhill has been allocated for industrial use in the local plan for some considerable time, but no development has taken place there, and features such as the telecommunications masts do not detract significantly from the appearance of the countryside. The site can be seen from points in Ayr, from the A77, and from other roads. In the longer views, the site contributes to the clear division between town and country, and contrasts sharply with the built up area lying to the west of the A77. While we recognise that SEA may not be as sensitive as some locations, we are in no doubt that it is important in terms of the significant contribution that it makes to the landscape setting of Ayr, along with other land on the eastern side of the A77.

6.8 Parts of SEA, particularly at Alton, Cockhill and Corton, are highly prominent in the landscape. Although the indicative masterplan indicates that there would be extensive development throughout SEA, this is not reflected in the proposals as they were described by SEAC for each phase. However, SEA would represent a significant extension to Ayr on the eastern side of the A77, and would radically alter the existing urban form. It would be likely to result in the current clear edge between town and country becoming blurred. As such, it could well lead to pressure for further development in other areas to the east of the A77, and make such pressure more difficult to resist. The proposed development would be visible in important local and more distant views, and its likely prominence should not be underestimated, particularly if areas such as Alton are to be developed. The large buildings already on site, and their associated elements, would not be sufficient to offset the likely impact of a development of the scale envisaged. The evidence on the landscape capacity of the site is not entirely clear or satisfactory, and we have some doubts about whether the proposal could be satisfactorily accommodated in the landscape. We note that the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area generally presumes against large scale built development, but we accept that this would be insufficient in itself to prevent an allocation in SALP if other more significant factors outweigh this constraint. However, we consider it essential that the capacity of the landscape to absorb development be established at an early stage in order that the rail proposal and the associated rail studies can be properly informed on the potential scale of development that could be reasonably accommodated at this location. We acknowledge that there is an existing landscape framework in place on parts of SEA, but it has not been demonstrated that this could be developed to provide an appropriate landscape framework and mitigation measures for the whole of SEA, sufficient to offset the breach of the A77. The indicative masterplan is not an appropriate proposal. As we have concerns about landscape fit and integration with the existing built up area of Ayr, we do not consider that the proposal at present is consistent with the thrust of PAN44 or SPP3. Overall, we believe that the proposal would be likely to have a materially adverse effect on the landscape setting of Ayr and the local area, and on landscape character.

6.9 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles (A-K) which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 2.1 above). We find that G does not apply, and

SALP6 6.40 SEA

that all relevant matters in I are dealt with above. In relation to A, SEA is a mixed use proposal which offers opportunities for economic development (industrial and commercial), the provision of community facilities, transport infrastructure development, and the future growth of Ayr (2500-3000 houses). The provision of new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the nature and scale of the proposal would be such that it could give rise to significant community benefit. On B, the site is greenfield and would therefore not make efficient use of vacant and derelict land. Regarding C, the development would require the extension of the existing service infrastructure (electricity, water, gas and sewerage). There is no evidence to indicate that, in themselves, the costs of providing these services would be prohibitive. A new primary school would be required at SEA and provision has been made for that. The indications are that other primary and secondary schools in Ayr could expand to accommodate the proposal. School capacity would not therefore, appear to be an insurmountable obstacle to the development. Turning to D, although we accept that this general principle is unlikely to be a determining factor in deciding whether a site is suitable for development, we note that, in the main, SEA is not prime quality agricultural land. Nothing was brought to our attention to indicate that it is of overwhelming importance in a local context.

6.10 In relation to E and F, the major advantage of this proposal over others (Greenan, NET and Holmston) arises from the railway line crossing SEA and the prospect of providing a rail halt and train service. We consider that these are essential elements of the proposal, which should be embedded in the masterplan from the outset. As such, at this stage, we believe that the provision of a rail halt and train service should be a requirement of SEA proceeding. It should be delivered prior to travel patterns generated from the proposed mix of developments at the site becoming established. The outline feasibility study demonstrates that option 1 for the location of the halt, while constrained, would merit further investigation. However, in the new station flow chart in the Strategic Rail Authority‟s, New Stations: A Guide for Promoters, the proposal is to be found only towards the end of stage 2 out of 6 stages. The outline business case suggests that a positive case could be made for the existing diesel service (option A), but that neither the diesel shuttle service (option B) nor electrification (option C) would be viable. We note that these studies are dependent on a range of assumptions, and we are in no doubt that much further work is required before their conclusions can be considered to be a completely sound basis on which to proceed. SAC‟s suggestion of augmenting the existing diesel service (an enhanced option A) has yet to be investigated. Option A is based on a limited train service, and would not offer a genuine choice of travel. Option C involves a more extensive train service, and would provide a genuine choice. Although the Local Transport Strategy supports a rail link between Ayr Hospital (SEA) and Ayr, option C (and option B) would require public subsidy, and would therefore be competing with other promoted schemes for limited funds within a Scottish context. In these circumstances, the options represent a ladder of expectation, and we recognise that there is no escape from starting at the first rung. In the meantime, a much firmer view needs to be reached on what would be required to deliver option C, or similar, and the likelihood of it being successfully implemented within a reasonable timescale. We do not consider the proposed 15 minute “turn up and go” bus service to be a realistic medium or long term substitute for the rail service as envisaged. If eventually, it were to emerge that there was no realistic prospect of implementing option C, or something similar, we believe that SAC would need to reassess SEA in the light of all the prevailing circumstances including any alternative, possibly more suitable, locations that may then exist.

SALP6 6.41 SEA

6.11 Irrespective of the delivery of an appropriate train service, we recognise that the private car would remain the predominant mode of travel in SEA, and that suitable provision for walking, cycling and public transport would change the modal split only at the margin. It is within this context that we note the improvements proposed (and required) to the A77. We are not persuaded that there are any insurmountable obstacles, including land ownership, which would be likely to prevent the works being implemented in due course. We note that SEAC are now committed to providing the schedule of works listed in the Statement of Commitment as opposed to providing a limited fund. However, we still have concerns because the estimates provided by SEAC do not take full account of the additional, abnormal costs that would be likely to be involved in implementing the improvements, in particular those relating to upgrading a part of the A77 to dual carriageway standard (for example, embankment and bridging costs). Such abnormal costs could have potential implications for the delivery of an appropriate transportation package. In addition, we are concerned at the reliance that the indicative masterplan places on the A77 for short local journeys between Corton, where the majority of facilities would be located, and other phases of SEA. The internal links would be restricted to pedestrians, cyclists and bus services (via Corton Road). We believe this to be inadequate and inconsistent with the aim of current and emerging national guidance, and we consider that an internal road link should be provided between Corton and the other phases. In coming to this view, we have taken into account that a proposal of this scale would inevitably have varying levels of accessibility, particularly for pedestrians, to the various facilities that would be provided. We are also not persuaded that the cycle and pedestrian links proposed (including the 2 footbridges) would properly integrate SEA with Ayr because of the need to cross the A77. The conflict over trip distribution between SAC and SEAC only serves to increase our concerns about the proposal. These are not reduced by the fact that we do not agree with M&M‟s views on traffic levels and distribution to the north of the Dutch House Roundabout.

6.12 More generally, in terms of the thrust of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17, we recognise that SEA has the potential to offer a “step change” in public transport provision (paragraph 6.10 above). However, we are not persuaded that there is a firm enough view on what would be required to deliver such a change and whether it would be achievable. We are not satisfied that general principles E and F have been sufficiently addressed. In general, developments proposed for greenfield locations on the edge of settlements would be unlikely to avoid increases in, or reduce, the need to travel, particularly by car, but we have particular concerns about what is proposed for SEA (paragraph 6.11 above). We consider that SEA does not meet the thrust of general principle E. We accept that from early on in its development SEA would be reasonably well related to public transport routes through the bus services proposed. While to this extent, general principle F could be regarded as satisfied, we are not persuaded that even a high frequency bus services would amount to the “step change” in public transport provision which would justify the proposed breach of the A77, or that they would significantly help to justify any allocation for development at this location.

6.13 There is nothing under general principle H which would be likely to undermine the allocation sought by SEAC. For J, it is obvious that issues of tidal inundation and coastal erosion do not apply to this site. There is little in the evidence to suggest that ground instability represents a significant problem for the proposal. There is an issue of flooding connected to the Slaphouse Burn, but we acknowledge that this has been assessed, and that measures could probably be put in place to overcome any problem. In relation to general principle K, a well designed scheme would be unlikely to result in any unreasonable adverse effects on land, air or water quality. Taking into account all of the above, we accept that

SALP6 6.42 SEA

certain benefits could flow from SEA. However, at this stage, we consider that there is an underlying conflict with ASP‟s strategy and the general principles contained in ASP policy G8 which must be resolved before SEA can progress further.

6.14 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield nature of SEA and its location means that it serves to control the growth of the built up area and complements the process of urban renewal. It also serves to preserve the character of Ayr. While we consider that SEA has a strong green belt role, we acknowledge that there may be other overriding reasons for not allocating it as such.

6.15 CDASP sets out 9 criteria for new housing releases. SEA would be on the edge of the Core Town of Ayr, and it would be reasonably accessible to the other 2 core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area, and Ayr is a focus for public transport networks. SEA would help to maintain and improve existing community services and facilities, and it would provide additional housing choice. We acknowledge that at SEA there would be opportunities for improved public transport links. However, as outlined above, we are not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that SEA has the potential to unlock appropriate new infrastructure investment through the introduction of transportation measures which offer a realistic prospect of a genuine choice of travel. In addition, we are not persuaded that SEA respects the character and setting of the community through good design or that the limitations on environmental capacity have been wholly recognised. Although SEA would be in line with economic development priorities, it could not be regarded as a catalyst for regeneration and renewal. Overall, we accept that CDASP is generally supportive of development at SEA, but we do not consider that the proposal, as yet, meets the underlying thrust of the criteria for new housing releases, and this has an undermining effect.

6.16 We have carefully considered the terms of the comparative assessments carried out by SAC of SEA, NET and Greenan, and believe that a reasonable process was followed which sought to compare the sites on a consistent basis. While there are other approaches which would be equally suitable, we are satisfied that SAC‟s approach is reasonably based on ASP policy G8, expanded to take into account a number of additional factors from ASP‟s strategy. We agree with SAC that SEAC‟s categorisation of the strategic sites as “preferred”, “satisfied”, and “failed”, is overly simplistic. SEAC have also not used the most up to date information in assessing the other strategic sites. Overall, we do not consider the assessment to be an objective one. In the circumstances, it does not attract significant weight. In any event, based on the evidence before the inquiry as a whole, we do not accept that SEA warrants the status of “preferred” site. These findings also apply to the further assessment carried out by SEAC based only on ASP policy G8.

6.17 We see no basis at this stage for altering SALP’s policies to accommodate, with greater certainty, development at SEA. In the event that SEA does come forward, we believe that there would be benefit in adjusting the industrial and retail policies in SALP to allow for these elements of the proposal. However, we are not persuaded that the other changes proposed by SEAC would be necessary or helpful. We do not accept that SEA or the Corton phase should be included within the settlement boundary of Ayr because it has not yet been demonstrated that they would be appropriate areas to develop. We consider that a Rural Protection Area allocation at SEA, rather than a green belt one, is appropriate because this

SALP6 6.43 SEA

would adequately control unsuitable development, while recognising that an appropriate case could be made out for development in the future. If, in time, SEA were to prove unsuitable for development, the Rural Protection Area designation should be reviewed. The Rural Protection Area allocation would be unlikely to inhibit the reasonable development aspirations for the hospitals on site, as SALP strategic policy STRAT3 provides sufficient flexibility. We do not accept that SAC should be required to approve the indicative masterplan within 3 months of receiving the recommendations contained in our report. We fully support the request by NHS Ayrshire and Arran to be involved in the masterplanning process for SEA, but it would be inappropriate to make it an explicit requirement in SALP.

6.18 SALP proposes (strategic policy IND3) that 30ha of land be safeguarded and promoted for industrial and business purposes at Cockhill in order, as SAC have interpreted it, to reflect ASP policy W1. On this matter, we note that the evidence on the supply and take up of industrial land provided by SAC (at other sessions of the inquiry) was fragmentary and incomplete. This has confirmed us in the view, expressed elsewhere in the report, that SAC should undertake the systematic collection of up to date quantitative information on the nature, quality and location of the supply of industrial land in South Ayrshire, and that should be accompanied by an analysis of the rate of take up. This exercise is particularly necessary given our view that the evidence presented at the inquiry as a whole points towards the existence of an over supply of industrial land. Within the context of this exercise, SAC should review (and potentially reduce) the size and location of the industry and business site proposed at SEA under strategic policy IND3. If SAC decide that the site at SEA should be retained in the same location and at the same size, it further undermines their claim that all of the industrial and business land allocated elsewhere in South Ayrshire, in particular, at Ayr and Prestwick, should be retained.

6.19 In conclusion, we do not consider that the sustainable transport measures put forward are sufficiently well advanced to offset the disadvantages of breaching the A77 and developing SEA. At this stage, we consider that the proposal does not conform to ASP and that it is inconsistent with the thrust of national guidance and advice, and elements of CDASP. We do not believe that there should be any commitment in SALP to development at SEA until it has been shown that there is a realistic prospect of implementing option C, or something similar. In these circumstances, we are not satisfied that SEA would be likely to be in a position to deliver houses or any other development within the SALP period. We therefore do not consider that SEA should be safeguarded for development in SALP under policy STRAT6, or that the Corton phase should be allocated under policy H3B. If, eventually, it transpires that there is no realistic prospect of implementing the “step change” in public transport provision, then we believe that SAC would need to reassess the suitability of SEA for development.

6.20 While we recognise that the delivery of the rail service is not SEAC‟s responsibility, it is integral to achieving a sustainable transport solution at SEA. It involves several parties, including public authorities. Given this, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to pursue this matter at the strategic level in the first instance through a commitment in the emerging ASP, rather than pursuing the development itself through SALP. A co-ordinated view is required which delivers the necessary elements of the overall proposal in partnership. While we do not consider that there should be a policy commitment to SEA in SALP, given its complexities and the long lead in time to development commencing, we believe that it would be helpful if SALP refers to SEA in the text. In particular, it should highlight SEA as a location for future development currently being considered by SAC, subject to a

SALP6 6.44 SEA

requirement for additional greenfield housing land being identified and the provision of a sustainable transport solution, incorporating the provision of a rail halt and a realistic prospect of implementing an appropriate train service, offering a genuine choice of travel.

6.21 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the potential benefits of the transport interchange proposed by SEAC, and the possibility that the hospital might not be a significant generator of rail passengers, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that policy STRAT6 be deleted from SALP, as changed;

(ii) that the text accompanying policy STRAT6, as changed, be deleted and replaced by the following:

“Possible Longer Term Strategic Growth Area

South Ayrshire generally, and Ayr, Prestwick and Troon in particular, have benefited from a long standing commitment from SAC to encourage development on brownfield land rather than on greenfield sites in the countryside. Whilst this will continue to be the priority, SAC recognise that there may be a requirement for additional housing to be accommodated on greenfield land. The housing strategy of SALP provides sufficient land to meet the requirements of the SALP period. However, in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy 3, Planning for Housing, SAC believe that there would be benefit in providing some guidance on the location they are currently considering as a possible longer term strategic growth area, should a requirement be identified through the structure plan process.

The site is at South East Ayr and extends to some 224 hectares. A passenger and freight railway line runs through the site. This presents an opportunity to provide for a sustainable transport solution centred on a rail halt and a passenger train service which offers a genuine choice of travel. The need to provide the halt and an appropriate train service within a reasonable timescale raises complex strategic issues and requires a co-ordinated, partnership based approach involving many parties. SAC are committed to playing their role, and to co- operating with others, in seeking the delivery of the halt and train service. Given the fact that matters are at an early stage, SAC expect that there would be a long lead in time before any works could commence on site. It is therefore unlikely that any development would take place in the SALP period. SAC intend to work closely with others in investigating the prospects of bringing this site forward for development in due course, subject to a housing requirement being identified in the structure plan process and an appropriate resolution of the rail issues.” ;

(iii) that the size and location of the site safeguarded and promoted for industrial and business purposes at Cockhill under strategic policy IND3 be reviewed; and

(iv) that no other amendment be made to SALP, as changed, in respect of these objections.

SALP6 6.45 SEA

6.3 GREENAN

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 19, 343, 344, 364, 365, 474, 490 and 491 M&M SEAC (+ Written submissions)

Objecting to: Policy H2B The Wildlife Strategy and associated environmental policies Strategic policy ENV8 Policy ENV13 Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The objection site is situated in countryside on the southern edge of Ayr, some 3km from the town centre. It is bound to the east by housing, including an affordable housing development which is under construction at Longhill Farm. Some planting has been undertaken along the western boundary of this housing, and its northernmost edge is separated from the coast by a field. The objection site is bound to the south by the A719 (Dunure Road) and, on the opposite side of the road, is the suburban residential area of Burton. It is bound to the west by a farm track (Greenan Avenue), and this edge of the site is contained by a strip of mature planting. On the opposite side of the track, there are fields and Greenan House (a large vacant property which has been sold to a private purchaser by SAC). Beyond these fields, there is Craig Tara Holiday Park. The land generally rises up to the west towards the Brown Carrick Hills from which there is a clear view over to the Heads of Ayr at the coast. The site‟s northern boundary is not marked by any physical feature, but would form a continuation of the edge of the existing housing to the east. Beyond this, there are fields, the site of the former Greenan Farm Steading, and a continuation of the farm track all rising towards the cliff headland, where the remains of Greenan Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, are located.

1.2 The Maidens to Doonfoot Site of Special Scientific Interest lies on the coast to the north of Greenan. It has been designated for geological and biological reasons. There are also wildlife and ornithological interests in the area. Part of the National Cycle Route is routed along the farm track to the west and north of the site, and this connects the A719 to Ayr Esplanade. Planning permission has been granted for a golf course on the fields to the west and north of the site.

1.3 The objection site extends to around 35ha, and is roughly rectangular in shape. It comprises fields which, in general terms, rise gently from the north eastern part of the site in a southerly and westerly direction. The majority of the site is classified as grade 2 quality agricultural land, with the remainder being grade 3.1. There is vehicular access to the fields from the A719. To the north of the site, further into the built up area, the A719 passes over the narrow Doonholm Bridge.

SALP6 6.46 Greenan

1.4 Housing is proposed on site. The revised indicative masterplan prepared by M&M shows 3 densities of housing development, with the highest density (38 houses per ha) being adjacent to the existing housing, and the lowest density (13-14 houses per ha) being in the north western part of the site. The medium density housing (16-18 houses per ha) would stretch from the north eastern corner across the site, to the south western corner. Part of the high density housing area at the south eastern corner of the site would be reserved for affordable housing. Provision would be made for a local park, neighbourhood parks, a playing field, and a community facility. Some additional planting is indicated along the site‟s western boundary, by the track. Vehicular access would be taken from the A719, where a new gateway to Ayr is proposed. The track would be retained as a footpath and cycleway. The area to the north and west of the site, leading up to the ruins of Greenan Castle, is shown as a golf course, and Greenan House and its environs are shown as a holiday village. The field between the existing houses and the coast is highlighted as a possible ecological park. The proposal is supported by a Transportation Assessment.

1.5 The Draft Preliminary South Ayr Structure Plan (published in October 1971) accepted the need for an extension of the Burgh boundary to the south of Ayr to meet the requirements in the private housing sector. The plan indicates a large scale housing development, the westernmost part of which extends into the eastern part of the objection site, and along the southern and western boundaries. The balance of the site is shown as open space, playing fields and retained trees. A community centre is highlighted on the former Greenan Farm Steading. These proposals were not carried through into the subsequent development plan. They have not been reflected in ASP, and the Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan (adopted in 1989) shows the site as being outwith the settlement boundary. In the adopted local plan, the northern part of the site is covered by policy ENV8, which seeks to protect listed wildlife sites, and the southern part by policy ENV15, which seeks to protect agricultural land. In addition to these provisions, policy H(POL)2 seeks to prevent further housing development on the periphery of the urban area.

1.6 CDSALP (published in 1999) indicated that ASP would set out the housing requirements to be met and the basic structure within which SALP would operate. It explained that a larger site, which could be developed in phases, offered the most satisfactory solution in terms of meeting the overall need for housing and SALP‟s overall objectives. CDSALP set out 4 reasons why the search for the site should be concentrated in and around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon: development pressure; marketability; sustainability; and the provision of affordable housing. The site selection process involved 3 stages. The first was to identify the criteria against which the sites would be assessed. The second was to identify the sites and to carry out an assessment using the 10 criteria established by SAC. The third involved consultation with basic utility service providers in order to identify significant development constraints. The process resulted in 3 sites being short listed: NET, SEA and Greenan. CDSALP outlined the relative merits of each of the 3 sites, listing their positive and negative features.

1.7 In relation to Greenan, the positive features were given as: sustainable urban boundary; within the A77 by pass line; physical links to existing development; bus service in the locality; few infrastructure constraints; developer interest; and beneficial in assisting golf course development. The negative features were: prime quality agricultural land; significant landscape intrusion; part is a wildlife site; adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest; adjacent to a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Greenan Castle); limitation on primary school capacity; inaccessibility to local facilities; rail services very unlikely; land

SALP6 6.47 Greenan

of green belt quality; very poor strategic road access; and building rates historically slow in locality. The capacity of the site was identified as around 480 houses. While the site was seen as a logical southern extension of Ayr, there were concerns about the open coastal location and whether the necessary building rate required to meet the identified demand would be achieved. If the building rate did not satisfy demand, more greenfield land would need to be allocated.

1.8 CDSALP indicated that a key factor was the need for any new development to be as sustainable as possible. Impact on the environment, the containment of new development, the availability of local services, and the opportunities to use a variety of modes of transport were therefore vitally significant considerations. A further factor of key importance was the need to ensure that the allocated site provided the necessary numbers of houses and a choice of housing, including affordable housing. The infrastructure investment requirements were considered to be such that allocating only a part of each site was not considered a realistic option. The final site chosen would be the subject of a development brief which would cover issues of landscape, open space, general design/layout, infrastructure, services, community facilities, affordable/social rented housing needs, and transport links to the wider urban area.

1.9 In December 2000, M&M lodged an outline planning application for residential development, community facilities, landscaping and ancillary developments at Greenan. Objections were received to this proposal. The planning application lay undetermined until February 2004, when M&M appealed a “deemed refusal of planning permission” to SE. The appeal is currently sisted.

1.10 The public response to CDSALP included a number of alternative sites for meeting the longer term housing requirement. However, SAC concluded that none of the alternatives were of sufficient merit to warrant assessment. SAC undertook a comparative assessment in early and mid 2001 of the 3 sites identified (which is contained in a report prepared in September 2003). The assessment was based on 17 detailed criteria which were grouped under the key statements of strategic intent given in ASP. The assessment concluded that the site would be an extension contiguous to Ayr, and that the necessary physical and social infrastructure could be put in place (assisted by developer contributions). There was concern that the landscape impact of any development could be unacceptable, and that there would be some adverse impact on nature conservation. Accessibility from the A77 was seen as relatively long and tortuous. Attention required to be paid to prospective ameliorative landscaping and highway measures. On the basis that the land already allocated for housing would be developed first, there was doubt over the extent to which the site could readily contribute to meeting the housing requirements of SALP. The assessment identified NET as the most appropriate location for longer term housing development, with SEA as a second choice if required and subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding matters.

1.11 Outline planning permission for a proposed golf course to the north and west of the site was granted to IMG in August 1998. The golf course site is covered by proposal REC(PRO)6 in the adopted local plan, which indicates that the district council would provide a golf course at Greenan by developing the 20ha owned by them, and on the adjacent land on which they have an option (about 45ha). If the project proved not to be feasible, the area was to be retained in agricultural use. M&M submitted an application for reserved matters for the golf course (18 holes) and a tourist village in August 2001. The plans also made provision for a driving range. In March 2005, the Planning Committee, resolved to grant permission, subject to conditions.

SALP6 6.48 Greenan

1.12 SALP (published in 2002) did not propose any development at Greenan. Instead, it showed the site allocated as green belt, included in the Scenic Area, and designated as a Wildlife and Ornithological Site in the Wildlife Strategy. The land to the north and south of the site was covered by SALP policy TOUR4 which, amongst other things, encourages the development of golf facilities. The coast to the north east of the site was allocated for recreation and tourism, and that to the north and west was left as undeveloped. In SAC‟s initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), they indicated that there had been a substantial number of objections lodged to CDSALP which opposed the principle of any further housing at Greenan beyond that already committed and, at the time of publication of SALP, there was nothing to suggest that the strength and depth of local feeling had changed. While it was explained that SAC had preferred NET and SEA to Greenan, it was recognised that Greenan need not necessarily be dismissed as an unacceptable option. It was also indicated that no alternative large scale housing site of comparable quality to NET, SEA and Greenan had been submitted for consideration. With an appropriate level of commitment from the developers, it was acknowledged that Greenan could come forward relatively quickly.

1.13 The subsequent changes made to SALP in 2004 made no provision for allocating Greenan as a housing site. The changes made to SALP in March 2004 included an amendment to the boundary of the wildlife site at Greenan (by omitting the objection site) and reallocating it as a provisional wildlife site. They also proposed that the coast to the north and west of Greenan be allocated as partly developed. The changes in September 2004 show that SAC now consider the original map within the wildlife strategy section of SALP (map STR9) to be correct in terms of wildlife corridors, landscape corridors and designated wildlife sites. In effect, this reverses the change made in March 2004.

1.14 CDASP (published in June 2004) identifies Ayr, Prestwick and Troon as lying within the Core Investment Area. South and east Ayr is identified as a preferred location for up to 8000 houses. CDASP refers to the increasingly high volumes of traffic on the Ayr by pass and other sections of the A77, and explains that if the potential from new development opportunities is to be realised then improvements over these sections of road should continue.

1.15 An outline planning application for the erection of a retail unit on Dunure Road was submitted to SAC in 2004. The site forms a part of the housing development currently under construction. In March 2005, the Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, M&M seek the removal of the green belt, Scenic Area and prime agricultural land designations covering the objection site, and its allocation as a housing site in SALP under policy H2B. Other parties lodged representations indicating that they agreed with SAC‟s view and believed that the site should remain allocated as green belt. M&M‟s objection to the wildlife strategy and the associated wildlife policies is based on the inclusion of the objection site within a designated wildlife site. SEAC believed that SEA is preferable to Greenan.

SALP6 6.49 Greenan

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR M&M

3.1 SALP could not be adopted in its current form because it had not allocated sufficient greenfield land for housing. M&M believed that the objection site at Greenan should be allocated to address the housing shortfall identified. In addition, SAC should start again on the green belt and take into account relevant advice.

3.2 Greenan had been identified as suitable for housing since the 1970s. The decision to include the site in the 1971 structure plan was well founded. Houses had been built in the surrounding area at Doonfoot and Burton, and these had been similarly supported in the earlier structure plan. SAC‟s inclusion of Greenan as a possible development site in CDSALP could not be easily dismissed. The planning application lodged for the development had been with SAC for 3 years, and had been submitted in response to CDSALP and ASP. The history of the site and its surrounding area suggested that Greenan should be released for housing. M&M had first started developing in the area in 1975, and had now built over 250 houses. They were members of the Considerate Constructors Scheme.

3.3 The development equated to an average density of around 13 or 14 houses per ha. However, it was reasonable to assume that Greenan would be built out at a higher density than this, particularly once the affordable housing element was taken into account. A maximum of 520 houses could be accommodated on the site. There would be more than adequate space for landscaping and open space, and for the proposed gateway to Ayr. In addition, provision would be made for: a subsidised bus service, which would also benefit nearby residents; land to protect the Scottish Wildlife site; improvements to roads; the provision of an ecological area, including interpretation facilities for Greenan Castle and the Site of Special Scientific Interest; and a new on site community sports facility (at a cost of £0.9m). With reference to the last, Alloway and Doonfoot Community Council had indicated that there was a shortage of community facilities in the area, and it would not necessarily have to be run by SAC. In addition, the proposal would enable the construction of the adjacent golf course, which was encouraged by the development plan, and it would provide employment opportunities. The shop proposed at Dunure Road would be a local convenience store, and M&M proposed to enter into an agreement with a local retailer. Other benefits of the proposal were outlined in the revised indicative masterplan.

3.4 Greenan was an effective housing site, and there were no known infrastructure constraints. Housing should be the sole preferred land use. Work could commence at the objection site in 2006 with house completions beginning in 2007. It was expected that 30 houses per annum would be built, and that M&M‟s developer partner (Wimpey) could augment that by 45 houses per annum, giving a total of 75 houses per year from 2007 onwards. There would be 225 houses constructed on site by 2010. The site could therefore make a significant contribution to, amongst other things, the housing shortfall to 2010 and beyond. M&M believed that they were in a better position to judge development programmes than SAC. M&M did not accept that they were slow at developing land, and indicated that, in the past 6 years, they had built over 180 houses in South Ayrshire, of which 96 were in this general locality. The objection site would form phase 3 of M&M‟s development at Greenan. M&M were currently building at Ailsa View; and work at Longhill Farm would overlap with that at the objection site. At this early stage, Wimpey‟s involvement in the project had not been confirmed through a formal agreement. No other strategic site in South Ayrshire was as far advanced as the objection site. It was expected that the majority of purchasers would be from the local area.

SALP6 6.50 Greenan

3.5 In relation to landscaping matters, the site was on the boundary of Ayr, it was bound on 2 sides by housing, and there were no strong visual or physical boundary features preventing the extension of the built up area on to the objection site. The scale of the landscape in the area was medium to large, and it had been subject to considerable man made change. The site was some distance from the shoreline above the raised beach area, and the policy issues relating to the latter were, therefore, irrelevant. The site was not a high quality landscape, it had an urban fringe character, and there was built and/or approved development on all sides. Doonfoot and Burton appeared as natural extensions to the urban area when seen in more distant views and the buildings and caravans in the Craig Tara Holiday Park were a strong visual detractor. Although the zone of visual influence indicated that the site could be seen from certain limited locations from within Ayr, from points along the coast, from the A719, and from the south and west, it formed only a small part of these views. Greenan was not significant to the setting of Ayr, and there were considerable opportunities to enhance the approach to the town. The more significant landscape setting for Ayr was the wider one, which included the surrounding hills, the Heads of Ayr, Arran, and the River Clyde. The proposed allocation would round off this part of Ayr, and it would provide a good landscape fit. Any adverse effects the development would have on the landscape or on important views to and from Ayr would be insignificant and even these could be mitigated.

3.6 Development, including earth moving and planting, had been approved adjacent to Greenan Castle, and between that and the objection site. There was existing built development close to the castle, and significant new development at Doonfoot had been approved and built at least as close to it as the objection site. All this had reduced the quality of the wider area as well as the immediate setting of the castle. In any event, the northern part of the objection site was at a lower level than the castle, and there was no intervisibility. The ruins faced out to sea, and they were not on the higher ground to the south from where there would have been views of the site. Because of its dangerous condition, there was no public footpath leading to the castle. Historic Scotland was not objectors to the possible allocation of Greenan for housing; its allocation for housing would have no noticeable effect on the amenity or setting of the ruins of Greenan Castle which would be protected.

3.7 The green belt boundary proposed in SALP was adjacent to existing housing and comprised a post and wire fence, together with limited planting. Such a boundary would leave the objection site under threat and a target for development. If the green belt boundary was moved to the western edge of the objection site, it would comprise a 10m planting strip, existing mature trees and hedgerows, a national cycleway and a walkway, SAC owned land which is approved for a golf course, and Greenan House. The green belt boundary proposed by M&M was more logical, more defensible, and more easily understood than the one put forward by SAC. It would be long term and entirely consistent with SDD Circular 24/1985. The golf course was not a necessary element of the green belt boundary although, if constructed, it would help to reinforce it. M&M believed that considerable advantages would flow from a housing allocation in terms of both the landscape and green belt. The green belt study was fatally flawed. Thus, for instance, there were inconsistencies in the scores given to the objection site (parcels 48 and 49) in the merits and vulnerability tables, and further inconsistencies were identified once the results of the parcel contribution to green belt objectives survey were taken into account. One of the survey forms identified the objection site as a possible housing release site. There was no justification for designating the site as “high sensitivity” or for including it in the proposed green belt.

SALP6 6.51 Greenan

3.8 M&M‟s evidence demonstrated that all the relevant ecological issues had been appropriately addressed. The proposal would ensure the protection and management of the most valuable habitats. The ecological value of the site attached to the field boundaries. The site itself, and the land for the golf course, had low habitat diversity, and its overall ecological value was low. The golf course and the domestic gardens proposed could have a favourable ecological impact, and biodiversity would be promoted by the possible ecological park. The proposal was consistent with ASP, SALP, NPPG14, PAN60 and the Ayrshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan. There would be no adverse effect on designated sites. SNH, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds supported the proposals in principle. SAC‟s aim to reinstate the designation of the wildlife site as given in SALP (2002) was inappropriate. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, like the Scottish Wildlife Trust, did not designate the objection site as a wildlife site. Site 39 of the Schedule of Ornithological Sites identified coastal habitats but it did not include the objection site. The wildlife identified would not frequent the objection site. SAC‟s position was unfounded, and it was based on anecdotal advice that they had received in 1997 and 1999.

3.9 Neither the Local Roads Authority nor the Strategic Roads Authority had objected to the proposal. The site had a long frontage (550m), and it could be safely accessed from a roundabout. Works could take place within the site to level out the A719, and to form a second access priority junction. The principle of extending the existing 30mph speed limit had already been agreed at officer level with SAC. Any impact on the A77 would be insignificant, and below the threshold required for a transportation assessment. In particular, there would be a negligible traffic impact on the key A77 junction at Whitletts Roundabout. M&M would consider improving pedestrian and vehicular safety at Doonholm Bridge by increasing the width of the currently substandard footpath and introducing a “shuttle working” traffic signal system. M&M would also be prepared to liaise with SAC over a “route action plan” for the A719, which would include examining “soft” accident prevention measures, along with road improvements northwards from Earls Way Roundabout for a short distance. A shop to the south of the river would reduce the number of pedestrians needing to cross the narrow bridge over the River Doon. The development could be accommodated on the local road network (A719) through the traffic signalling improvements (Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) proposed in the Transport Assessment.

3.10 The objection site would provide excellent pedestrian and cycle accessibility with a safe, flat route direct to the town centre and the foreshore, and access to the countryside nearby. The adjacent National Cycle Route could be rerouted to run through the site. There would be good public transport links from the site by bus. The A9 bus service would be routed through the site (from Abbots Way), and would be enhanced (through subsidy over a 10 year period) to a 20 or 15 minute frequency. In addition, the X77 bus service would be rerouted to commence from within the objection site (for a trial period), and it would provide a direct express link to the rail station in Ayr and to Glasgow. These improvements would also benefit the residents of the wider area. The recommended distances for new housing from high frequency bus services (50% of housing to be within 400m and 80% within 800m of 15 minute frequency services) would be met. There were 2 other bus services which passed along the A719. The proposal was either consistent with, or supported by, ASP, SALP, NPPG17, PAN57 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

3.11 The proposal was in accord with SPP1, SPP3, and 8 of the criteria in ASP policy G8, and it was not undermined by ASP policies G2 or G7, or NPPG13. The site‟s allocation would ensure an adequate supply of housing land and result in a residential development of

SALP6 6.52 Greenan

quality in the right place. A range and choice of houses could be provided; and M&M would comply with any affordable housing requirements of SALP. The revised indicative masterplan showed good connections to, and integration with, the existing settlement. It could provide a template for developing the site. No burden would be placed on public finances.

3.12 The golf course had outline planning permission, and SALP had allocated the land as policy TOUR4 thereby encouraging its development. M&M would make £2m available to allow the golf course, which had been promoted for years, to proceed. Experts in the field had estimated that the course and an associated floodlit driving range could be constructed for £1.5m, and the balance would be available for a club house and future maintenance. The contract would be on the basis of a “fixed price turn key.” Open to all on a “pay and play” basis, the course would be self supporting and an operator (Tyton Design) had already expressed a strong interest in managing or leasing the completed project. The course would be constructed to standards that would ensure that it could be open all year round. While it would be better if the housing and the golf course could be constructed side by side at the same time, one was not an absolute pre-requisite of the other. The disposal of Greenan House to a third party would make no difference to the implementation of the golf course.

3.13 In a general sense, SALP could help secure M&M‟s proposals by suitably worded text. At the planning application stage, all aspects of the proposal could be easily secured by a mixture of conditions and a section 75 Agreement. Indeed, M&M would be willing to enter into a section 75 Agreement now, and this could include provision for the funding of the golf course. Any suggestions of “ransom” or “best value” were unfounded in law and, in any event, were not an issue for the inquiry.

3.14 M&M criticised the comparative assessment of Greenan, NET and SEA undertaken by SAC. In particular, it was pointed out that SAC acknowledged that the site had the potential to be developed for housing. In relation to the Scenic Area, SNH did not consider the site to lie within the Sensitive Landscape Area or Scenic Area in their consultation response to M&M‟s planning application. The Heads of Ayr and the Brown Carrick Hills were the areas of particular landscape quality closest to the southern part of Ayr. At most, the objection site would play a role in the setting of these 2 areas. Landscape character tended to be a gradual transition from one character to another, rather than being based on well defined boundaries. Extending the Scenic Area boundary up to the existing urban edge at Greenan, and including Craig Tara, could not therefore be justified. In any event, the development on this site would not result in a significant adverse effect. CDASP proposed the removal of the Scenic Area policies. SALP‟s indicative coastal strategy supported elements of M&M‟s proposals at Greenan. Existing development already affected the coast and views from it; and M&M appreciated that these were valuable resources. The objection site was not a part of the coast because of the limited intervisibility; and the effects of the proposal on it would be minimal.

3.15 The educational issue focussed on Doonfoot Primary School and Belmont Secondary School. No land was required on the objection site for a new primary school. Doonfoot Primary School had a nursery section, and its capacity had recently changed. Belmont Academy was going to be rebuilt on its present site, and SAC were going through a Public Private Partnership tendering process at present. M&M agreed with SAC that forecasts of primary school rolls beyond a 5 year horizon should be treated with caution. There should be no educational capacity issues at the proposed 1300 pupil Belmont Academy. Placing

SALP6 6.53 Greenan

requests were from pupils outwith the school‟s catchment area, and SAC had the ability to reserve places for each academic year. At Doonfoot Primary School, there appeared to be issues over both capacity and placing requests. The 173 pupils that would be generated by the objection site equated to 24 pupils per annum. However, those figures had to be placed in the context that 21 placing requests had been successful in primary 1, in August 2004. M&M were committed to meeting any reasonable educational provision which arose from the proposed allocation at both primary and secondary school level. The precise requirement for the 2 schools, in terms of capacity and placing requests, could be discussed in detail and agreed, if the objection site was allocated for housing. Any reasonable educational request could be dealt with as part of a section 75 Agreement and in accordance with SALP policy IMP1. M&M would be prepared to discuss a possible extension to Doonfoot Primary School. They would also be prepared to take into account traffic management issues at that school, although they hoped that, as a reasonable alternative, a “safer route to schools” initiative could be promoted. If funding could be agreed, there would be no insurmountable problems, and there was therefore no educationally based impediment to prevent the objection site‟s allocation for housing.

3.16 M&M‟s site at Greenan would be able to deliver housing earlier than any other strategic site at this inquiry. It also had many advantages, and a range and choice of housing could be provided. The objection site should be allocated for residential purposes.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SEAC

4.1 The evidence had undermined the suitability of Greenan as a housing site, regardless of the strategic housing land supply position. M&M‟s reliance on the planning application they had submitted in 2000 did not demonstrate a certainty or reliability of approach, and little weight should be given to it or the subsequent appeal. While the 3 masterplans lodged were all marked as indicative, the type of radical amendments proposed by M&M could not easily be dismissed as just a matter of detail for a later stage in the process. However, it was now clear that the delivery of the golf course was necessary to allow the development proposed to proceed.

4.2 M&M had significantly underplayed the landscape impact of the proposal, in particular, the role that the objection site played in the landscape setting of Ayr. This was a matter that had concerned SNH in 2001, and they had not been given an opportunity to comment on the landscape capacity study undertaken by M&M. SEAC believed that the proposal would have a materially adverse impact on views from the southern approaches, most notably, the A719 in the vicinity of the site and from the National Cycle Route. The photomontages were of little value because they were based on particular, carefully chosen viewpoints. It would have been more helpful to show the impact of the development from one of the more local, public viewpoints identified by SEAC. M&M were dependent on the delivery of the golf course to achieve a more reasonable landscape and visual impact for their scheme. Without the golf course, there would be no long term, defensible, green belt boundary. While that affected the objection site‟s western boundary, SEAC recognised that this boundary followed an existing defined edge (albeit that the existing mature hedge was gappy). However, the northern boundary was nothing more than an arbitrary line on a plan. M&M‟s suggestion that the topography of the ground to the north was sufficient definition was unrealistic. If the golf course did not go ahead there would be an infill site between Greenan and Craig Tara. A further unsatisfactory aspect of the proposal was the swathe of

SALP6 6.54 Greenan

tarmac which would result from a dual carriageway being used as the principal access to the proposed development. Retaining the green belt designation of the site would: allow the setting of the castle and the town to be properly protected; make this section of the green belt less vulnerable to development; and prevent the loss of part of a designated wildlife site.

4.3 In their revised indicative masterplan, M&M had not respected the setting of Greenan Castle. The original masterplan had shown a substantial area of neighbourhood park, amenity open area and landscape framework in the north eastern corner of the site. However, this area had been much reduced in the revised indicative masterplans, with the balance now proposed for housing. No attempt had been made to agree the setting with SAC or SNH, even though the latter were known to have concerns as early as May 2001. The contention that views of the castle from the landward side were of secondary importance and of relatively minor significance was unsound. Whether the castle‟s setting extended all the way up to the A719, or stopped short of it, was a proper issue for debate because this was a subjective, rather than an objective, matter. SEAC believed that the setting extended much further south than the area identified by M&M, and there was a clear relationship and visual connection between the castle and the A719.

4.4 The layout as currently proposed had been determined by the fact that its predecessor could not be made to comply with prevailing road standards. While SEAC still viewed the proposed arrangements as a problem, they accepted that M&M controlled sufficient land to devise a solution. The problem related to the design and location (on a hillcrest) of the proposed roundabout, and the fact that M&M had wrongly assumed that the speed limit near the roundabout would be reduced from 60mph to 30mph. Equally, SEAC accepted SAC‟s evidence that solutions could be found to the traffic distribution and impact issues raised. However, the distribution pattern of the proposal‟s generated traffic was not credible because a large proportion of the traffic generated by the objection site in the peak hours would appear to be “lost” in the predominantly residential areas of south Ayr (Alloway, Doonholm and Seafield). There was no reason why the trip pattern at Greenan should be any different from the rest of Ayr, and the “lost” traffic should be added to the flows on the A719 or to the local roads which lead to the A77. While there was an issue about the cumulative effect of developing housing sites in a piecemeal manner, it was accepted that the development impact of the objection site alone would not have a significant effect on the A77. M&M‟s position had clearly been influenced by their decision to promote the objection site as meeting a local need.

4.5 Because Greenan was a residential area, the bus service in peak periods would be well used in one direction only, which would make it less attractive to an operator and more dependent on subsidy. Rail trips would require to be made from the centre of Ayr, and there would therefore be a need for an additional bus or car trip. It was not certain that a local shop could be delivered and, in the meantime, local residents faced a long and potentially dangerous walk. The existing secondary schools were some distance away and they were not served directly by bus routes. Because there was no employment element to the proposal, it did not have all the advantages of a genuinely mixed use scheme. A location, such as SEA, which offered more alternatives to the private car was inherently more sustainable and more compliant with SE transport and land use planning policy than a location which offered less choice, such as Greenan.

4.6 M&M‟s contention that the objection site would meet a local need was fundamentally flawed. The original masterplan report contradicted the evidence led by M&M on the

SALP6 6.55 Greenan

expected local market share at the objection site. On the basis of their own figures, it was clear that the objection site would not result in M&M‟s high percentage of sales to the local market. In fact, the local market share at Greenan (56%) was expected to be just above that for M&M‟s site at Barassie (54%). M&M‟s figure of 21% of existing residents in the Greenan area commuting to Glasgow was also difficult to understand, when compared with the figures in the national census and the Local Transport Strategy, which indicated that around 90% of people who live in S Ayrshire work in Ayrshire, with only 10% or so travelling outwith Ayrshire. In any event, M&M‟s approach was inappropriate given that it was based only on an examination of the post codes of purchasers. On this basis, it was not possible to draw conclusions on where people worked, shopped or studied. There was also no mechanism to ensure that any benefit arising from selling to local purchasers would be retained in perpetuity. The local purchaser argument was no more than an attempt to give the objection site an advantage over other sites.

4.7 Three reports were produced on the proposed golf course. The first report (by DITZ Pied) did not assess a “pay and play” course, but a members‟ club with visitor income. The attempt to establish the economic benefit of the golf course could not be given a lot of weight because the figure used for visitor rounds (5000) was unachievable. Indeed, the report indicated that a course capable of achieving 5000 visitor rounds could not be constructed for £1.5m. The second report (by Braemar Golf Developments) had mistakenly assumed that the first report was based on a mass market, “play and pay” course, with a small club house facility. It also sought to develop a strategy based on 5000 visitor rounds, and the recommended business model was a “pay and play” municipal facility or possibly a family golf facility. In the third report, it was indicated (by Tyton Design) that they had prepared the details for an approval of reserved matters application based on an 18 hole resort course with a fully equipped, floodlit, all weather driving range, modern club house and time share holiday cottages, all built to the highest United States Golf Association specification. SEAC believed that it was misleading to suggest that such a course, together with the associated facilities, could be built and operated for £2m, and that view was supported by the second report. None of the reports assessed the capital cost of providing the driving range or the holiday village. Furthermore, the viability of the golf course had been assessed in the first report on the assumption that the land would be provided at nil cost, and it was clear from SAC‟s evidence that this was no longer a safe assumption. If SAC decided to seek a commercial return on the land, M&M‟s contribution looked very small.

4.8 On any objective view, SEA compared favourably to the objection site when measured against ASP policy G8. Indeed, M&M accepted that the objection site failed 2 general principles: D (avoiding prime agricultural land), and E (avoiding increases in the need to travel). This placed the objection site lower down the list of preferred locations in a competition with other sites which conformed more closely with the principles in policy G8. In addition, based on the above, SEAC believed that the proposal had some difficulty with general principles A (local community benefit), H (natural environment and built heritage locations) and I (landscape character), particularly if the golf course did not proceed.

4.9 Overall, Greenan did not represent an acceptable location for housing, and it should not be preferred for allocation in SALP over SEA. That would be the case even if M&M had been in a position to guarantee the delivery of the golf course.

SALP6 6.56 Greenan

5. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC AND OTHERS

5.1 M&M had presented their evidence as if their proposal related to a planning appeal rather than an objection to SALP. There must be a planning justification for residential development on greenfield sites. Even if there was a housing land shortfall which could justify the release of further sites, the local plan inquiry process was not an appropriate forum for identifying such a release. It would not be sound planning to select one site without full consideration of all the land around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon. Indeed, if there was a shortfall in the housing land supply, it would be necessary to establish its size and over what period it was predicted. Following this, an assessment of potential brownfield sites would require to be made and, thereafter, consideration given to greenfield land.

5.2 SAC had concerns about whether M&M could provide residential development on the objection site (phase 3) within the next 5 years. M&M‟s position on this matter was contradictory. However, the agreed position of M&M on the programming of Ailsa View (phase 1) and Longhill Farm (phase 2) was set out in the 2003 housing land audit, where it was indicated that Longhill Farm would not be completed until 2008/09. It would therefore appear that the earliest that development could start on the objection site would be 2009. The ability of M&M to deliver before that, and within the timescale of SALP, had also to be seen in the context of: M&M‟s uncertainty over how and when the development would be progressed; M&M‟s slow build rate on other sites in the area over the past 10 years (which, if repeated, would mean a maximum of 60 houses in the period to 2012 [20 houses per annum]); the size of M&M‟s land bank in the housing market area; and the uncertainty about the development of the golf course. The level of output projected by SAC on the objection site could be equally met from a wider range of smaller, more appropriate sites. The 2004 housing land audit rolled back the completion of Longhill Farm to 2010/11, which would delay the start even further. The site could not be described properly as infill, and it had never been identified in the development plan as a housing site. The objection site‟s planning history did not support its release for housing. There was some doubt about the site‟s effectiveness because it failed the criteria relating to ownership (of the golf course site), the delivery of infrastructure, and land use.

5.3 The site was in a Raised Beach Coast Landscape Character Area, and the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment indicated that there should be a general presumption against large scale built developments within this generally small scale landscape. While mitigation measures, such as landscape buffers and an improved entrance to Ayr, could probably be introduced to offset some of the adverse landscape effects, the landscape character of the area and the setting of the town would both alter. In particular, there would be a detrimental effect on sensitive local visual receptors (the A719, the National Cycle Route, and some existing housing) and a loss of view to the coast and, beyond that, to Arran. M&M‟s evidence had to be treated with caution for several reasons, including: their limited assessment of the effect of the proposal on key local receptors; the failure to take account of the potential height of the buildings proposed in the Zone of Visual Influence analysis; and their disputing of SNH‟s landscape character assessment for the area. Although, SAC acknowledged that the landscape at the objection site had the capacity to accept some development, they emphasised that the higher ground was sensitive. More generally, they believed that the site was important to the setting of Ayr, and that its development would elongate, rather than consolidate, the town.

SALP6 6.57 Greenan

5.4 Greenan Castle was a dramatic feature on the coastline, and its setting had been compromised by the gradual encroachment of the urban edge southwards over recent years. SAC did not agree that the upper slopes of the raised ground between the objection site and the castle constituted its setting. SAC acknowledged that keeping any development back from the coast and retaining the raised ground as an open area would limit the impact on the castle‟s setting, particularly in views from the north and east. However, extending the settlement to the west would only further encroach on to the castle‟s landscape setting

5.5 The objection site fulfilled the functions of green belt, and this had been demonstrated in SAC‟s green belt surveys. It was clear from the key diagram in ASP that the land to the south of Ayr was intended to be either green belt or rural protection area. The existing green belt boundary was defensible, and it would be improved once M&M had fulfilled their obligations regarding the landscape buffer to be provided by the existing housing. The development of Longhill Farm would extend this buffer right up to the A719. As the buffer matured the castle‟s setting would improve. SAC believed that without the golf course there would be considerable pressure on the narrow gap of land leading up to Craig Tara and development of the objection site would result in visual coalescence. SNH believed that a more defensible boundary for the green belt would only be created if the golf course proposal was implemented. The objection site helped people to enjoy the surrounding recreational opportunities. The green belt boundaries in SALP had been defined following a rigorous assessment, which had identified the site as “vulnerable” and “high contribution.” There was no justification for changing the green belt designation, particularly once the other designations affecting the site had been taken into account.

5.6 SAC had carried out a full assessment of the inner and outer boundaries of the Scenic Area. ASP‟s technical report on Sensitive Landscape Character Areas (March 1999) showed the objection site in an area of high value and as part of the Sensitive Landscape Character Area, and this was reflected in ASP‟s key diagram. SALP must have regard to ASP when identifying the precise boundaries of the area (ASP policy E2), and SAC set out in a supporting document how they had defined the precise boundaries of the Scenic Area. The development of the objection site would be inconsistent with SALP‟s coastal strategy, which encouraged very small scale developments that integrated with existing land uses and complemented the surrounding environment. It would also not accord with ASP policy G7.

5.7 The wildlife designation in SALP, which was of local importance, was based on the evidence of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and SAC‟s own ecological expert. M&M had not carried out an ornithological survey, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were now having difficulty checking their records. However, earlier research had referred to the significant conservation interest in the Greenan area, and its importance for wildlife. In addition, the objection site had been included in the schedule of ornithological sites identified in Kyle and Carrick and on the Ordnance Survey map defining such sites. NPPG14 and ASP policy E9 operated to safeguard the wildlife interests on the objection site.

5.8 The traffic impact of the proposal around Doonholm Bridge had been a key concern. SAC had originally suggested the signal control, “shuttle working” and the widened footpath now proposed on Doonholm Bridge. However, while the layout now proposed by M&M would resolve the difficulties faced by vulnerable road users, the junction envisaged would be around 100m long and would require to be operated in 5 separate stages, which would result in a significant “cycle time.” “Shuttle working” would have a significant impact on general traffic (particularly the emergency services), and M&M had not undertaken the necessary

SALP6 6.58 Greenan

analysis to allow SAC to confirm the operational viability of the proposed scheme. In particular, it could attract traffic to an alternative, less desirable route. In addition, the length of junction meant that the area to the north of the bridge was within the junction, and parking at the local shop would require to be restricted. While SAC did not consider “shuttle working” to be a desirable option, they accepted that this issue could probably be resolved. M&M had also not proposed providing a separate pedestrian bridge alongside the existing one. SAC were satisfied that, with signalling improvements, the road network could cope with the traffic generated by the development.

5.9 NPPG17 set out the broad policy objectives for integrated transport and land use planning. There were few facilities within walking distance of the objection site at present, with the local primary school being the only one within 400m. To gain access to secondary schools, children would require to travel by bus, and thereafter would be faced with either a substantial walk or a second bus journey. The new retail unit proposed by M&M had been a proposal for the last 25 years without any development materialising. The only existing retail facility in the area involved a walk of over 5 minutes and the crossing of Doonholm Bridge. The nearest rail link was in the town centre. It was served by the A9 bus service, and there were good parking facilities in the vicinity. While a regular bus service into Ayr was proposed, the service to Glasgow was limited to the X77 and this could not be regarded as a regular service (4 am and pm peak journeys from the area only). M&M‟s own evidence suggested that a substantial number of people (21%) travelled from the Greenan area to work in Glasgow, a figure considerably in excess of those given in the Local Transport Strategy (10%) and the Census (2.68%). This indicated that there was some uncertainty about how much traffic was seeking to gain access to the A77 from the Greenan area. The car would be the predominant mode of travel for people travelling to work or shop, and it was of concern that access to the strategic road system would be via predominantly residential roads. In the circumstances, the proposal conflicted with NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.10 Turning to ASP policy G8, the objection site performed poorly against general principles B (brownfield land), C (existing service infrastructure), D (agricultural land), E (need to travel), F (public transport), H (natural environment and built heritage locations) and I (landscape character). The proposal would not be a sustainable development and would result in the loss of a finite resource (greenfield land). It would not maximise the use of existing service infrastructure (education), and would result in the loss of prime quality agricultural land. The proposal would result in increased car usage and would not reduce the need to travel particularly by private car. There was also no opportunity for rail travel at the site. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the natural environment, and would not respect the area‟s landscape character. While Greenan had been identified as a site worthy of closer examination in CDSALP, the evidence before the inquiry did not justify the identification of the site in SALP.

5.11 SNH had expressed considerable concern about the possibility of the site being allocated for housing. They explained that the area was of considerable natural heritage value. On the planning application, they had indicated that they had not been provided with sufficient information; and they were concerned that any planning application should be considered in the appropriate local plan context.

5.12 M&M had emphasised the benefits that would arise from the allocation of the objection site, and the financial support they proposed for the golf course was particularly important. Their approach to the landscape assessment had been on the basis that the golf

SALP6 6.59 Greenan

course would be developed. They also indicated that it was necessary to link the golf course and the development of the objection site for the proper planning of the area. The planning evidence before the inquiry, and the majority of the landscape evidence, recognised that the development of the golf course was required to allow the development of the objection site to progress. However, there was no certainty that the golf course would be developed during the SALP period, there was no developer willing to construct the golf course, and the land was not in M&M‟s control. There was also no certainty that a golf course would be financially viable. It would not be good land use planning to identify a site for housing with so much uncertainty about a necessary component for its development.

5.13 Since 1999, and IMG‟s withdrawal, there had been no identified interest in the golf course‟s development, and the standard of golf course proposed at that time could now be ruled out on the grounds of viability. The land for the golf course was owned by SAC, and they were constrained by the 1973 Local Government (Scotland) Act, which meant that they could not dispose of land for a consideration less than the best that could reasonably be obtained. In light of this, there was no justification for the assumption that SAC would provide the land at nil value. If the golf course land was necessary for the development of the objection site, then the value of the golf course would be significantly increased because it amounted to a “ransom strip.” Given the doubts over the golf course, it would be highly unlikely that the objection site could contribute to any housing land shortfall identified during the SALP period. In addition, the potential value of the land for the golf course had implications for the viability of any future operation. It would be inappropriate for SALP to require that the residential development of the objection site should be the subject of a £2m payment by M&M. If the golf course was not necessary and the £2m offered was planning gain, then there was no guarantee that the gain would be achieved. SAC acknowledged that the golf course was promoted in SALP, and that its delivery would fulfil one of their ambitions.

5.14 The only evidence to support the £0.9m, offered for the community sports facility was the letter from Alloway and Doonfoot Community Council. While this was relevant, it should not be the only basis for supporting such a facility. The objectors had not confirmed who would pay for the management and upkeep of the building.

5.15 A total of 318 representations, mainly objections, were received in response to the possible allocation of the objection site and Longhill Farm for housing, as put forward in CDSALP. Representations regarding the objection site were received from a number of organisations, including the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, and the Royal Fine Arts Commission for Scotland. In addition, representations were received from the local community (including Greenan Action), and many highlighted the adverse effect the proposal would have on the area. Concern was also expressed by a variety of organisations and people at the outline planning application stage. The comparative assessment carried out by SAC concluded that the objection site was inappropriate for inclusion in SALP.

5.16 Regarding education, while the allocation of the objection site for housing would not affect provision at Queen Margaret Academy or St John‟s Primary School, it would affect the 2 non-denominational schools (Belmont Academy and Doonfoot Primary School), particularly the primary school, which could require to be extended. However, as M&M had made a commitment to meet the cost of any shortfall in educational provision, and subject to appropriate conditions and a section 75 Agreement at the planning application stage, SAC did

SALP6 6.60 Greenan

not consider that an allocation at this location would result in any insurmountable education problems.

5.17 Overall, M&M had not advanced arguments of sufficient weight to justify overturning the provisions of SALP. The allocation of this greenfield site for housing in SALP would be inconsistent with the principles expressed in SPP3. There should therefore be no recommendation to modify SALP.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 On a preliminary matter, SAC contended that the local plan process was not an appropriate forum in which to identify the releases to make up a housing land shortfall, even if the process had established that such a shortfall existed. However, the whole essence of M&M‟s case is that they seek a recommendation from the inquiry that the objection site be released for housing, and it would be wrong of us to defer consideration of the suitability of the objection site for this purpose to another place and process. We acknowledge that, in considering our report, SAC may wish to review certain matters and take into account further information which has come to light. Nonetheless, we are bound to assess M&M‟s objection at Greenan on its planning merits, and make a recommendation on the release of the site, within the context of all the evidence presented to the inquiry, including that before this session, the strategic sessions, and all the other sessions.

6.2 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

6.3 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). As outlined below, we do not consider that the delivery of the golf course would be a necessary requirement to allow the housing to proceed. It also does not appear to us that any of the infrastructure difficulties are of such a magnitude, that they would make the site ineffective. We acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the site but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option.

6.4 M&M contend that work could commence on the objection site in 2006, with house completions beginning in 2007 and 225 houses being completed by 2010. However, we believe this to be overly ambitious, and a target which would be unlikely to be met, given that the objection site represents the third phase of a 3 phase development, and the agreed 2003 housing land audit shows that phase 2 (Longhill Farm) is not expected to be completed until 2008/09. We note that if the draft 2004 housing land audit is taken into account, the start of development on site could be even later. Although we have some concern about when development would commence, we believe that there would be a reasonable prospect of it

SALP6 6.61 Greenan

being underway within 5 years of the likely date of the adoption of SALP. A more significant concern is M&M‟s low annual completion rate in the Greenan area, which SAC believe amounts to no more than an average of 11 houses per annum between 1995/96 and 2003/04, with 30 houses per annum never being achieved. Such levels of completion on a strategic site such as Greenan would be clearly unsatisfactory. Delays in bringing developments forward and a failure to deliver within the expected timescale only bring pressure for further compensating releases. The delivery of a site at the expected time and over a given period are therefore important considerations, particularly for larger sites. M&M‟s proposed build out rate of 75 houses per annum appears high, and there is little to indicate that it could be achieved at this location. Taking into account the output expected from other sites, we believe a more likely build out rate would be 50 houses per annum. If this is to be achieved, we believe that M&M would be dependent on working with a partner and, in this case, George Wimpey West Scotland Ltd have been proposed. We note that the partnership arrangements are at a very early stage and, if this site is allocated as a housing opportunity, we consider that the developer should demonstrate to SAC that they have put appropriate arrangements in place to complete the greater part of the site within the medium term, and on the basis of an agreed masterplan which appropriately co-ordinates the work of the partners. With partnership working, we consider that there would be the potential to achieve an output of some 25 houses in 2008/09, with the rate of development increasing thereafter to 50 houses per annum.

6.5 The objection site at Greenan lies in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the site is identified as being within the Raised Beach Coast Landscape Character Area. Greenan is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey, and is in the proposed green belt. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above). In this case, there are no issues of coalescence with other settlements. We do not consider that any allocation would be undermined by the visual coalescence that may occur with the existing development at Craig Tara.

6.6 We agree with M&M that this part of the town‟s southern physical boundary is not as strong and defensible as SAC would have it, comprising a fenceline and a strip of planting. Taking into account the more extensive planting proposed alongside the phase 2 housing, it may be that a more defensible boundary will develop, but this is not certain and, in any event, would take some time to become effective. The eastern edge of the objection site does not therefore contribute particularly to maintaining Ayr‟s identity. The proposal would involve moving the town‟s boundary westwards to the track which forms part of the National Cycle Route, and the planting along its edges. Although not ideal for a development of this scale, the track has the advantage over the existing boundary in that it would follow a defined feature which would provide a clear edge, and it would bring development on the northern side of the A719 more or less up to the outermost limit of the existing development on the road‟s southern side. The northern edge of the objection site would follow a line in a field and, as such, would not normally be regarded as acceptable. However, the area to the north is a sensitive area leading to the coastal headland and Greenan Castle (a Scheduled Ancient Monument). Its sensitivity is such that this alone would act as a major constraint on any proposal to extend built development in this direction. In the particular circumstances of this site, we therefore believe that the northern boundary, although unmarked, would probably be reasonably defensible. The implementation of the golf course would help strengthen the defensibility of both the western and northern boundaries. Nonetheless, this does not make it

SALP6 6.62 Greenan

a necessary component of the housing proposal because appropriate provision should be made for making a defensible boundary within the objection site itself. This should be a minimum of 25m-30m depth to the west and more on the northern boundary once issues of setting have been taken into account (paragraphs 6.10 and 6.20 below). We accept that it would be undesirable for further housing development to extend beyond the western boundary of the objection site towards Craig Tara, and note that SAC have control over this through both the planning process and the ownership interest they have in the land. Given this, the site boundaries should be designed to round Ayr off at this point, and to create an appropriate entrance to the town from the south. The boundaries of the objection site are not ideal, in particular the one to the north, and we recognise that it would take time for any boundary treatments to mature. Despite this, we believe that these boundaries would probably be stronger than those that they would replace, and that they have the potential to maintain the identity of Ayr.

6.7 While the site is not used for countryside recreation, it contributes passively to the countryside scene at this location for people living on the edge of Ayr, those using the National Cycle Route, and those using the A719. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting a residential allocation. Although such an allocation would result in change in the area, both the National Cycle Route and the A719 should be able to continue supporting recreational uses.

6.8 The objectors have linked their proposal to develop the objection site for housing with a contribution of £2m towards a proposed golf course and associated facilities, which would lie on the open land to the north and west. SAC have now resolved to grant approval of reserved matters for a golf course on this land. While we acknowledge that the 3 reports commissioned by M&M do not sit comfortably together, parts of them provide some superficial support for the view that a “pay and play” golf course, or something similar, could be viable if the capital costs of the project are met. However, the studies are based on assumptions, many of them rather optimistic, and reasonable variations in them could have a significant effect on forecast costs and revenue streams, and consequently on the findings of viability. There has been no interest in developing a golf course at this attractive coastal location for several years, despite the long standing golf course allocation in the adopted local plan, which has been continued into SALP. We are satisfied that without some form of contribution, it would be unlikely that a golf course would be implemented. The conclusions of the 3 reports appear to be based on the land being transferred by SAC at nil value, and we note the constraints that would restrict the ability of SAC to dispose of the land in this way. This would point towards a larger contribution potentially being required, which only serves to increase the doubt over whether the golf course, including a “pay and play” proposal, would ever be implemented. We are satisfied that the housing proposal is independent of the golf course, with the exception of the financial contribution proposed by M&M. We therefore do not accept that problems with the implementation of the golf course would be likely to have a knock on effect on the delivery of the housing on the objection site within the necessary timescale. In light of the continuing doubts over the golf course, SAC may wish to review continuing the golf course allocation in SALP. While M&M also propose a possible ecological park to the north east of the site, this element of the proposal is not of any particular significance and, in itself, does little to help the objection.

6.9 Turning to landscape setting, we recognise that this location is generally a sensitive one, and we believe that the value of the objection site lies more in the contribution that it makes as a part of the wider countryside area, than in any intrinsic qualities it possesses. Our

SALP6 6.63 Greenan

reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the fact that the study identifies the site as being both “vulnerable” and “high contribution.” Indeed, it is not clear to us that the objection site makes any more of a contribution to the green belt than many of the other parcels surveyed in the green belt study. The elongation of Ayr southwards towards the objection site has had a diluting effect on the site‟s rural character. The site can be seen from the south and from points in Ayr to the east particularly from the sea front area. There are also more local views, including those from the A719, the coastal area and the National Cycle Route. We acknowledge that the cumulative effects of Ayr continuing to expand generally southwards could have a potentially damaging effect on the landscape. Although the objection site has the advantage that it lies within the line of the A77, we do not accept M&M‟s contention that the objection site is insignificant to the setting of Ayr. It is within this context that we consider that the objection site contributes to maintaining the landscape setting not just of this part of Ayr, but also of the wider area.

6.10 The proposal would extend this southern part of the built up area to the west. While the indicative masterplan indicates an extensive development across the site, the edge between town and country would be unlikely to become any more blurred than it is at present, and potentially could improve. We are concerned that the impact of the proposal, as shown in the Masterplan Report and in the Landscape Capacity Study, is understated. In particular, we have reservations about the photomontages in figures 22-26 of the Landscape Capacity Study, which we are not persuaded accurately portray the likely effect of any development that could arise from the allocation of the site for housing. Notwithstanding this, in more distant views from the east (Ayr) and west (A719), we accept that the development would be likely to be seen within the context of the existing built up area, and that this would help reduce the impact. More local views, such as those from the National Cycle Route and the A719 where it is adjacent to the site, would be adversely affected, but we are not persuaded that the preservation of these views is so critical that it should thwart any housing allocation. Although we recognise the constraints imposed on the site by being within the Raised Beach Landscape Character Area, the open coastal area to the north is the more sensitive location, and it could be adequately protected by pulling back the entire northernmost line of built development. We acknowledge that there are issues still to be resolved, but we are satisfied that they do not undermine the housing proposal, and that their resolution could be left to the detailed layout design process. There would probably be implications for the number of houses that could be achieved on site, and we believe that the indicative number (480) should be reduced to 430 houses. Overall, we believe that the allocation of the objection site for housing would be a natural extension of the existing suburban area. An acceptable level of integration with the existing built up area of Ayr would be provided, and we consider that there is the potential to develop an appropriate landscape framework and mitigation measures, and achieve a reasonable landscape fit. As such, we do not consider that a housing allocation on site would materially conflict with the broad terms of PAN44 or SPP3. In the circumstances, we are broadly satisfied that an allocation would not significantly erode the landscape setting of Ayr or that of the local area, or have a materially adverse effect on landscape character.

6.11 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles (A-K) which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). We find that G does not apply, and that all relevant matters in I are dealt with above. In relation to A, new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available. In addition to the ecological park and the contribution to the golf course referred to above, M&M propose

SALP6 6.64 Greenan

provision for some further facilities, including, a community facility, a possible local shop, and development of the bus services. Notwithstanding SAC‟s concern about the possible burden arising from the proposed community facility and the doubts about the provision of a local shop, we are satisfied that the proposal has the potential to give rise to some community benefit. On B, the site is greenfield and would therefore not make efficient use of vacant and derelict land. Regarding C, the development would require the extension of existing services (electricity, water, gas and sewerage), and there is nothing to indicate that this could not be satisfactorily achieved. There are potential capacity problems at the non-denominational primary and secondary schools, and the allocation of the site would place pressure therefore on existing facilities. However, the indications are that school capacity would not be an insurmountable obstacle to the development. Turning to D, the majority of the objection site is classified as grade 2 quality agricultural land, with the remainder being grade 3.1, and as grazing land it does not appear to be in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine any housing allocation on site.

6.12 In relation to E and F, M&M‟s proposal does not have the advantage of offering a possible future prospect of ready access to a rail halt and train services. The nearest railway station is in the centre of Ayr, which is some distance away, and that would require to be accessed either by bus or car. However, this would not be greatly different from the position at some other locations, including SEA until such time as the rail facilities and an appropriately enhanced train service can be delivered. The bus service proposed at Greenan would be accessible and reasonable, with one regular service (A9 at 15-20 minute intervals) and one peak hour service to Glasgow (X77) being routed through the site. These improved bus services would benefit the wider residential area. We also note that there are additional bus services running in the area. Although no interchange has been included within the indicative masterplan, this would not be expected of a proposal of this nature and scale.

6.13 Irrespective of the delivery of an appropriate bus service, we recognise that the private car would be the predominant mode of travel at the objection site, and that suitable provision for walking, cycling and public transport would change the modal split only at the margin. Notwithstanding SEAC‟s concerns about traffic distribution, the indications are that the proposal could be accommodated on the road network, subject to traffic signalling improvements being introduced. There are issues about the junction and footpath at Doonholm Bridge, but these appear capable of resolution. The traffic generated by the development would not have a significant effect on the A77, and any cumulative impact arising would depend on the location, size and timing of any other developments coming forward. In addition to this, there would seem to be scope to accommodate any modifications that might be required to the access arrangements for the site, and we do not consider that the extension of the 30mph speed limit should be regarded as an insurmountable obstacle. The cycle and pedestrian links proposed to Ayr via the National Cycle Route would adequately integrate the site with the town. Although the nearest local shop at present is some distance away, it would not be unreasonably far, there is a proposal to improve pedestrian facilities along the shortest route (by Doonholm Bridge), and there is a pleasant alternative longer route. We are not persuaded that access to the secondary schools is such an issue that it would prevent the site‟s allocation.

6.14 We place little weight on the surveys that underpinned M&M‟s contention that the development would serve a predominantly local market, as the purpose of the surveys, the

SALP6 6.65 Greenan

questions asked, and the way in which the information was handled and gathered are not entirely clear. The Local Transport Strategy (supported by the Census) indicates that the vast majority of people who live in South Ayrshire work in South Ayrshire, with only a small minority commuting outwith the area, and there is little to suggest that there would be a significant deviation from this pattern at the objection site or, indeed, any other strategic site under consideration at this inquiry. We acknowledge that, in time, this pattern could be influenced by the extension of the M77 from Glasgow towards South Ayrshire but, at the time of the inquiry, the effect of this cannot be established.

6.15 In terms of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17, the objection site would offer an enhanced bus service, and adequate walking and cycling connections. While the development would therefore be served by a range of means of transport, we acknowledge that any transportation improvements that would be achieved are small scale, and that Greenan is not in a position to offer the advantages that would stem from a “step change” in public transport provision, for example, through the introduction of rail services. Overall, as in all greenfield locations on the edge of settlements, it is unlikely that any development at Greenan would avoid increases in, or reduce, the need to travel, particularly by car, and we therefore consider that there would be difficulty in meeting general principle E. The objection site would be reasonably well related to public transport routes through the bus services proposed. While to this extent general principle F could be regarded as satisfied, we are not persuaded that this would significantly help any allocation at this location.

6.16 General principle H, which relates to conserving all natural environment and built heritage locations, is dealt with below (paragraph 6.20). For general principle J, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability represent significant problems for the development of the objection site. In relation to general principle K, we are satisfied that it would be unlikely that a properly designed scheme would result in any unreasonable adverse effects on land, air or water quality. Taking into account all of the above, we recognise that there are limitations affecting this site, in particular those relating to transportation, which result in some conflict with ASP‟s strategy and the general principles contained in policy G8. However, we believe that Greenan has considerable merits, and if there are doubts about other sites, including SEA, then we believe that it would represent a reasonable location for a housing development.

6.17 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield nature of Greenan and its location means that it serves to control the growth of the built up area and complements the process of urban renewal. To a degree, it also serves to preserve the character of Ayr. Nonetheless, we do not consider Greenan‟s potential green belt role to be of such importance that it should prevent the release of the site for housing.

6.18 CDASP sets out 9 criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be on the edge of the Core Town of Ayr, and it would be reasonably accessible to the other 2 core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area, and Ayr is a focus for public transport networks. The objection site would help to maintain and improve existing community services and facilities, and it would provide additional housing choice. We acknowledge that there would be some opportunity for improved public transport links at the objection site. However, as outlined above, M&M‟s proposal would not be of a scale to unlock new infrastructure investment through the

SALP6 6.66 Greenan

introduction of transportation measures which offer a realistic prospect of a genuine choice of travel. We are satisfied that there would be the potential to achieve a development on site which respected the character and setting of the community through good design, and we believe that the limitations on environmental capacity at this location have been recognised, subject to the changes outlined above. Although the development of the objection site would not conflict in broad terms with economic development priorities, it would not be a catalyst for regeneration and renewal. While we accept that CDASP is generally supportive of development at south and east Ayr, we recognise the constraints in the area around the objection site. We acknowledge some conflict with the underlying thrust of the criteria for new housing releases in CDASP, but do not consider that this would necessarily prevent an allocation if there was no more preferable site.

6.19 We acknowledge that SAC followed a reasonable process in their Comparative Assessments of Greenan, SEA and NET, and that they have sought to compare the sites on a consistent basis. However, based on the evidence presented to the inquiry, we have not accepted all the conclusions that they have drawn on each site. In particular, we have doubts about the ranking of the 3 sites, and the relegation of the objection site.

6.20 There is no dispute that the development of the objection site would be unlikely to have a significantly adverse effect on the Site of Special Scientific Interest, which lies to the north. The objection site forms part of a Scenic Area, a Wildlife Site and an Ornithological Site, and it is adjacent to a Scottish Wildlife Trust Site. In the case of the Scenic Area, the details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying precise boundaries for the land to be designated as Scenic Area were not brought to the inquiry. For the Wildlife and Ornithological Site, which are both local designations, it is not clear why the site is being included in the designated area. If it is on the basis of the information gathered around 1999, then it should be reviewed in light of any change of circumstances which may subsequently have occurred. The Scenic Area, Wildlife, Ornithological and Scottish Wildlife designations all cover much larger areas. Within this context, there is little to suggest that a housing development at this location would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the designated areas, or their boundaries, sufficient to prevent the allocation of the objection site. In the Indicative Coastal Strategy, the site falls within the area identified as Partly Developed (Coastal Type D). We recognise the value of the coastal area, but note the extent to which built development already intrudes at this point. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that, with an appropriate set back from the northernmost line of the existing development to the east, adequate account would have been taken of the sensitive coastal area. Such a set back would also serve to better protect the setting of Greenan Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, on its southern, landward side. Given the extent of built development already present, we are not persuaded by the notion that the castle‟s setting extends all the way up to the A719.

6.21 A substantial number of objections were received to the proposal at both the CDSALP and planning application stages from members of the public and a number of organisations. In particular, we note the reservations expressed by SNH about the potential housing sites highlighted at Greenan in CDSALP, one of which has now received planning permission. However, in light of our conclusions set out above, we are satisfied that the objection site could come forward for development, subject to the caveats identified above, and that the concerns expressed would be insufficient to prevent its allocation for housing.

SALP6 6.67 Greenan

6.22 In conclusion, we note that, despite the transportation weaknesses of this proposal, the objection site lies within the line of the A77 and could serve to round off the southern edge of Ayr. We believe therefore that it would be a reasonable location for a housing development. We acknowledge that there is some conflict with ASP and CDASP; however, we are satisfied that this is not of such a scale that it would result in any allocation having difficulty in conforming to either plan. In addition, we do not consider that an allocation would be prevented by any inconsistency with the thrust of national guidance and advice. Any allocation of this site in SALP should be based on M&M demonstrating to SAC that the delivery of houses on the site would start within 5 years of the likely date of the adoption of SALP, with completion being achieved in the medium term. If any allocation made in SALP is not taken up at the time of the next local plan coming forward, and other sites which can deliver more sustainable transport measures based on rail, have been suitably progressed, then the allocation should be reviewed. Overall, we are of the view that the objection site should be identified as a greenfield housing release in SALP, under a reinstated policy H3B, and taken forward through a revised masterplan, along the lines outlined above. The development would require a partnership based approach, and the masterplan should appropriately co-ordinate the work of the partners to ensure the smooth delivery of all aspects of the proposal within the required timescale. The golf course proposal on the adjacent land should be the subject of further discussions between SAC and M&M. It is not essential to the allocation of the objection site for housing.

6.23 We have taken account of all the other matters, including all of the various elements that make up the golf course proposal, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the objection site be deleted from the green belt, the Scenic Area, and the wildlife sites (including any ornithological site) on the Proposals Map, and that it be included in the settlement boundary for Ayr as a strategic housing site;

(ii) that policy H3B be reinstated and amended to read, as follows:

“Greenan

The allocated area for housing comprises open agricultural land which, in general terms, rises gently from the north eastern part of the site in a southerly and westerly direction. The site is roughly rectangular in shape, and its western boundary is defined by a track, which forms part of the National Cycle Route. There is existing housing to the north and south of the site, and development would represent a natural extension of the built up area of the southern part of Ayr. The location is reasonably convenient for a range of employment, retail, commercial, education and other public services which residents of the new housing will require. Integration of footpaths and cycleways with existing facilities, coupled with appropriate levels of bus service routed through the site, provide reasonable alternatives to travelling by car. There is also the further possibility of travelling by train from Ayr town centre to destinations outwith the area. The site could be developed without any significant adverse effects on statutory environmental or heritage designations.

SALP6 6.68 Greenan

The council wish to see a golf course developed on the land to the north and west of the site. While the housing development is not dependent on the provision of the golf course, it could be of benefit, and the council would wish to have discussions with the developer on the viability, and possible implementation, of this proposal.

STRATEGIC POLICY H3B

Residential development on 35ha of land at Greenan will be considered to be acceptable by SAC, subject to conformity with masterplans, which will be prepared or otherwise approved by SAC.

It is expected that the site will accommodate approximately 430 dwellings. While rates of building are difficult to predict with complete accuracy, it is expected that development will be underway within 5 years of the likely date of the adoption of SALP, with completion in the medium term. The lead developer will be expected to demonstrate that the delivery of houses on this site could commence, and be completed, within the expected timescales.

Strategic policy H3B requires a masterplan for this site. Until that is completed, and approved by SAC, no consent for the development will be granted. As part of the preparation of SALP, SAC have considered the prospective impact and consequential requirements of the residential land allocation and have concluded that it is a viable and acceptable extension to Ayr. The masterplan for the site will require to address all of these matters to a level of detail which ensures the proper implementation of the development. It will therefore be required to address:

 the overall disposition of land uses within the site, including housing densities and public open space;  the provision of vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access to and from the site including any and all necessary consequential off site works;  measures to maximise the use of public transport by residents of the site;  the provision of all utility services to serve the site including any and all necessary consequential off site works;  the landscape framework for the site, including provision for an acceptable entrance to Ayr from the south;  the location of the main distributor road(s) within the site;  the specific treatments for the northern and western boundaries of the site to provide both defensible boundaries and a transition to the more open countryside and sensitive coastal area adjacent, and to ensure that there is no opportunity for further development (recommended depth of boundary treatment along Greenan‟s western edge: a minimum of 25-30m; and more along the northern edge);  any necessary consequential requirements for augmenting the provision of primary and secondary education;  the provision of affordable rented housing on site;  the provision of any required community facilities either by on site provision and/or upgrading/extending existing off site facilities;  the overall building design concept for the site; and  measures to co-ordinate the work of the development partners and to ensure the smooth delivery of all aspects of the proposal within the required timescale.”

SALP6 6.69 Greenan

6.4 HOLMSTON

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 369 and 491 James Craig (Auctioneers) Ltd & , AWG Residential Ltd (+ Written submissions)

Objecting to: Policy H3B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The proposed Holmston site is situated in countryside, on the eastern side of the A77, by Holmston Roundabout. It is bound to the east by trees, an electricity sub-station, Dobbies Garden Centre, a minor road and the cottages at Sandyhill Terrace, and countryside. A group of buildings lies further to the east of the northern part, and Masonhill Crematorium lies to the south east of the southern part. To the north of the objection site, there is the River Ayr and the associated walkway, beyond which is open rolling countryside. To the south, there are houses, a road (which used to provide a route into Ayr before being severed by the A77), a number of trees, and further open rolling countryside.

1.2 In total, Holmston extends to around 30ha, is irregular in shape, and is used for agricultural purposes (grazing). It is divided into Holmston North and Holmston South by the A70. Holmston North (of around 10ha) slopes gently down towards the north west, towards the A77 and Ayr, from the higher ground lying to the east by the electricity sub- station (around 30-35m AOD). There are some trees to the north and east which contain the site, and other parts are contained by fences. Holmston South (of around 20ha) also slopes down towards the north west from high points, close to Sandyhill Terrace (around 43-46m AOD). Adjacent to the A70, there is a former quarry. There are high pressure gas pipelines crossing both the southern and northern sections of the site in a north south direction. In addition, there are electricity power cables crossing the site. Most of Holmston North and a small part of Holmston South comprise grade 2 agricultural land.

1.3 Around 100 houses of varying house types would be erected on Holmston North and approximately 200 houses on Holmston South. Access to Holmston would be taken from 2 roundabouts on the A70. Access to Holmston South would be taken from a new arm off the existing roundabout serving Dobbies Garden Centre. Access to Holmston North would be from a new roundabout which would be sited closer to the A77. A linear park would run along the site‟s A77 frontage and further areas of open space would be provided in each part of the site. Holmston South would be linked to Ayr via a pedestrian footbridge over the A77. Holmston North would link to Ayr via both a pedestrian footbridge and the River Ayr Walkway, which passes underneath the A77. The development of Holmston would be phased with the peripheral structural planting being undertaken first, followed by the housing which would be developed from the north of the site southwards.

SALP7 7.70 Ayr Rugby Club

1.4 In the adopted East Kyle Local Plan Holmston is covered by a countryside allocation which, in general terms, seeks to prevent development. The northernmost part of Holmston North is included in a listed wildlife site. In 1998, an application for outline planning permission at Holmston was submitted by James Craig Ltd. The application proposed a mixed use development comprising a conference centre, a business park, a tourist centre, a garden centre, a hotel, a fast food outlet, a themed restaurant, a lorry park, a petrol filling station, and a caravan park. It was later withdrawn.

1.5 CDSALP (published in 1999) indicated that ASP would set out the housing requirements to be met and the basic structure within which SALP would operate. It explained that a larger site which could be developed in phases offered the most satisfactory solution in terms of meeting the overall need for housing and SALP‟s overall objectives. However, it did not include Holmston in the short list of sites, which were identified as worthy of further consideration. CDSALP included Holmston North in the green belt and Scenic Area, and Holmston South in the Rural Protection Area. Policy SERV29 identified the area now occupied by Dobbies Garden Centre as being suitable for the establishment of a waste transfer depot. The area by the River Ayr on the northern edge of Holmston North was designated as a part of a larger wildlife site. CDSALP indicated that a key factor in selecting a housing site was the need for any new development to be as sustainable as possible.

1.6 SALP (published in 2002) reflected the terms of CDSALP. In July 2003, the objectors submitted an application for outline planning permission for a residential development at Holmston. This application has, as yet, not been determined. In their initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), SAC indicated that they had concerns about the proposals at Holmston, including visual intrusion and poor functional links to Ayr. In addition, they noted a lack of information on transport, services, and facilities. Holmston North was a very attractive agricultural landscape, with mature trees and hedgerows; and it would be difficult to mitigate the effects of development at Holmston South. The designations proposed in SALP at Holmston should be retained.

1.7 CDASP (June 2004) identifies Ayr, Prestwick and Troon as lying within the Core Investment Area. South and east Ayr is identified as a preferred location for up to 8000 houses, and it is proposed that rail passenger capacity be developed through, amongst other things, the extension of the Glasgow/Ayr electrified line to Ayr Hospital/SEA and the provision of a small number of rail halts to link with housing land releases. CDASP refers to the increasingly high volumes of traffic on the Ayr by pass and other sections of the A77, and explains that if the potential from new development opportunities is to be realised then improvements over these sections of road should continue.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of the green belt, Scenic Area and Rural Protection Area designations which cover Holmston in SALP, its allocation as a housing site under a replacement policy H3B, and its inclusion within the settlement boundary of Ayr.

SALP7 7.71 Ayr Rugby Club

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR JAMES CRAIG LTD AND AWG RESIDENTIAL LTD

3.1 SAC had failed in SALP to allocate sufficient, appropriate, effective housing land to meet in full the updated ASP target to 2012. Residential development at Holmston would neither offend the strategic intent of ASP nor its specific policy guidance. The precise boundaries between settlements and the countryside was a matter to be determined through the SALP process. Reference was made to ASP policies ADS2, ADS3, ADS5, ADS6, E2, G1, G3 G4, G5 and G8. Policies L5 and G8 complemented each other. An assessment had been carried out against policy L5 whether or not it applied in this case. If, following a balanced assessment of all relevant considerations, it was concluded that Holmston should be included within the settlement boundary of Ayr, then its proposed allocation for housing would fully accord with ASP.

3.2 Holmston was effective under the terms of PAN38. Gas pipeline diversions would be required, and they had been incorporated into the proposals. The preliminary noise assessment indicated that mitigation measures could successfully reduce the effects of traffic noise from the A77 and A70, over most of the site, and that the development could meet the guidelines set out in national advice. If SALP was to be adopted sometime in 2006, necessary preparations could be undertaken during 2005. A detailed planning application could be submitted in 2006, and discussions could take place with Transco. It would take 6-9 months to secure Transco‟s agreement to relocate the pipeline, and thereafter a further 3-4 months to allow the work to be undertaken. On this basis, builders could be on site by 2007 with the first houses becoming available in the early part of 2008 or possibly late 2007. The objectors believed that Holmston could be built out at a rate of 60 houses per annum.

3.3 Holmston provided a logical location for the growth of Ayr. Holmston North was well contained by topography and existing tree cover. This meant that it had considerable landscape capacity and the ability to accommodate development. At Holmston South, it was intended to respect the existing ridge line and mirror the existing residential development on the west side of the A77 at Masonhill. While housing would be evident on the ridge, 80% of the proposed housing would be below the 40m contour. The remaining 20% would require a landscaping scheme designed to strengthen the sense of containment and soften the visual impact along the eastern boundary. This housing would also be seen alongside the existing housing at Sandyhill Terrace. Existing hedgerows would be retained. From key visual receptors, the views would change and the degree of change would be likely to be significant. However, the visual impact would not be adverse, particularly when Holmston‟s location was taken into account. Any adverse impact would be mitigated, and the topography meant that significant screening could be achieved with relatively low tree cover. SAC provided no comparative analysis of long distance viewpoints. The main long distance receptors were between 1km and 2km away. SAC had also not carried out an assessment of views from the east in order to establish the adverse visual impact that would arise from housing or landscaping at the eastern extremity of Holmston South.

3.4 Holmston could be a natural extension to Ayr. The topography created a bowl facing west towards the built up area. The land within the rim of the bowl was contained, and its character was substantially influenced by Ayr. Beyond, the rim, to the east, there was a far stronger sense of openness. The site could be better described as urban fringe agricultural land rather than open countryside. The landform and tree belts provided not only containment, but interest as well. The quality of the River Ayr corridor to the north was very

SALP7 7.72 Ayr Rugby Club

much higher than that of Holmston. The sense of arrival at Ayr would not be adversely affected by the proposal. At present, there was already a strong sense of having arrived by the time Holmston Roundabout was reached. The sense of arrival started close to the Auction Mart to the east of the site. From this point, travelling westwards, there was a 40mph speed limit, street lighting, a formal footpath, and an increasing amount of residential and other development, including a large recently constructed Dobbies Garden Centre, which gave the impression that Ayr was growing eastwards. A new gateway could be created at Old Toll which would consolidate the sense of arrival. The new point of arrival to Ayr from the north would be the A77 bridge over the River Ayr and, to the south, there would be little change because the A77 was mainly in cutting at that point. Development at Holmston would not affect the wider setting of Ayr, and there was an opportunity to enhance it.

3.5 Alternative defensible boundaries could be created. Holmston was only contentious because the A77 had been built, and it had been treated as an identifiable and defensible boundary. However, the A77 did not necessarily relate to the natural visual envelope of Ayr. Topographically, Holmston‟s eastern boundary was readily identifiable and its defensibility would be enhanced by tree planting. The proposal would not lead to urban sprawl further to the east. The existing River Ayr corridor had historically performed as a readily identifiable and defensible boundary, and it would continue to serve that purpose if Holmston was released.

3.6 Holmston was a suitable location for new housing development and met the requirements of NPPG17 and PAN57, and SAC‟s own transport policies. It was well served by public transport, with 5/6 buses per hour linking the site to facilities in Ayr. For trips beyond Ayr, it would be necessary to change. There were direct links to Ayr Railway Station. Around 50% of trips by public transport would be to the town centre. Although there was no commitment from an operator, provision would be made to allow buses to penetrate Holmston South. The bus stops on Holmston Road were only 5 minutes walk from both parts of the site, and they were already served by footpaths and provided with lay bys. Almost the entire objection site was within 400m distance of them. There was considerable scope to improve the pedestrian and cycling links between Holmston and the built up area of Ayr, including the links to local schools and shops. It was accepted that the underpass carrying the River Ayr Walkway was not ideal and that a second bridge crossing could be required. The topography meant that the bridge links would not require excessive climbing or descending, particularly at Holmston South. Both bridges would have ramp access. There were no safety issues with the bridges, and a barrier would be provided to stop informal crossing of the A77. Full details would require to be submitted in order to satisfy the conditions that would be imposed on any grant of planning permission. The local schools were reasonably accessible to Holmston via the links across the A77, with the maximum walking time being to Forehill Primary School from Holmston North, which would take about 15 minutes.

3.7 The conditional approval, given by SE‟s consultants, to the planning application meant that the development‟s impact on the nearby A77 and other roads could be accommodated (both in the opening year [2006] and design year [2021]), and that the sustainable transport objectives set out in national guidance could be satisfied. No concerns had been raised regarding the location of the new roundabout and its proximity to Holmston Roundabout. Holmston benefited from its proximity to the A77.

SALP7 7.73 Ayr Rugby Club

3.8 Holmston was broadly supported by the general principles in policy G8. Any conflict arising applied equally to the other greenfield releases. On general principle A, the objectors believed that meeting an identified housing need was a local community benefit. In relation to general principle C, the objectors took this to mean existing physical infrastructure only. If the wider interpretation used by SAC had been meant then the Structure Plan and Transportation Team could easily have referred to community facilities as well as service infrastructure. On general principle D, the avoidance of prime quality agricultural land was not an absolute pre-requisite for release. Under general principle G, there would no loss of existing amenity and recreational open space.

3.9 There were no capacity issues as far as the denominational schools were concerned. At non-denominational schools, there were capacity issues throughout Ayr. In so far as this related to Holmston, it could be dealt with by a planning condition or a section 75 agreement at the stage of dealing with the planning application. An extension to Kyle Academy was proposed under the Public Private Partnership scheme, and a developer contribution could be a way to address the issue.

3.10 Turning to the designations for Holmston in SALP, in relation to the green belt, neither survey parcels 30 nor 31 had been assessed as being “vulnerable” or “highly vulnerable”, of “green merit” or “high green merit”. SAC classified survey parcels 30A and 31 as being “sensitive”, which was the equivalent rating to some other parcels which had been excluded from the green belt, and one parcel which was now developed. In the parcel contribution survey, parcel 31 was recorded as making a “contribution” to the green belt, but was also identified as a parcel offering development potential in the green belt. Although parcel 30A was also identified as making a “contribution”, its eastern edge was seen as potentially forming a boundary to an eastern green wedge. The objectors believed that little weight should be attached to the methodology adopted by SAC in their green belt survey in so far as this related to Holmston North. At best, the exercise was highly subjective and, at worst, it was manipulated or simply overlooked to allow SAC to arrive at their chosen green belt boundaries. Holmston North makes no contribution, or a negligible one, to the objectives set out in SDD Circular 24/1985. The River Ayr was an alternative, and perfectly acceptable, green belt boundary and it had been recognised as such since 1990. To the east of Holmston, the river was used as a boundary to the green belt. There was no reason why it could not be an equally appropriate boundary at the objection site. The objectors requested that the Scenic Area and Rural Protection Area designations be set aside in the interests of meeting the strategic housing land requirement through the most suitable and effective greenfield release. The Wildlife Site identified in SALP would be excluded from the development footprint. The objectors would be prepared to enter into a management agreement for this area, which would deal with any adverse effects that arose from the proposal.

3.11 CDASP (2004) envisaged significant growth of the urban area. The objection site should be identified as an appropriate and effective location for 300 houses to come forward in the period 2007-12, and it should be recommended that SALP be modified to that effect. Any allocation of the site should refer to the need for a masterplan. Holmston had the advantage that it was smaller than the other strategic releases, and it did not therefore require such a comprehensive assessment.

SALP7 7.74 Ayr Rugby Club

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC AND SEAC

4.1 Sections 11, 15 and 17 of the 1997 T&CPA set out the obligations imposed on SAC in considering the objections to SALP. The Structure and Local Plans (Scotland) Regulations were also relevant. The test of whether a local plan conformed to the structure plan was one of planning judgement (Commission for the New Towns v Horsham District Council [2000] PLCR (Part 1) 70; R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods [1998] Env LR277; and Freeport Leisure plc v West Lothian Council [1999] SLT452). The correct approach in interpreting a structure plan was to look at the policy, the relevant text supporting the policy, and the policy and text in the context of the relevant chapter. An example of the correct approach was contained in the City of Edinburgh Council v SMs [2001] SC957.

4.2 In line with national guidance and ASP policies ADS3, ADS5, ADS7, G1 and G8, there must be a planning justification for residential development on greenfield sites. It was not possible to simply substitute Holmston for SEA. SEA had been identified only after a rigorous assessment, which commenced with the identification of a range of possible sites, and involved a comparative assessment of the 3 locations identified in CDSALP (NET, SEA and Greenan). In any event, SEA was no longer required. SALP‟s strategy offered the realistic prospect of major investment in public facilities and services, and the creation of major opportunities for further economic development. Holmston did not offer this integrated approach to settlement expansion, and it did not therefore compare favourably to SEA. SAC did not believe that there was a further requirement for the release of greenfield land beyond that identified in SALP under strategic policy H3A (NET) and the policy H2B and policy H4 sites. Even if there was a requirement for further greenfield sites, the local plan inquiry process was not an appropriate forum for identifying such a release. Indeed, it would not be sound planning to select one site without full consideration of all relevant land around the existing settlements. Further work was clearly required to confirm whether or not Holmston was effective. The objectors proposed annual completion rate was relatively high compared to that expected from other large greenfield sites in the area. The date for commencing building on site (2007) also appeared optimistic.

4.3 It would not be good planning to allow the extension of Ayr through development at Holmston. The site was isolated from the built up area by a major road and substantial landscape buffers, and it was also dissected by a second major road. The ridge line relied upon by the objectors did not link Holmston with Ayr, either visually or in terms of the landform. The objectors had not produced any photographs to support this key element of their evidence. When analysed, the available photographs did not show a linked ridge line because they were taken about 10-15m below the top of the ridge on the west side of the A77. SAC‟s photographs confirmed that there was no such link. They also showed the land rising up to the east from the A77, which only emphasised the visual prominence of the objection site. When the indicative masterplan was assessed alongside the photographs, it was clear that development would go over the ridge, on to the plateau, and down the other side of the ridge. The result of the proposal would be that the ridge line would no longer be seen. In any event, the importance of the ridge line was reduced by the fact that it was not a feature used to contain development on the west side of the A77. Holmston would be separate from Ayr, and this separation would be increased by the proposed landscape buffers alongside the A77. Overall, the proposal would create an undesirable urban sprawl.

4.4 The proposal would result in a significant adverse visual impact on views from key receptors, including the existing housing to the west of the A77, the A77 and A70, the wider

SALP7 7.75 Ayr Rugby Club

countryside to the north, south and east, and the golf course. Rather than having an open view of the countryside consistent with the landscape character of the area to the east of the A77, many of the key receptors would have views of the landscape buffers with housing partly visible above them. The assessment undertaken by the objectors had not focussed on whether it would be desirable to develop the site in landscape terms, but on how the adverse landscape effect of the development could be mitigated.

4.5 The proposal would create a new landscape setting of Ayr and a new entrance to the town. However, the new settlement boundary to the east of the objection site would consist of an electricity sub-station, Dobbies Garden Centre and a minor road, and the new settlement boundary to the south would also be a minor road. It would be unfortunate if SALP was remembered for creating a new gateway entrance to Ayr consisting of the proposed eastern boundary. The present settlement boundary was clearly located along the A77, with countryside to the east. National and strategic guidance emphasised the preservation of the existing setting and character of towns. There was also doubt about whether development could be contained to Holmston. The landscape buffer and the minor roads to the south and east of Holmston South were not such a defensible boundary as the A77. The release of Holmston could therefore lead to unplanned further extensions of Ayr in this area. It was accepted that the A77 boundary would probably be breached at some stage. The policy approach to Holmston in SALP was generally consistent with the provisions of the adopted local plan.

4.6 NPPG17 set out the contribution that land use planning could make to achieving the Government‟s broad policy objectives for integrated transport and land use planning. Holmston did not compare favourably when considered against these objectives. It was not in a location which was highly accessible by walking. Pedestrian access to facilities, which would be predominantly sited in the built up area to the west, would require crossing the A77. Such crossing would require to be predominantly by bridge because use of the underpass was undesirable. There was also concern about attempts that could be made to take a more direct route over the A77. To access local schools, it could be necessary to cross the A70 as well. No other community facilities would be within walking distance of Holmston. NPPG17 made clear that priority should be given to sites which were most accessible to a regular train service, and this was an important consideration when the rail network was a significant contributor to public transport services. Holmston would not be near to a railway station or a transport interchange. There would be a regular bus service from the objection site to Ayr town centre, but not directly to other destinations, which would mean that journey times would be extended making this mode of transport less attractive to users. It would be unlikely that bus services would divert into the site because of the impact on travel times. The Transport Assessment highlighted that the majority of trips from the built up area to the west of the A77 were to areas outwith Ayr. SAC considered that Holmston would not provide a genuine choice of transport to all destinations; it would also not promote a modal change in transport use. The proposal would result in a development on the edge of Ayr that would be accessed predominantly by car. With the introduction of a 40mph speed limit to the east of the objection site, the proposed new junctions to serve the development would be satisfactory. SAC were satisfied that the development could be accommodated on the road network. SEAC were concerned that the traffic flow projections at Holmston were not based on a “worst case” scenario, unlike at SEA.

4.7 ASP policy G8 was an important policy which drew together the general principles which should guide the release of new development land. Holmston would not provide any

SALP7 7.76 Ayr Rugby Club

local community benefit (A). It was not a vacant or derelict brownfield site (B). Whether a narrow or broad interpretation of service infrastructure was taken (C), substantial work would be required, particularly in relation to the existing gas pipelines, and significant costs would therefore be incurred. There were also restrictions on the capacity of local schools, including Kyle Academy where the Public Private Partnership scheme proposed related to an improvement in facilities rather than an expansion of capacity. These matters clearly had implications for the effectiveness of Holmston. Prime agricultural land would be lost as a result of any development (D). The proposal would result in increased car usage, and would not reduce the need to travel by car (E). It would have a detrimental effect on the natural environment (H), and it would not respect the area‟s landscape character (I). Drawing these matters together, it was clear that the objection site failed this policy. ASP policy L5 was not relevant to an assessment of the allocation of land for development in local plans. It was intended to provide flexibility in order to allow the release of greenfield land before the adoption of SALP. None of the opportunities arising from settlement extensions (as outlined in SPP3) would apply to the proposal.

4.8 The objectors‟ acceptance of the inclusion of Holmston in the green belt, the Rural Protection Area and (partially) the Sensitive Landscape Character Area in ASP‟s key diagram made it difficult to justify an alteration to SALP. While ASP indicated that it was for local plans to identify the boundaries of such areas, they must have regard to the key diagram when identifying their precise boundaries. The key diagram clearly recognised the significance of the A77 and the River Ayr. Holmston North fulfilled many of the functions of the green belt as shown in SAC‟s survey of parcels 29, 30a and 31, and the boundary proposed was defensible. In retrospect, SAC believed that parcel 30A should have been considered separately from parcel 30 throughout all parts of the green belt survey. The fact that the green belt boundary had been at the River Ayr since at least 1990 was of little relevance, because the existing green belt‟s principal function was the safeguarding of Prestwick Airport. The proposed green belt required to have regard to a greater number of purposes, which were identified in ASP. It was also of little relevance that the proposed green belt boundary followed the River Ayr to the east of Holmston because different considerations applied in that area. The Scenic Area designation could be justified because the ASP assessment had given the River Ayr and its banks and the surrounding area, a “high” evaluation, and this had been confirmed by SAC in their own work. While SAC‟s Scenic Area survey had been extensive, it had focussed on the characteristics and qualities of the edges of the area with a view to establishing appropriate boundaries. There was also no basis for altering the Rural Protection Area designation of Holmston South. There could be a detrimental effect on the designated wildlife site if a footpath from the development was placed close to (or through) it.

4.9 The objectors had not advanced objections of sufficient weight to justify altering SALP in so far as it relates to Holmston.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 On a preliminary matter, SAC contended that the local plan process was not an appropriate forum in which to identify the releases to make up a housing land shortfall, even if the process had established that such a shortfall existed. However, the whole essence of the objectors‟ case is that they seek a recommendation from the inquiry that the objection site be released for housing, and it would be wrong of us to defer consideration of the suitability of

SALP7 7.77 Ayr Rugby Club

the objection site for this purpose to another place and process. We acknowledge that, in considering our report, SAC may wish to review certain matters and take into account further information which has come to light. Nonetheless, we are bound to assess the objection at Holmston on its planning merits, and make a recommendation on the release of the site, within the context of all the evidence presented to the inquiry, including that before this session, the strategic sessions, and all the other sessions.

5.2 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.3 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). While more detailed site investigations may be required, we are satisfied that the site has the potential to be effective. We acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the site but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. The site has infrastructure constraints, including those relating to the gas pipe lines crossing the site and school capacity, but the indications are that these could probably be resolved without undermining the viability of the proposal. We note that the constraint on school capacity is one which affects a large number of sites. Given the infrastructure constraints and the scale and relative complexity of the proposal, we believe that the objectors have been overly optimistic in estimating the date for the start of development on site, and consider that a more realistic estimate would be 2008/09. We agree with SAC that a completion rate of 60 houses per annum is relatively high when compared with the estimated completion rates for other large scale greenfield releases in the area. There is little to indicate that there are site specific circumstances which could justify this high level of output. Taking into account the output expected from other sites, we believe that a more likely build out rate would be around 50 houses per annum.

5.4 Holmston lies in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, Holmston is identified as being mainly in the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area, with the Lowland River Valley Landscape Character Area extending into the northern part of Holmston North. Holmston is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above). In this case, there are no issues of coalescence with other settlements. We do not consider that any allocation for housing would be undermined by the physical or visual coalescence that would occur with the existing developments in the immediate vicinity of the site.

5.5 The A77, and the associated planting, provide strong visual features and establish a clear definition of this part of Ayr‟s eastern physical boundary. The western edge of Holmston therefore contributes to maintaining Ayr‟s identity. The proposal would result in

SALP7 7.78 Ayr Rugby Club

this clearly defined edge between the countryside and built up area being breached. While we have concerns about breaching such a significant boundary, we accept that the River Ayr and the nearby large group of trees could provide an acceptably defensible boundary to Ayr and to the north and north east of Holmston North. However, we have concerns about the southern boundary of Holmston South and the eastern boundary of the whole site. The eastern boundary of Holmston North would comprise an electricity sub-station, Dobbies Garden Centre and an access road. The eastern and southern boundaries of Holmston South would be minor roads. Although all these boundaries would be readily identifiable, they would be weak, particularly for a development of this scale, and a much weaker boundary than the A77. We acknowledge that the additional planting proposed on the boundaries could, in time, strengthen them and have a beneficial effect. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this would overcome their deficiencies. The planting would have to be of a substantially greater depth and, even then, the problem of the eastern boundary to Holmston North would remain. In the circumstances, we are not persuaded that the eastern and southern boundaries would be defensible or that they would serve to maintain the identity of Ayr.

5.6 While the site is not used for countryside recreation, it contributes passively to the countryside scene at this location for people living in the area (including on the edge of Ayr), and those using the A77, the A70 and local roads. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting the proposed residential allocation.

5.7 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the findings of the study as they relate to the “vulnerability”, “green merit”, “contribution”, and “sensitivity” of the site. We believe that the site sits in an attractive undulating rural landscape on the eastern side of the A77. However, we recognise that the site may not be in the most sensitive part of the green belt study area. The existing built elements to the east and south of the site have not diluted its rural character to any significant extent. The site contributes to the clear division between town and country, and contrasts sharply with the built up area lying to the west of the A77. It is open and, as it slopes up from the A77, it is prominent in views from the west. The site can also be seen in views from the A70 and the east (in part). We are not persuaded that the bowl or natural visual envelope referred to by the objectors is as well defined as they would have it. Overall, we are in no doubt that Holmston is important in terms of the significant contribution it makes to the landscape setting of Ayr, along with other land on the eastern side of the A77.

5.8 Holmston would represent a significant extension to Ayr, albeit not as large as SEA, and it would radically alter the existing urban form. It would be likely to result in the current clear edge between town and country becoming blurred. As such, it could well lead to pressure for further development in other areas to the east of the A77, and make such pressure more difficult to resist. The proposed development would be visible in important views, and its likely prominence should not be underestimated. The ridge line on site is not readily apparent, and we note from the illustrative plan that houses would cross it. While mitigation may be possible (in time), housing around the ridge line raises the possibility of skyline development. The objectors claim that the ridge line continues on the western side of the A77 and that development has occurred on it. However, this does not help the case for the proposal because that area is already built up which offsets the impact of any buildings on higher ground. The requirement to set back development on site from the A77 would emphasise its isolation from the existing built up area. We are aware that the designations

SALP7 7.79 Ayr Rugby Club

covering the site in the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment generally presume against large scale built development, but we accept that this would be insufficient in itself to prevent an allocation if other more significant factors outweigh this constraint. As we have concerns about landscape fit and integration with the existing built up area of Ayr, we do not consider that the proposal at present is consistent with the thrust of PAN44 or SPP3. Overall, we believe that the proposal would be likely to have a materially adverse effect on the landscape setting of Ayr and the local area, and on landscape character.

5.9 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles (A-K) which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). We find that G does not apply, and that all relevant matters in I are dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available. On B, the site is greenfield and would therefore not make efficient use of vacant and derelict land. Regarding C, we see no reason why the interpretation of this general principle should be restricted to physical infrastructure only. Such a narrow approach would be contrary to the overall thrust of the policy. There is nothing to indicate that the extension of existing services (such as electricity, water, gas and sewerage) could not be satisfactorily achieved. We have dealt with those constraints relating to the gas pipe lines and educational facilities above. Turning to D, while we acknowledge that a large part of the objection site is classified as grade 2 quality agricultural land, it does not appear to be in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine any housing allocation on site.

5.10 In relation to E and F, the proposal does not have the advantage of offering a possible future prospect of ready access to a rail halt and train services. Instead, it would be necessary to use the railway station in the centre of Ayr, which is some distance away, and would require to be accessed either by bus or car. However, this would not be greatly different from the position at some other locations, including SEA until such time as the rail facilities and an appropriately enhanced train service can be delivered. The bus service proposed at Holmston would be accessible and reasonable, with 5/6 buses per hour linking the site to facilities in Ayr. Although no interchange has been included within the indicative masterplan, this would not be expected of a proposal of this nature and scale.

5.11 Irrespective of the bus services proposed for the development, we recognise that the private car would remain the predominant mode of travel at the objection site, and that suitable provision for walking, cycling and public transport would change the modal split only at the margin. The indications are that the proposal could be accommodated on the road network. However, we are not persuaded that the cycle and pedestrian links proposed (the 2 footbridges) would serve to properly integrate Holmston with Ayr because of the need to cross the A77. These links would be particularly important in this case because all the facilities serving the proposal would be located in Ayr, on the west side of the A77.

5.12 In terms of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17, the objection site would be served by bus services. While the development would therefore be reasonably served by at least 2 means of transport, we acknowledge that any transportation improvements that would be achieved are small scale, and that Holmston is not in a position to offer the advantages that would stem from a “step change” in public transport provision, for example, through the introduction of rail services. Overall, as in all greenfield locations on the edge of settlements, it is unlikely that any development here would avoid increases in, or reduce, the need to

SALP7 7.80 Ayr Rugby Club

travel, particularly by car, and we therefore consider that there would be difficulty in meeting general principle E. The objection site would be reasonably well related to public transport routes through the bus services proposed. While to this extent general principle F could be regarded as satisfied, we are not persuaded that this would significantly help any allocation at this location.

5.13 On general principle H, Holmston North is included within the Scenic Area and the northernmost part is included in a Wildlife Site. Regarding the Wildlife Site, which is a local designation, we accept that the proposal would not encroach on the designated area, and that the site could be developed in such a way that it would minimise any potential adverse effects. In the case of the Scenic Area, the details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying its precise boundaries were not brought to the inquiry. We acknowledge that the Scenic Area designation covers a much larger area, that there is built development within it adjacent to the objection site, and that this is the time to review its boundaries. However, we are of the view that Holmston North is a prominent, important part of the Scenic Area and, given our conclusions above about the potentially adverse effects of development in this location, we are not persuaded that there is sufficient justification to adjust the designation. For general principle J, there is little in the evidence to suggest that flooding or ground instability represent a significant problem for the development of the objection site. In relation to general principle K, we are satisfied that it would be unlikely that a properly constituted scheme would result in any unreasonable adverse effects on land, air or water quality. Although the site could contribute to meeting the housing land shortfall, taking into account all of the above, we consider that there is an underlying conflict with ASP‟s strategy and the general principles contained in policy G8 which makes it difficult for this site to be allocated for housing at this time. Overall, while parties disagreed on whether or not ASP policy L5 applies in this case, we note that the policy raises relevant matters which require to be, and have been, taken into account.

5.14 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose in ASP relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield nature of Holmston and its location means that it serves to control the growth of the built up area and thereby complements the process of urban renewal. It also has a significant role in preserving the character of Ayr. In the circumstances, and taking into account the above conclusions, we consider that Holmston has a strong green belt role. SALP identifies only Holmston North as being in the green belt. However, we have found some difficulty in distinguishing between Holmston North and Holmston South in terms of green belt roles.

5.15 CDASP sets out 9 criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be on the edge of the Core Town of Ayr, and it would be reasonably accessible to the other 2 core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area, and Ayr is a focus for public transport networks. The objection site would help maintain and improve existing community services and facilities, and would provide additional housing choice. We acknowledge that at the objection site there would be some opportunity for improved public transport links. However, these would be limited and, as outlined above, the proposal would not be of a scale to unlock new infrastructure investment through the introduction of transportation measures which offer a realistic prospect of a genuine choice of travel. We are not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there is the potential to achieve a development on site which respects the character and

SALP7 7.81 Ayr Rugby Club

setting of the community through good design, and we do not believe that the limitations on environmental capacity at this location have been recognised. Although the development of the objection site would not conflict in broad terms with economic development priorities, it would not be a catalyst for regeneration and renewal. While we accept that CDASP is generally supportive of development at south and east Ayr, we regard Holmston as an unsuitable location to breach the A77 and create a pod of housing separated from the existing built up area. Drawing these elements together, we do not consider that the proposal meets the underlying thrust of the criteria for new housing releases, and this has a significant undermining effect.

5.16 In conclusion, we believe that Holmston is a location where the expansion of the built up area should be resisted. We consider that development here would conflict with ASP and CDASP, and national guidance and advice. We are particularly concerned with the materially adverse effect that development at this location could have on the landscape setting of this part of Ayr, and at the weaker settlement boundaries that would be substituted for the A77. In addition, we believe that the limited extent of the green belt designation at Holmston requires review.

5.17 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the general problem of the radial bus routes into Ayr and the fact that the A77 is partly in cutting as it passes Holmston, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that Holmston be not allocated for housing in SALP, and that it remains outwith the settlement boundary of Ayr covered by countryside designations; and

(ii) that the green belt designation on the objection site be reconsidered as a part of the green belt review recommended in chapter 3.3, and that the interim policy position outlined in that chapter be adopted in the interim.

SALP7 7.82 Ayr Rugby Club

7. Other Housing Sites

SALP7 7.83 Ayr Rugby Club

7.1 AYR: AYR RUGBY CLUB

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 33 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2A Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Millbrae lies north of the River Doon close to the built up area of Alloway. Since 1964, it has been the home of Ayr Rugby Football Club. That was founded in 1897 and their 1st XV now plays in the BT Premiership. To the east of the site is the Burns Monument and gardens, and Alloway Parish Church; to the north is the Burns Heritage Park, which incorporates the Tam O‟Shanter Experience; to the east and south are the banks of the River Doon; and to the south is the Dutch Mill, a former cloth factory which has been converted to residential use. The sole vehicular route to the Dutch Mill and Millbrae from the B7024 is a narrow road that connects to the private access at the south west corner of the objection site. Millbrae is flat, but at the south and east boundaries the land slopes down very steeply towards the River Doon. There are two pitches (one floodlit), a spectator stand, a sand pit, a car park, and a club house all of which are located towards the south west corner of the site leaving the remainder as grass. Mature trees border the ground, and there is also a wall along the east and north boundaries about 1.8m high.

1.2 Rozelle Park is an area of over 45ha of parkland situated east of Monument Road (B7024) in Alloway. Created following the historic roup of 1754, it is now owned and maintained by SAC, and it was opened to the public in 1971. The park accommodates the substantial Rozelle House and associated buildings amongst which is a former stable block which accommodates the Maclaurin Art Galleries. The Slaphouse Burn runs through the northern portion of the park. There are 2 existing sports pitches, extensive amenity open space and a variety of attractive mature woodlands within the grounds.

1.3 In the Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan (adopted 1989) both Millbrae and Rozelle Park are covered by policy REC(POL)3 which presumes in favour of existing recreational uses. In CDSALP, both Millbrae and Roselle Park were within the settlement boundary of Ayr. Millbrae was covered by policies TOUR13, ENV15 and SERV21. The relevant portions of Rozelle Park were covered by policies TOUR13, ENV18 and SERV21. In SALP, Millbrae is covered by policies TOUR3, ENV5, ENV6 and ENV7. Rozelle Park is covered by SALP policies TOUR3, ENV5, and ENV6. SAC have proposed no changes to that position.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of the site for housing.

SALP7 7.84 Ayr Rugby Club

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 The Ayr Rugby Football Club stated that due to intensification of use the facilities at Millbrae were no longer adequate to accommodate the increase in the numbers visiting the grounds as players and spectators. Access to the site was also inadequate. A suitable solution would be to relocate the grounds and the associated facilities to land at Rozelle Park. There was developer interest in the site at Millbrae for private housing, and the money released would be sufficient to finance the relocation.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 The existing rugby grounds at Millbrae should be safeguarded as a recreational facility and amenity open space. The largely undeveloped and open nature of the site enhanced the setting of the adjacent River Doon corridor and the Burns related tourist attractions. Millbrae was currently in use as sports pitches, and it had not been proven that any suitable alternative location for them was available. Given the proximity of the site to the River Doon, it was appropriate to have included it under policy ENV7 thereby ensuring that proper account could be taken of the impact of any proposals on the integrity of that environmentally sensitive corridor. That approach was consistent with SE policy as articulated in NPPG11 and NPPG14. A comprehensive assessment was required to assess the impact on the amenity and environment of the public parkland of the proposed relocation of the rugby grounds and their associated facilities to Rozelle Park. That location had not been fully assessed, and it was premature to promote the relocation from Millbrae through SALP.

4.2 The allocation of the site at Millbrae for housing would run contrary to the provisions of SPP3 and ASP. The site was neither vacant nor derelict brownfield land: it was an area of green amenity space that fulfilled a formal sporting function. Development on the site could adversely affect the environmental quality of the River Doon corridor which had long been recognised as sensitive in terms of its landscape setting, nature conservation, and biodiversity. The sole vehicular access to the site was via the narrow and often congested road leading to the B7024 at the Brig O‟ Doon Hotel. There was no dispute that the access was inadequate even for the present use, and there did not appear to be any readily identifiable opportunity for the creation of an access appropriate for residential development. Access by emergency vehicles would be particularly difficult.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

SALP7 7.85 Ayr Rugby Club

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). It must be demonstrated that, within the period under consideration, the site will be available for the construction of housing free of physical constraints which would preclude its development for that purpose. The objectors do not dispute that the current access to Millbrae is not entirely suitable even for the current use of the site. At our unaccompanied site inspection, we experienced for ourselves the problems of vehicular access by means of the narrow approach from the B7024 at the Brig O‟ Doon Hotel. We have no evidence about how that considerable difficulty might be overcome in a manner that would take account adequately of the number of pedestrian and road traffic movements likely to be generated by residential development on the objection site. For that reason, we cannot assess the site at Millbrae as effective. We have no detail on the capacity, delivery, phasing or programming of a development were the site to be allocated for housing.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 2.1 above). When we consider Millbrae against these we find that D, H and K do not apply. Taking each of the others, under A, G and I, we are sympathetic to the evident determination of the Ayr Rugby Football Club to provide for the benefit of rugby players of all ages and abilities, the pitches and associated facilities worthy of an ambitious Premier League Club. However, we have no evidence that the proposed relocation to Roselle Park would be acceptable in land use planning terms. Even if the proposed relocation could be achieved in the manner envisaged by the objectors, there would be a net loss of existing recreational and amenity open space. That would be contrary to SE policy as set out in NPPG11. In addition, we have no detailed information on the impact which residential development would have on the appearance of the surrounding area, and we share SAC‟s concern that housing at Millbrae would erode the high quality of the landscape character within the environs of the River Doon, contrary to SALP policy ENV7.

5.4 Under B, neither Millbrae nor Rozelle Park can be described as vacant and derelict brownfield land. They are predominantly undeveloped open space. Under C, we have insufficient information to judge either whether housing on the objection site would maximise the use of existing service infrastructure or whether sustainable forms of development could be achieved. Under E and F, with the exception of match days, housing at Millbrae would increase the number of trips by private car generated regularly from the site. However, any residential development would be served by existing public transport facilities for the adjacent areas. The location of bus stops and the frequency and scheduling of services are not ideal, but we do not consider that development at the site would run contrary to the thrust and the intent of NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17. On J, it is not clear that the site has satisfied this general principle.

5.5 CDASP sets out the criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be located in Ayr, a Core Town, and would be accessible to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be in the Core Investment Area. However, in light of the above conclusions, we do not consider that the site represents an appropriate development opportunity for housing.

5.6 In conclusion, we find that there are difficulties of access to, and egress from, the site, and that its allocation for housing would be inconsistent with the principles contained in ASP policy G8.

SALP7 7.86 Ayr Rugby Club

5.7 We have taken account of all the other matters raised, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the objection site continues to be covered by an appropriate open space designation in SALP.

SALP7 7.87 Ayr Rugby Club

7.2 AYR: BRASTON FARM

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 444 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The objectors suggested that part of Braston Farm, a dairying enterprise, should be released for a mixed use flagship tourist and leisure development. An indicative layout dated February 1992, was provided which showed how the site might be developed to incorporate: a lorry park, industrial/ business units, fast food outlets, a restaurant, a hotel, housing, a water feature and structural planting, all set back from the A77, and with access taken from the A713.

1.2 The objection site, which is roughly rectangular in shape and amounts to approximately 8.6ha, is located to the south east of the town centre of Ayr immediately adjacent to the A77 and the Bankfield roundabout. The north western boundary runs along the A77, beyond which is the Queen Margaret Academy and the built up area of Ayr. The south western boundary runs along the A713 Ayr to Dalmellington road which leads through countryside to the Ailsa and Ayr Hospital complex. The south eastern boundary is largely defined by a hedgerow and the farm track which leads to Braston Farm. The north eastern boundary follows no particularly well defined feature and looks out onto open countryside. The site slopes gently westwards away from Braston Farm and towards the Bankfield roundabout. At our site inspection, we noted that the land was in grass and that, in places, it was wet underfoot.

1.3 In the East Kyle Local Plan (adopted in 1990) the objection site lies outside the settlement boundary of Ayr. It is covered by policy 3 which provides for a general presumption against development in the countryside outside settlement boundaries unless there is a specific locational requirement. In CDSALP the site continued to be placed in countryside outside the settlement boundary of Ayr where it was covered by the Rural Protection Area designation. That position was continued unchanged into SALP.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of the countryside designation covering the site, and its allocation as a mixed use development opportunity, including housing.

SALP7 7.5 Braston Farm

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 The objection site represented an opportunity to provide a mixed use development that would address a wide range of issues. The development plan contained a number of policies which supported the proposal. Although there was a general presumption in favour of developing brownfield sites and containing new development within settlement boundaries, there was no prohibition on development on the urban fringe in appropriate circumstances.

3.2 The site was located outside of the settlement of Ayr within the Rural Protection Area rather than the green belt. It had been assessed against each of the 4 criteria set out in ASP policy G5 as follows. Taking A, a site specific locational need could be demonstrated. The site at Braston Farm at the junction of the improved A77 and the A713 was ideally placed to provide a wide range of services for the growing volumes of through traffic including that heading to, and from, the port facilities at Cairnryan. Ayr and Arran Tourist Board had recognised that an opportunity was being lost as traffic currently by-passed the area. Dedicated facilities on the A77 could be used to provide information on attractions in the vicinity and thereby grow tourist expenditure, notably by those using the Galloway Tourist Route. In addition to, or as an alternative to, the uses outlined in the objection and on the indicative site diagram could: cater for the hotel and conference market; accommodate a camping ground, caravan site and/or motel; and/or provide space for such events as horse trials and fairs. Moving on to B, the proposal could be justified in terms of social and economic benefit to the community, because of the number of jobs created, and the contribution to the local economy of the tourist multiplier through expenditure at the facilities proposed for Braston and in the surrounding area, including Ayr. Looking at C, the loss of this poorer quality land would in no way diminish the viability of the dairy farming enterprise at Braston Farm, and the proposal would contribute to land diversification. Development as proposed would provide an opportunity for structural landscaping; and it would reduce the pressure on better quality agricultural land and sites within the green belt. Lastly, there was potential at the site for agricultural repair centres, lorry parks and similar activities, all related to the operational needs of agriculture and forestry.

3.3 ASP was to be replaced rather than merely reviewed and updated. CDASP had acknowledged that market changes required the identification of a new generation of business locations to support new opportunities. Development of the objection site would accord with the policies of CDASP. The area at Braston was designated as a Core Investment Area within CDASP; and the proposal was in tune with the spatial development strategy which aimed to make Ayrshire more attractive to economic investment and as an area in which to live. Moreover, CDASP recognised that there was an increasing requirement for new housing in Ayrshire; and that must be provided for in order to ensure that the area achieved its economic potential. The site lay immediately to the north of, and sat well with, the current focus for development between the A77 and the A713 at south east Ayr. It benefited from a degree of landscape containment; it could be accessed satisfactorily from the A77 or from the A713; and it was the only acceptable site at existing junctions of the A77 for the proposed form of development.

SALP7 7.6 Braston Farm

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 ASP was broadly supportive of economic growth, but it cautioned that this must not be at the expense of the environment. ASP policy ADS3 required that new development should be directed to, and located within, settlements. The objection site lay outside the settlement boundary of Ayr; and the A77 represented a strong, appropriate and defensible boundary that effectively separated the urban area from the adjacent countryside. The relevant review concluded that the site did not merit inclusion in the green belt and, accordingly, it was placed within the Rural Protection Area.

4.2 Development within the Rural Protection Area must be justified by reference to the criteria set out in SALP policy STRAT3. Judged against these, SAC found that the site was entirely inappropriate for the large scale development suggested by the objectors. The proposal would extend the built up area of Ayr into a visually sensitive area where the mix of uses would be prominent in the landscape. The proposed development would neither consolidate nor enhance the built form of Ayr. It would be physically and functionally divorced from Ayr; and incremental development east of the A77 would set an undesirable precedent not least in terms of landscape impact.

4.3 The proposed development would not comply with the terms of ASP policy G5. Nor would it maintain and enhance the quality of the Ayrshire landscape and its distinctive local characteristics, as required by ASP policy E1. Nor would the proposal comply with the terms of SALP policy STRAT3.

4.4 When the site was assessed against ASP policy G8 it had been found that: the site did not maximise the opportunity for community involvement (A); the proposal was for a greenfield site and did not make efficient use of vacant or derelict brownfield land (B); it did not offer the opportunity to maximise the use of existing service infrastructure where sustainable forms of development could be achieved (C); there would be a material impact on the demand placed on transport infrastructure (E); and the development would have an adverse impact on the essentially rural landscape character and setting of Ayr (H and I). As far as CDSALP was concerned, it was a document prepared for discussion and consultation with interested parties. It was not to be interpreted as an agreed policy for change.

4.5 The objectors had not submitted any site specific evidence to demonstrate that an element of housing at Braston could be considered effective. SAC did not consider site contamination and deficit funding to be relevant, and acknowledged that ownership and marketability were not constraints. However, the 2 high pressure gas mains that ran parallel to the A77 across the north western part of the site were a physical and infrastructure constraint. No evidence had been produced to demonstrate that the site was acceptable in terms of the impact on the road network; and housing was not the preferred use on any part of the objection site.

4.6 Housing on the site would be heavily reliant on the private motor car and a mixed development would have a material impact on the demands placed on the local transport infrastructure. In addition NPPG9 stated that “building in open countryside, away from existing settlements or from areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled.” Neither SALP nor the Local Transport Strategy had identified a need for additional roadside facilities to serve the A77. The nearest roadside service facilities were to be found at the

SALP7 7.7 Braston Farm

Dutch House Roundabout, about 9km to the north. Hence, any proposal at Braston which incorporated these facilities would run contrary to the advice provided in NPPG9 that it would not be appropriate for service areas accessible to traffic in the same direction to be closer than 24km to each other.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The objectors propose a mixed use development on the objection site, which would include housing. It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). In this case ownership, site contamination, deficit funding and marketability are not constraints. In so far as land use is concerned, we acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the site but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. Although 2 high pressure gas mains and their way leaves run parallel to the A77 across the site, they do not represent a constraint on the development of the larger part of the site. We have insufficient evidence on site access and the impact on the surrounding road network to assess whether or not these represent significant constraints. We have no detail on the capacity, delivery, phasing or programming of housing on the site or, indeed for any other of the uses proposed.

5.3 The objection site lies in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the site is identified as falling within the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area. The site is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above). There are no issues of coalescence with other settlements. We do not consider that the allocation proposed would be undermined by the visual coalescence that may occur with the existing group of houses and the hospital complex to the east.

5.4 The objection site lies outside the settlement boundary of Ayr. While the A77 and the A713 provide defensible north western and south western boundaries to the objection site, we are not persuaded that the north eastern and south eastern boundaries are defensible physical boundaries. In this vicinity, the A77 provides a strong, easily recognisable and defensible boundary that effectively separates the built up area of Ayr from the countryside to the east. Development on the objection site would breach that well defined boundary, set an undesirable precedent, and render it difficult for SAC to resist further developments in the area, which would amount to urban sprawl and irrevocably blur the identity of Ayr in this

SALP7 7.8 Braston Farm

vicinity. While the site is not used for countryside recreation, we note that it contributes positively to the countryside scene at this location. However, we are not satisfied that this would justify rejecting an allocation for a mixed use development.

5.5 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3 and, therefore, we have put little weight on the findings of the study as they relate to the “vulnerability”, “merit”, “contribution” and “sensitivity” of the objection site. We noted at our site inspection that the site slopes down from the south east towards the Bankfield Roundabout, and that it is readily visible from Queen Margaret Academy, some viewpoints within the nearby residential areas of Ayr, and by those travelling on the A77 and the A713. The Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area generally presumes against large scale development, but we accept that this is not necessarily a factor which would outweigh other considerations. We believe that any development on SEA would be likely to make it much more difficult to resist development on the objection site. There is little to indicate how the proposal, which would be very prominent, could be successfully accommodated and fitted into the landscape. As such, we believe that there would be conflict with the intentions of SPP3 and PAN44. Overall, we are concerned that development on the objection site could have a materially adverse effect on the landscape setting of Ayr, and on the landscape character of this vicinity.

5.6 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these we find that G, H, and K do not apply; and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we can readily accept that because the objection site is located at the junction of the A77 and the A713 it might be thought ideally placed to provide a wide range of services for growing volumes of through traffic. However, neither SALP, nor the Local Transport Strategy, has identified a need for additional roadside facilities to serve traffic using the A77. There are adequate roadside service facilities located close to the Dutch House Roundabout about 9km to the north. Any development at Braston which incorporated roadside facilities would run contrary to the advice provided in NPPG9 that it would not be appropriate for service areas accessible to traffic in the same direction to be closer than 24km to each other. We can also accept that a dedicated information centre might encourage an increase in tourist expenditure; and that the site displays some potential for a variety of other service and recreational uses. However, the objectors have done no more than draw attention to these possibilities and they have not marshalled a case of sufficient weight to convince us that there is a demonstrated site specific locational need for a mixed development of the type suggested, or that it would contribute to rural land diversification, or that it would provide in any significant way for the operational needs of agriculture and forestry. While we accept that there might be some benefits if there was a net increase in job opportunities and a contribution to the local economy through the tourist multiplier, we are not persuaded by the evidence before us that the development as proposed would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

5.7 Looking at B, the site is greenfield, and will, therefore, not make efficient use of vacant and derelict land. Regarding C, we do not have sufficient information to assess whether the site could be serviced in such a way that it would maximise the use of existing infrastructure, while achieving sustainable forms of development. On D, although we consider that this general principle is unlikely to be a determining factor in deciding whether a site is suitable for development, we note that the objection site has not been identified as being of prime quality agricultural land. There is also nothing to indicate that it is of

SALP7 7.9 Braston Farm

overwhelming importance in a local context. In relation to E and F, we recognise that any development of the type proposed at Braston would involve an increase in traffic movements in the vicinity of the Bankfield Roundabout with inevitable consequences for traffic flows on the road network in the vicinity, including the A77 trunk road. Given the distance of the site from retail and other services, a residential component within a mixed development would increase the need to travel by private motor car. The existing routings and interchanges for public transport are not ideal, and there is little in the evidence to suggest that, as things stand, bus services would be sufficiently frequent to provide an adequate service for a development of this scale. We also have concerns about pedestrian and cycle integration with Ayr. In the circumstances, we find it has not been demonstrated that the development of the objection site would be compatible with the intentions of NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.8 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield nature of the site and its location means that it serves to control the growth of the built-up area and complements the process of urban renewal. It also serves to preserve the character of this part of Ayr. In the circumstances, we consider that the objection site has a strong green belt role. As such, we believe that the Rural Protection Area designation of the site requires to be reassessed as a part of the green belt review recommended in chapter 3.3.

5.9 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be on the edge of the Core Town of Ayr, reasonably accessible to the other core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We accept that CDASP is generally supportive of development at south and east Ayr. However, in light of the above conclusions, we are not persuaded that a development could be achieved on the site which respected the character and setting of the community through good design, and we do not believe that the limitations on environmental capacity at this location have been recognised. In the circumstances, at this stage, we are not satisfied that the objection site represents an appropriate development opportunity.

5.10 In conclusion, the site should not be allocated as a mixed use development opportunity at this time, whether or not that includes an element of housing. We have concerns about the adverse impact the development would have on landscape setting and landscape character, and the defensibility of the settlement boundaries of Ayr. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that the allocation of the objection site for a mixed use development would be consistent with ASP, CDASP or national guidance and advice. In addition, we believe that the Rural Protection Area designation of the objection site requires to be reassessed as a part of the green belt review recommended in chapter 3.3.

5.11 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

SALP7 7.10 Braston Farm

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that Braston Farm be not allocated as a mixed use development opportunity in SALP, and that it remains outwith the settlement boundary of Ayr, covered by countryside designations; and

(ii) that the Rural Protection Area designation on the objection site be reassessed as a part of the green belt review recommended in chapter 3.3, and that the interim policy position outlined in that chapter be adopted in the interim.

SALP7 7.11 Braston Farm

7.3 AYR: BURTON

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 444 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The site is located on the southernmost edge of Ayr, some 3km from the town centre. To the north, there is a dismantled railway line, which has been developed as a footpath, and beyond this, there is the built up area of Ayr (the residential suburb of Burton). To the west, there is the A719, beyond which, there are fields and Craig Tara Holiday Park. To the south, there is the Brown Carrick Hills. To the east, there are further fields, a number of farm buildings, and Newark Castle, a category B listed building. The site itself is large and open, and the proposed development area extends to over 40ha. It comprises a number of undulating fields, but generally slopes up from the dismantled railway line towards the Brown Carrick Hills. In the higher, southern part of the site, there is some woodland. The site is divided into 2 by a track which leads from the A719 up towards the buildings at Burton Farm and Burton Cottages, and beyond. It is contained by hedging and fences, and comprises grade 3.1 agricultural land. The site lies adjacent to a National Cycle Route.

1.2 To the extent that the adopted Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan is relevant, the site lies outwith the settlement boundary of Ayr and within the Regional Scenic Area. The site was not identified for housing in CDSALP (published in 1999). Instead, it remained outwith the settlement boundary and was designated as Scenic Area. part green belt (eastern section), and part Rural Protection Area (western section). In SALP (published in 2002), these designations remained unchanged. However, a part of the eastern section of the site was designated as a wildlife and ornithological site. There have been no subsequent changes made to SALP in relation to this site. CDASP (published in June 2004) includes the site within the Core Investment Area, and it identifies Ayr as one of 3 Core Investment Area towns.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION(S)

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of the green belt, Rural Protection Area, Scenic Area and wildlife designations covering the site, its allocation for housing, and its inclusion within the settlement boundary of Ayr.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

SALP7 7.12 Burton

3.1 The proposal was in accord with ASP, CDASP, SALP and national guidance and advice. The site could be developed within the SALP period, and it was readily marketable. It would be inappropriate to develop the whole site for housing given the sensitivity of the Brown Carrick Hills. It was therefore suggested that development extended only as far as the track to Burton Farm. While the objectors accepted that the line of the dismantled railway was a strong boundary to Ayr, they believed that the Brown Carrick Hills would be an equally strong boundary. New boundaries were required for Ayr because the town had effectively reached its capacity.

3.2 ASP recognised the important role land use policies played in promoting economic growth. Burton Farm should be a preferred location for development because it was an urban fringe site, and Ayr was one of the primary settlements to which major development was directed. The area proposed for development would have least impact on the Scenic Area. The proposal would not result in an unacceptable visual impact, and it would be sensitively designed and would include mitigation measures. There would be no adverse impact on the landscape setting of Ayr, and there were no issues of coalescence. While the site was grade 3.1 agricultural land, it was subject to a wetness limitation. There was a large area of good quality agricultural land in the surrounding area, which would reduce the significance of developing the objection site. There were no known flood or erosion risks affecting the site. In addition, the site was served by frequent bus services (A9 and 361). There were no known constraints which would hinder the development of the site. The proposal would accord with the general principles in ASP policy G8. In particular, it would maximise the use of existing service infrastructure, and would therefore help to achieve sustainability. It would also be large enough to accommodate a proportion of affordable housing. The proposal offered the opportunity to continue the development of the dismantled railway line as a recreational corridor.

3.3 The release of the objection site would help to meet the strategic aims of CDASP, which included maintaining the population at current levels, promoting strong and vibrant communities, and supporting economic development. CDASP sought to develop and strengthen the role of the Core Investment Area, which was to be the main focus for regeneration, renewal and new development. In addition, core towns such as Ayr should be the major centres of activity, they should act as key focal points, and they should accommodate most major development. CDASP required around 8000 new houses to be built to the south and east of Ayr, and the development of the objection site would contribute to this requirement. Such a large housing land requirement could not be met within the boundaries of Ayr. Overall, the site should be allocated for housing in SALP and should be included within the settlement boundary.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 The proposal was not in accord with national guidance and advice. The location and landscape characteristics of the site made it unsuitable for residential development. There were few local service and facilities nearby and this, combined with limited public transport provision, meant that there would probably be an increased dependence on travel by private car. The site was physically divorced from Ayr by a mature tree belt that followed the route of the dismantled railway. The tree belt was an important landscape feature and, together with the dismantled railway, it formed a strong, defensible boundary to the existing edge of the built up area of Ayr. The site served to maintain the landscape setting of Ayr, and

SALP7 7.13 Burton

therefore fulfilled one of the functions of the green belt. Development at this location would have an adverse impact on the Scenic Area and (potentially) on the Wildlife Site. Key visual receptors included traffic and pedestrians on the A719, and users of the National Cycle Route and the footpath along the dismantled railway line.

4.2 Regarding ASP policy G8, the proposal would be contrary to general principles B, D, E, F, H and I. In particular, the location of the objection site was such that a sustainable form of development could not be achieved, and its landscape character was sufficiently sensitive to merit protection as part of the Scenic Area. In more general terms, ASP directed development to settlements and sought to protect the countryside for its own sake. In the green belt survey undertaken by SAC, the objection site was identified as being “sensitive.” However, the track to Burton Farm was considered to be a readily understood and defensible boundary. The land to the east of the track was considered to contribute to all the functions of the green belt, and the land to the west was considered as being more a part of the wider countryside. The release of this site for housing could result in pressure for further residential development in the countryside on adjoining land, which would result in an elongation of Ayr, rather than a consolidation of its existing urban form.

4.3 While the site might lie within the line of the A77, this did not outweigh the significant adverse impacts that could arise from its development. Although the visual impact of the proposal could be mitigated to a degree if development was restricted to the northern part of the site, SAC still believed that there would be an adverse impact on the entrance to, and landscape setting of, Ayr. SAC acknowledged that that there was a bus service serving the site, but links to destinations other than Ayr town centre were poor. By the site, the A719 was subject to a 60mph speed limit, and there was a problem with the horizontal and vertical geometry of the road. Given the potential scale of the development, there was concern about the vehicular access arrangements, and whether the local road network could adequately absorb the likely level of traffic that would be generated. Overall, the site should not be allocated for housing, and should remain outwith the settlement boundary.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We acknowledge that the site is marketable. However, we do not have enough information on such factors as physical (for example, vehicular access) or infrastructure (for example, education) constraints to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the site. While we have little in the way of details about the capacity of the site, we note

SALP7 7.14 Burton

that it extends to over 40ha and could clearly contain a housing development of a substantial scale. We also have no detail about the potential phasing or programming of any development.

5.3 The site lies in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the site is identified as being within the Coastal Headlands Valley Landscape Character Area. The site is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above). In this case, there are no issues of coalescence with other settlements.

5.4 The physical boundaries of this part of Ayr are made up of the line of the dismantled railway, which is raised on an embankment and is well supported by trees and vegetation. This is a strong boundary for both Ayr and the green belt. The objectors‟ proposal would move the green belt boundary southwards where the green belt and settlement boundaries would be much less well defined. While it is possible that the track to Burton Farm, supported by extensive planting, could form the basis for creating a reasonable boundary, it is not a particularly obvious feature in the landscape in itself, and it has not been demonstrated that the required effect could be achieved. The suggestion that the Brown Carrick Hills could form the boundary is misleading and unhelpful. In the circumstances, there is little to suggest that the existing identity of this southern edge of Ayr could be properly maintained if the site was to be allocated for housing. This is particularly so if the site was developed up to its limits.

5.5 While the site is not used for countryside recreation, it contributes passively to the countryside scene at this location for people walking and living in the area, and those using the A719 and the National Cycle Route. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting the proposed residential allocation.

5.6 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the findings of the study as they relate to the “vulnerability”, “merit”, “contribution” and “sensitivity” of the site. The objection site comprises fields, and it is open to views from a number of local vantage points. It was clear to us from the site inspection that, along with the area further south, the site forms an important part of the landscape setting of the southern part of Ayr. The proposal would extend the built up area southwards. While the objectors indicated that mitigation measures would be implemented, they did not show that such measures could be effective, particularly on the local ridges and as the land rises to the south. Although we note the constraints imposed by the Coastal Headlands Landscape Character Area, we accept that some development could potentially be absorbed successfully into the landscape. However, we are not persuaded that a housing development of the scale proposed in this sensitive location on rising ground leading up to the Brown Carrick Hills, would have anything but a significantly adverse impact. We do not consider that the proposal represents a natural extension of the existing built up area. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that an appropriate landscape framework or a satisfactory landscape fit could potentially be achieved. As such, we consider that the proposal would not be consistent with the broad terms of PAN44 or SPP3. Overall, we believe that the proposal could significantly erode the landscape setting of the southern part of Ayr, and have a significantly adverse effect on landscape character at this location.

SALP7 7.15 Burton

5.7 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these, we find that G and K do not appear to apply in this case, and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available. The objectors propose to develop the dismantled railway line as a recreational corridor, but they have not been specific as to what this entails or what local community benefits may result. On B, the objection site is greenfield and would not make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, we have insufficient information to make an informed judgement on whether the existing service infrastructure could cope with the significant additional housing proposed or whether a sustainable form of development could be achieved. Turning to D, while we acknowledge that the site is classified as grade 3.1 quality agricultural land, it is not clear that it is in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on the site.

5.8 In relation to E and F, we recognise that any residential development on the objection site would inevitably increase the use of the private car. It is by no means certain that the local road network would be able to satisfactorily cope with the level of traffic that could be generated by the proposal, and there are also doubts about whether arrangements could be made to achieve adequate vehicular access to the site. We believe that there is a reasonable level of bus services in the area throughout the day. While SAC indicated that these services focus on Ayr town centre, we note that this is where the main facilities and interchanges are provided. In any event, this constraint applies to virtually all of the sites before the inquiry. Given the footpath network close to the site and the presence of the National Cycle Route, we are satisfied that adequate integration with the town could probably be achieved for pedestrians and cyclists. However, given our concerns about the road network and vehicular access, we are not satisfied that the proposal would be in line with the underlying intentions of NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.9 On H, the site is included within the Scenic Area, is partly included in a Wildlife Site in SALP, and is close to a listed building. Regarding the listed building, on the basis of our site inspection, we are satisfied that any impact on the setting of the listed building (Newark Castle) would be unlikely to be such that it would prevent the allocation of the site for housing. It is unclear to us from the evidence what impact the proposal would have on the ornithological Wildlife Site identified in SALP. In the case of the Scenic Area, the details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying its precise boundaries were not brought to the inquiry. We acknowledge that the Scenic Area designation covers a much larger area, and that this is the time to review its boundaries. Notwithstanding this, it seems to us that the site is of a high scenic quality, and that a housing development at this location could potentially have a significantly detrimental effect on the designated area and its boundaries. We therefore agree with SAC that the site should be retained as a part of the Scenic Area. On J, there is little to support the objectors‟ contention that this general principle has been satisfied.

5.10 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield

SALP7 7.16 Burton

nature of the site and its location means that it serves to control the growth of the built up area and complements the process of urban renewal. It also serves to preserve the character of this part of Ayr. Overall, we consider that the objection site has a strong green belt role. SALP identifies only the eastern section of the site as being in the green belt. However, we have found some difficulty in distinguishing between the eastern and western sections of the site in terms of green belt roles.

5.11 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be on the edge of the Core Town of Ayr, it would be reasonably accessible to the other 2 core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area. While we accept that CDASP is generally supportive of development at south and east Ayr, we recognise the constraints affecting the objection site. In light of the conclusions set out above, we are not persuaded that a development could be achieved on site which respected the character and setting of the community through good design, and we do not believe that the limitations on environmental capacity at this location have been recognised. At this stage, we see no case for extending the built up area of Ayr further south than the line of the dismantled railway. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that the objection site represents an acceptable residential development opportunity.

5.12 In conclusion, the site should not be allocated for housing at this time. We have concerns about the adverse impact development would have on landscape setting and landscape character, and the defensibility of the settlement‟s boundaries. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that the allocation of the objection site for housing would be consistent with ASP, CDASP or national guidance and advice. In addition, we believe that the limited extent of the green belt designation at the objection site requires review.

5.13 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the objection site remains outwith the settlement boundary of Ayr and that it be covered by countryside and Scenic Area designations; and

(ii) that the green belt designation on the objection site be reconsidered as a part of the green belt review recommended in chapter 3.3, and that the interim policy position outlined in that chapter be adopted in the interim.

SALP7 7.17 Burton

SALP6 6.70 Holmston

7.4 AYR: CRAIGIE CAMPUS

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 67 Written Submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2A Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Craigie Estate lies north of the River Ayr. It includes public parkland, the Ayr campus of Paisley University, Ayr College campus, Dam Park sports stadium, a caravan park, the Ayrshire Archives centre, an SAC storage yard, and a Horticultural Centre (presently closed). The public parkland includes a mature wooded area through which there are footpaths and a cycle route, a formal rose garden area, and a grassed field formerly used as a par 3 golf course. The land rises gently towards the north from the banks of the river. There are 2 listed buildings within the estate: Craigie presently occupied by the Ayrshire Management Centre (category A); and 14 Craigie Road at the entrance to the estate (category B). Both of these buildings are included within a category B Group listing, along with 2 Craigie Avenue which is outwith the boundary of the estate, but is associated with these buildings.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of the site for housing.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 The University of Paisley confirmed that it was fully committed to a multi-campus strategy which included the redevelopment of the Ayr estate. The options currently under consideration were: either progressive replacement of the existing buildings within the boundaries of the present campus; or progressive regeneration of the campus within a new setting along the north bank of the River Ayr at Craigie Park. The latter would be the more costly choice, but it was favoured because it would allow the creation of a purpose built campus in a suitable location and involve the minimum of disruption to the ongoing activities of the University. Accordingly, the University had considered the sale of the existing site with a view to offsetting some of the additional costs. The terms of SALP policy FE2 acted as a constraint on these endeavours, and the University sought the allocation of the existing site for housing thereby maximising the potential revenue which might be realised from its sale. If that change was not forthcoming, it was likely that the imperative of accommodating rising student numbers would drive the University away from its preferred choice. The allocation of the existing Craigie Campus for housing in SALP was a necessary prerequisite of a full appraisal of the preferred option for University expansion in Ayr.

SALP7 7.18 Craigie Campus

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 SAC recognised the importance of the economic and community benefit which Paisley University brought to South Ayrshire; and it was sympathetic to its aims of improving and expanding its facilities in Ayr. SALP policy FE1 supported the expansion and improvement of higher education establishments. However, SAC were bound to seek to achieve various other objectives consistent with national and strategic policy, including that of sustainable economic growth and the conservation and enhancement of the natural and built environments. Craigie Estate was an area that required careful land use planning to ensure that any development was sensitive notably to its public recreational value and to its natural and built heritage resources. SALP policy FE2 enabled these issues to be considered through the preparation of a comprehensive masterplan. An assessment against the terms of ASP policy G8 had confirmed that the various issues required further investigation.

4.2 Although the University had indicated a preference for the relocation of the existing campus, it had not excluded other options, each of which were being examined by a masterplan group. It would be premature to allocate the site of the existing campus for an alternative use, such as housing, in advance of the conclusion of the following process: completion of the examination of the technical issues associated with each option; assessment of the intrinsic qualities of the site of the current University Campus including its effectiveness in accordance with PAN38; presentation of an options appraisal report for SAC‟s consideration and decision; preparation of more detailed proposals in accordance with that decision; and a public consultation exercise on the finalised masterplan. Should the sensitive relocation of the campus to land at Craigie Park and the development of the existing site for housing prove to be a viable and appropriate option, this could be achieved through the provisions of SALP policy FE2 as currently drafted. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to formally alter SALP to incorporate a housing designation on the existing campus site.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 It is clear that the proposal to reallocate land for housing at Craigie Estate is still at a very early stage, and there are no details available about delivery, programming or phasing. There is insufficient evidence before us to allow an informed judgement to be made on whether the objection site is effective. ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 2.1 above). We

SALP7 7.19 Craigie Campus

agree with SAC that the criteria contained in this policy refer to various issues that require assessment at a level more detailed than is able to be undertaken at this stage.

5.3 However, if any part of the Craigie Estate is to be reallocated for housing then one of the general principles with which a proposal must comply is that the development will maximise the opportunity for community benefit. In considering the current position, we take as our starting point the fact that SAC have clearly recognised in SALP the contribution which the Craigie Campus of Paisley University makes to the life and economy of South Ayrshire and they are concerned that its potential for further growth in Ayr is achieved. We note also that the University is fully committed to a multi-campus strategy and that this includes redevelopment of their Ayr estate. Accordingly, we find that the ultimate aim of the parties is the same, and any dispute between them relates only to the process by which that will be achieved. SALP policy FE2 deals specifically with Craigie Campus, and it makes explicit the SAC commitment to safeguarding the land at Craigie Estate for recreational and educational purposes. In a climate of financial stringency, we sympathise with the difficulties of the University in developing a viable strategy which will meet the twin objectives of regeneration of the inherited buildings while accommodating adequately, in modern facilities, the growing number of well qualified students making application for places on its courses. However, we cannot support a reallocation of land at Craigie Campus within SALP simply on the grounds that it will facilitate the development of one option under consideration for its incorporation within a business plan for the University. What we are told is now emerging as the preferred option from the University‟s point of view may, or may not, ultimately prove acceptable to the University Court. In any event, the full implementation of whatever scheme is finally decided upon will require approvals from other sources and more in the way of funding than the sale of the current Craigie Campus can realistically be expected to raise whatever its use. In land use planning terms, we find that the appropriate approach to achieving the ultimate aim is that of pragmatic progress in partnership, as advocated by SAC. We note that it is intended that this will lead to the production of a masterplan for Craigie Campus acceptable to all participating parties and protecting the public recreational value of Craigie Park. Drawing these matters together, on the basis of the limited information with which we have been provided, we consider that a decision on the appropriate use of the site should await the production of the masterplan.

5.4 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. While the proposal may be supported in very general terms by elements of these criteria and other parts of CDASP, at this stage, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to recommend the release of the site for housing.

5.5 In conclusion, for all of the reasons stated above, a reallocation of land at Craigie Estate as a policy H2A site within SALP as proposed by Paisley University would be premature.

5.6 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

SALP7 7.20 Craigie Campus

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend

(i) that the objection site continues to be covered by an appropriate open space designation and policy FE2 in SALP.

SALP7 7.21 Craigie Campus

7.5 AYR: DOONHOLM ROAD

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 388 Elphinstone Land Ltd

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The site is located on the south eastern edge of Ayr, around 3km from the town centre. To the north, there is Doonholm Road and, beyond this, housing, including a new housing development under construction. To the east, there is the old Doonholm Farm buildings, a tree lined avenue to Doonholm House, fields which rise up to a small knoll and, beyond these, the A77. To the south and west, there are tree belts, fields, a category C listed lodge house (North Lodge), Alloway Mote (a Scheduled Ancient Monument), a driveway to Doonholm House set amongst trees, Doonholm House, the River Doon and, beyond this, countryside. The site extends to around 6.5ha, and is of an irregular shape. It has a slight slope, and is grassed and used for grazing. The site is contained by a mixture of hedges and fencelines. There is a generally high hedgerow, incorporating mature trees in varying condition, to Doonholm Road. There are also hedgerows on site, some of which contain trees. The site comprises grade 3.1 agricultural land.

1.2 In the adopted Ayr and Prestwick and East Kyle Local Plans, the site lies outwith the settlement boundary. The Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan urges Strathclyde Regional Council to consider the realignment of Doonholm Road as far as Murdoch‟s Loan. The site was not identified for housing in CDSALP (published in 1999). Instead, it remained outwith the settlement boundary and was designated as a part of the green belt and Scenic Area. CDSALP continued the proposal to implement a road improvement scheme between Doonholm Road and Murdoch‟s Loan. At that stage, the scheme was identified as a priority. In SALP (published in 2002), the position remained unchanged from CDSALP. In the same year (2002), planning permission was deemed to be granted for the road proposals. In 2004, there was a public local inquiry into a compulsory purchase order associated with the road proposals, and SMs subsequently confirmed the order. There have been no further changes made to SALP in relation to this site. CDASP (published in June 2004) includes the site within the Core Investment Area, and Ayr is identified as one of 3 Core Investment Area towns.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of the green belt and Scenic Area designations covering the site, its allocation for housing, and its inclusion within the settlement boundary of Ayr.

SALP7 7.22 Doonholm Road

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 ASP showed only diagrammatically that the green belt might cover land to the south of Ayr, and SALP was required to define its boundaries. A housing development on site would not offend any of the purposes of the green belt, particularly in terms of coalescence and the landscape setting of Ayr. All of the general principles in ASP policy G8 were met, and it was only general principle I which provided scope for real debate. While SAC had indicated that they had concerns about primary school capacity, this matter had been raised late. Information had been requested from SAC on school rolls and, as it had not been provided, it was not possible to comment on their contention that Alloway Primary School would be unable to absorb the children generated by the proposal. This matter could be resolved at the planning application stage. The site would be effective if it was included in SALP. There were no physical constraints. The site had an indicative capacity of 50 houses (which had been reduced from an earlier figure of 60 houses); development would commence at the earliest opportunity; and the site would be completed within 3 years. It also had the potential to meet housing needs in the “executive sector”, which were not being adequately addressed in Ayr, as well as being able to contribute towards a shortfall in housing land. The development would not replicate the housing development underway to the north. The planning policies quoted by SAC from earlier local plans were not relevant. In addition, many of the policies they referred to were development control policies which were designed to guide decisions on planning applications rather than land use allocations in SALP. Public transport had not been investigated. However, this was a small site on the edge of the built up area, and there was already development underway nearby. The population of the area was therefore growing, and public transport operators would respond to that.

3.2 If the landscape was suitable, or could be made suitable, for residential development, the objection site would meet the objectives of SDD Circular 24/1985 and policy G8. The site comprised a part of a small estate landscape and provided a high quality setting. It formed a local landscape “compartment” along with the area to the north of Doonholm Road. The Doonholm Estate had robust tree belts to the south and west and this, along with further woodland, separated the site from the River Doon corridor and the rolling agricultural landscape further to the south. To the east, the boundary of the site would be planted to a minimum depth of 15m and, in some places, as much as 45m. The local topography, in particular the knoll, would ensure that development would not be visible from the A77 for traffic travelling north. The knoll helped to clearly define the eastern edge of the site. The housing development under construction to the north would obscure any houses from traffic travelling south. The development would be visible from Doonholm Road and from the higher ground to the east of the A77. The River Doon valley corridor was deeply incised and presented a natural limit to development to the south. The objectors‟ approach to the development of the site was fully consistent with PAN44.

3.3 The objectors believed that SAC had been correct in their green belt survey to include the objection site and the housing site to the north in one parcel. They considered the housing site to the north to be far more sensitive in landscape terms than the objection site. The road proposals for Doonholm Road, which would include widening, would change the character of the road corridor significantly by removing much of the roadside planting and establishing a more urban environment. The new planting proposed by SAC along the road could take 10- 20 years to become a feature in the landscape. The road scheme would open views into the site creating a larger, clearly defined visual envelope which would include the built up area to

SALP7 7.23 Doonholm Road

the north. The southern edge of the objection site (above the River Doon valley corridor) would be a more robust and sustainable green belt boundary than that proposed by SAC, and this view was reinforced by the changes taking place (both currently and proposed) in the area. The objectors agreed with SAC‟s field analysis that parcel 53a, which was not “sensitive”, was surrounded by “sensitive” land, including the River Doon valley and the area to the east of the A77. Overall, the purposes of the green belt set out in national and strategic guidance would not be compromised if the objection site was allocated for housing.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 The objection site was inappropriate for housing in both landscape and planning terms. In particular, housing on the site would not accord with SDD Circular 24/1985 or ASP. The site made a strong contribution to, and fulfilled a number of green belt functions, including those relating to the control of the growth of the built up area, the preservation of the character of towns, the preservation of landscape setting and character, and the protection of agricultural land. In SAC‟s green belt survey, the site was included in parcel 53a, which had been identified as being of “low sensitivity” mainly because the survey information for the parcel could not now be found. In relation to ASP policy G8, the development would be contrary to general principles B, C, D, H and I.

4.2 SAC had been consistent in their approach to the landscape and scenic quality of the site. ASP required the protection and enhancement of the landscape to be given prime consideration in the determination of development proposals. The site was at an important gateway location to Ayr. It had an intimate and rural character, and the woodland and hedgerow trees provided enclosure and visual interest. The site was within the Lowland River Valley Landscape Character Area, and an aim of this landscape type was to conserve the distinctive and small scale pastoral and woodland landscapes of the river valleys. Development would result in the loss of an attractive and distinctive area of countryside which was important to the existing setting of Ayr. The site should therefore remain undeveloped. The mitigation outlined would be insufficient to offset the adverse impact. Development of the site could also set a precedent for further development in the countryside, and it would not accord with the terms of SPP3. Historically, the environmental sensitivity of this part of Ayr had been recognised by SofSS (in the Annexe to the decision letter on the Second Review and Alteration to the 1984 Strathclyde Structure Plan).

4.3 SAC agreed with the objectors that Doonholm Road had a rural character, but differed from them on the assessment of the impact of the improved road. The Reporter (for the compulsory purchase order inquiry into the road improvement scheme) had concluded that the only substantial adverse impact of the road improvements would be the short term visual impact from the loss of trees, which had to be set against the longer term environmental benefits. SMs had agreed with the Reporter‟s conclusions. SAC also agreed with these conclusions, and believed that a residential development on the objection site would permanently reduce the character of the road to that of a suburban route through a built up area. The hedgerow along Doonholm Road that would be lost as a part of the road improvement scheme, would be replaced and properly established within 5-10 years. Doonholm Road formed a logical, easily recognised and eminently defensible boundary to the southern flank of Ayr, and the objection site, together with other adjacent land, would form an attractive and an effective part of the town‟s landscape setting. If development was to proceed, it would need to be sensitively designed, and a very robust landscape framework

SALP7 7.24 Doonholm Road

would be required to minimise adverse potential impacts. A low density scheme would allow more space for open areas and planting.

4.4 The capacity of local schools to accommodate further pupils was a relevant consideration in comparing the appropriateness of sites for development. In the non- denominational sector, it was expected that both primary and secondary schools would have difficulty in accommodating new pupils from the development. That factor alone must cast doubt on the effectiveness of the site. In addition, housing was not the sole preferred use on site. Regarding bus services, the nearest bus stop was approximately 700m away from the middle of the objection site. The site would be served by the A1 local service and the X77 Glasgow service.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. The site has infrastructure constraints to the extent that there is doubt over the capacity of the local non-denominational primary and secondary schools. However, we note that the constraint on school capacity is one which affects a large number of sites, and we are not persuaded that it should be regarded as representing an insurmountable obstacle to the development of the objection site at this stage. We accept that clarification of this matter would be required before any allocation of the site for housing. For reasons set out below, we believe that the site has a capacity of 50 houses, rather than the 60 houses initially referred to by the objectors. While the objectors have indicated that development would commence at the earliest opportunity, taking into account the likely timescale for the adoption of SALP and the need to obtain planning permission, we consider that it would be unlikely that a start on site could be achieved before mid way through 2007. We accept that a development of this type (executive housing) could take in the region of 2-3 years.

5.3 The site lies in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the site is identified as being within the Lowland River Valley Landscape Character Area. The site is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey, and it is in the proposed green belt. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above). In this case, there are no issues of coalescence with other settlements.

SALP7 7.25 Doonholm Road

5.4 The physical boundaries of this part of Ayr are made up of Doonholm Road and the Doonholm Estate which lies immediately to the south. Doonholm Road is a relatively strong feature in the landscape and forms an appropriate and defensible green belt boundary. There are proposals to improve this road, which would almost undoubtedly result in it having a greater impact, including the new roundabout to the west. However, we believe that the objectors have overstated the significance of the impact of the improved road at the point where it passes the objection site. This is particularly so when account is taken of the associated landscape scheme, albeit that this will take time to mature. The objectors‟ proposal would move the green belt boundary southwards into the Doonholm Estate. We consider that the tree belts, the woodland, the tree lined driveway, and the River Doon valley would probably all combine to create an equally effective and defensible green belt boundary. In the longer term, this would be helped by the proposals to reinforce the site‟s boundaries, albeit that on the eastern boundary, the minimum depth of reinforcement planting should be 20-25m, rather than the 15m indicated. Overall, we are satisfied that the sensitive development of the site need not undermine, and could maintain, the identity of this southern flank of Ayr.

5.5 While the site is not used for countryside recreation, it contributes passively to the countryside scene at this location for people living in the area, and those using Doonholm Road. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting the proposed residential allocation.

5.6 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the findings of the study as they relate to the “vulnerability”, “merit”, “contribution” and “sensitivity” of the site. The objection site comprises fields, and we agree with SAC that it has an intimate and rural character. There is little to indicate that the site is sensitive in itself, but it forms part of a wider area which is sensitive, in particular the River Doon and its immediate environs. Given the housing present and under construction on the northern side of Doonholm Road, we are not persuaded that it is appropriate to regard that area and the objection site and the fields further to the east as a single landscape “compartment.” The site is mainly visible in local views, particularly from Doonholm Road. It can also be seen from the higher ground on the eastern side of the A77. We do not consider that it is visible to traffic travelling on the A77 and, if it is, it would only be fleetingly seen within the context of approaching the built up area. We are satisfied that the objection site can be regarded as making a contribution to the landscape setting of this part of Ayr.

5.7 We acknowledge that the proposal would extend the built up area on to the southern side of Doonholm Road towards a more sensitive area. However, the site is relatively well contained and is within the line of the A77. We do not consider that the visual effect of the development would be unacceptable because Doonholm Road is not entirely rural in character. The site would be separated from the more sensitive landscape of the River Doon valley corridor by tree belts, woodland, Doonholm House and a driveway, and this separation could be reinforced through the design of the development. While the proposal may increase the pressure for further development on adjoining land, particularly to the east, we believe that the area of land affected would be relatively limited and reasonably well contained because of the presence of the A77 and the River Doon. Although we note the constraints imposed by the Lowland River Valley Landscape Character Area, we believe that a low density, high quality development designed along the lines of the scheme shown in the

SALP7 7.26 Doonholm Road

indicative site layout (diagram E) could potentially be absorbed successfully into the landscape. We consider that the development of the objection site could be regarded as a reasonable extension to the existing built up area. On the basis of the evidence, we are satisfied that an appropriate landscape framework and a satisfactory landscape fit could potentially be achieved. As such, we consider that the proposal would be broadly consistent with the terms of PAN44 and SPP3. Overall, we believe that housing at this site could be reasonably well accommodated within the landscape setting of this southern part of Ayr, without having a significantly adverse effect on the area‟s landscape character.

5.8 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these, we find that G and K do not appear to apply in this case, and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available. On B, the objection site is greenfield and would not make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, with the exception of the potential constraint on school capacity, which we deal with above, there is no indication that the existing service infrastructure could not cope with a residential allocation on this site, or that sustainable forms of development could not be achieved. Turning to D, while we acknowledge that the site is classified as grade 3.1 quality agricultural land, it does not appear to be in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on the site.

5.9 In relation to E and F, we recognise that any residential development on the objection site would inevitably increase the use of the private car. There is no indication that the local road network would be unable to cope with the traffic that would be generated by the development, and the trunk road network is close by. While full details were not provided, it seems likely that adequate arrangements could be made for vehicular access to the site. We believe that there is a reasonable level of bus services in the area throughout the day, although we have some concerns about the distance the site is from the nearest bus stop. We also have concerns about the apparent lack of provision made for pedestrian and cycle integration. However, we are satisfied that these concerns would not undermine any allocation of the site for housing, and we note that a large housing development has already recently been allowed in the area. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the proposal could be regarded as being broadly in line with the underlying intentions of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.10 On H, the site is included within the Scenic Area and is close to a listed building and a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Regarding the listed building and Scheduled Ancient Monument, on the basis of our site inspections, we are broadly satisfied that a sympathetically designed development on the site would be unlikely to have a materially adverse effect given that it would be separated by trees from the 2 structures. In the case of the Scenic Area, the details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying its precise boundaries were not brought to the inquiry. We acknowledge that the Scenic Area designation covers a much larger area, and that this is the time to review its boundaries. It seems to us that the impact of a housing development at this location would be unlikely to be sufficiently significant to justify retaining the objection site as part of the Scenic Area and prevent it from being allocated for housing. On J, the preliminary

SALP7 7.27 Doonholm Road

information lodged indicates that the proposal would be likely to satisfy this general principle.

5.11 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield nature of the objection site, and its location, means that it serves to control the growth of the built up area and complements the process of urban renewal. The site also serves to preserve the character of this southern part of Ayr. Notwithstanding the fact that the site may fulfil some green belt purposes, we do not believe that excluding it from the green belt by redefining the boundaries, would be likely to result in any significant undermining of the green belt‟s role at this location.

5.12 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site is on the edge of the Core Town of Ayr, and it would be reasonably accessible to the other 2 core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area, and Ayr is a focus for public transport networks. While we accept that CDASP is generally supportive of development at south and east Ayr, we recognise the constraints in the wider area around the objection site. In light of the conclusions set out above, we consider that the site could satisfactorily accommodate a housing development whilst reasonably maintaining the setting and character of this part of Ayr. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that it represents an appropriate residential development opportunity.

5.13 We acknowledge that the objection site would be in a position to contribute towards the shortfall identified in the housing land supply. However, we do not consider that the objectors demonstrated that SAC had failed to address the specific need for houses in the “executive sector” in and around Ayr.

5.14 In conclusion, we consider that the objection site would be suitable for a sensitively designed, low density, high quality housing development. We note that there is some doubt over the capacity of the local non-denominational schools, and believe that this requires clarification. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of this matter, we consider that the allocation of this site for housing would be broadly consistent with the thrust of ASP, CDASP, and national guidance and advice.

5.15 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the conclusions of the inquiry into the compulsory purchase order for a road improvement scheme between Doonholm Road and Murdoch‟s Loan, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend: i) that the site be deleted from the green belt and Scenic Area on the Proposals Map, and that it be included in the settlement boundary for Ayr as a housing site, subject to clarification that the local non-denominational schools can satisfactorily accommodate the pupils likely to be generated by the development; and

SALP7 7.28 Doonholm Road

(ii) that policy H2B be amended by adding the following:

Doonholm Road (South) - Ayr

The site comprises around 6.5ha of agricultural land, which is located on the southern side of Doonhom Road between North Lodge and the old Doonholm Farm buildings. The site is located in a sensitive area being close to the River Doon valley corridor. It is expected that the development will contain a maximum of 50 houses, and that it will therefore be of a low density. In addition, we believe that the development should be of a high quality and sensitively designed, all within a robust landscape framework. The design should take account of the listed building and Scheduled Ancient Monument to the west, and the boundary treatment to the east should be a minimum of 20-25m deep.

SALP7 7.29 Doonholm Road

7.6 AYR: NORTHPARK

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 26, 123, 125, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 375, 400, Cala Homes (West) Ltd 473 and 489 (Written submissions)

Objecting to: Policies H2A Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The site is an irregularly shaped piece of ground amounting to some 2ha located to the west of Monument Road (B7024) in Alloway less than 4km from the town centre of Ayr. It is bounded to the east by Monument Road, alongside which runs a stand of mature trees. There is a belt of mature broadleaf and conifer trees running along the south eastern and south western boundaries. Beyond these is the built up area of Alloway and the lands associated with Burns Cottage. There is a gap at the south western corner and a hedge runs from there along the north western boundary. The Ivy House Hotel and Restaurant, formerly Northpark House, lies to the north west outside the objection site. To the north of that, and also outside the objection site, lie long established allotments owned by SAC. At our site inspection, we noted that the allotments are predominantly well tended and intensively used. Beyond the hotel and the allotments lies the major part of the Belleisle Park, which includes Belleisle House set in extensive manicured grounds and now characterised by the golf course laid out in 1926.

1.2 The objection site is predominantly in grass, but there is a well-worn footpath around much of the perimeter. The southern part of the site is fairly flat and, at our extensive accompanied site inspection, we noted that it was marked out for use as an association football pitch. We also noted that following heavy rain, there was evidence of some ponding, particularly at the corner flags at the Alloway end. The northern part of the site slopes gently down to the access point from Monument Road, where there is a small area which we saw being used for car parking by those tending the allotments. The hedge lined access road also serves the Ivy House Hotel and Restaurant.

1.3 Following a marketing exercise in 1997, SAC invited Cala Homes to enter into an agreement to purchase the site; and, in 1998, the parties exchanged missives. On 7th January 1999, SAC registered a planning application from Cala Homes for the erection of 17 detached dwelling houses and associated garages and ancillary works on land at Northpark, Monument road, Alloway, Ayr (application number 99/00016/FUL). Objections to the application were received from 9 organisations and from 64 individuals. The application remains undetermined. In November 2001, SAC decided to dispose of the objection site, subject to a number of provisions, the first of which was that, in due course, planning permission was granted for housing. To date, the site remains in SAC ownership.

SALP7 7.30 Northpark

1.4 The site now lies within an area which is covered by SALP policy ENV 5 and policy ENV6, as amended in the Schedule of Proposed Changes: April 2004. The south eastern corner of the site lies within the designated Alloway Conservation Area within which SALP policy BE3 and policy BE5 apply.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the reallocation of the objection site for housing

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 For Cala Homes, it was stated that they had made it clear from the outset that their interest in the site was to build houses. They had modified the original layout in response to the objections to the application for planning permission submitted in 1999. A layout submitted in June 2001 was understood to be acceptable to SAC.

3.2 The lack of changing and washing facilities at the objection site had limited the use of the football pitch; and bookings from organisations were declining. Its continuation as a substandard recreational site would be contrary to the aims and objectives of SAC‟s strategy for recreation. There were sufficient recreational playing areas and sporting pitches in the local area, and disposal of the site would not be a significant loss. The proceeds from the sale of the land should be reinvested elsewhere; and the objectors were prepared to make land at Longhill Road available for the relocation of the pitch.

3.3 The site was within safe walking distance of the local school, the local post office and shopping facilities in Alloway; and it was close to a bus service to Ayr town centre. Moreover, residential development at the site would allow an upgrading of the vehicular access from the main road to the Ivy House Hotel and to the nearby allotments. It would also allow the provision of dedicated parking for the convenience of the allotment holders, and as an overflow car park for the hotel

3.4 The site was not part of the designed landscape which included Belleisle Park and Belleisle House. That did not include the land on which the former North Park Farm was situated, or that which now forms the objection site and the playing field within it. If that had been part of the Belleisle ownership then it would have been named “South Park”. The site was separated from the Belleisle Golf Course to the northwest by the allotments and the hotel grounds, and it made no significant contribution to the wider parkland area. Although there was a narrow gap, approximately 5m wide, where the site marched with the golf course, the intervening land was characterised by hedges and large trees. Any adverse impact consequent on the development of the site for residential use, would be mitigated by the provision of additional tree planting on the common boundary along the present access road. In addition, the trees along Monument Road would serve as a backdrop to the houses. Retention of the tree belt would mitigate any visual impact a residential development might have on the setting of the Alloway Conservation Area. SAC was responsible for the trees and they would benefit from a management scheme which the objectors would be prepared to undertake.

SALP7 7.31 Northpark

3.5 The others who appeared at the hearing, or who had elected to proceed by way of written submissions, were all generally supportive of the recreational zoning at Northpark. However, additional matters were raised. It was proposed by one objector that the note to policy ENV6 be deleted, and that an area of ground adjacent to The Ivy House Hotel be excluded from SALP policy ENV5 and policy ENV6 to allow for an extension of the hotel use. Northpark should also be covered by SALP policy ENV8 because that would afford the land greater protection from development. Serving as a buffer between South Ayr and Alloway, it heightened the sense of occasion for visitors to Burns‟ sites at Alloway. Policy TOUR3 should also be applied because North Park House was now a hotel, and also because the possibility of extending the Burns‟ experience northwards should be retained.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 The Royal Burgh of Ayr Town Map 1955 showed the objection site to be part of a wider parkland area identified as public open space. The adopted Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan 1989 identified the site as part of the much larger area subject in whole or part to its policies REC(POL)3, ENV(POL)12, and ENV(POL)22. In CDSALP, the site was identified under strategic policy SERV21 and policy SERV22. In the Spring of 2001, SAC Planning Service were advised by the Estates Service of a number of proposed disposals of SAC owned land for residential development and other possible uses. However, an assessment of the objection site from a land use planning perspective concluded that the area should be retained as protected public open space.

4.2 The Planning Committee considered SAC‟s response to the objections made to SALP in August 2003. It concluded that the park was protected adequately by open space policies; and that the site should not be allocated for residential development because it was an area of readily accessible public open space, it was used as a football pitch, and it contributed to the amenity of the wider parkland area of Belleisle and to the setting of the Alloway Conservation Area.

4.3 ASP policy G8 drew together the general principles which should guide the release of new development land in local plans, and ASP policy E20 related to conservation areas. Assessed against these policies, SAC considered that development of the objection site would result in the loss of existing recreational and amenity open space, would impact adversely on the landscape character of the surrounding area, and would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Alloway Conservation Area. Because Northpark contributed significantly to local community needs and enjoyment, its loss to development would be incompatible with the relevant provisions of SPP3, as well as those of NPPG11.

4.4 The objection site was a relatively large area of public open space, and the condition of the path around the perimeter indicated regular use. It was within a few minutes walking distance of existing development, yet it was secluded and well contained by the tree belts within and contiguous to the site. Although the adjacent parkland at Belleisle was accessible to the public, its use as a golf course meant that Northpark was a safer and more peaceful location, particularly for children.

4.5 The site formed part of a much larger area of public parkland, the piecemeal erosion of which would fundamentally reduce its value as a significant part of the overall character of

SALP7 7.32 Northpark

the southern part of Ayr. It provided an attractive undeveloped parkland edge to the northern part of the Alloway Conservation Area. A key element was the continuous avenue of trees along Monument Road leading to Alloway village which came into view as the traveller turned the corner at the end of this avenue. When viewed from the terrace at Belleisle Hotel, the trees along Monument Road dominated the horizon, with only a few properties breaking the vista. The development of the site, as proposed in the current planning application, would result in a significant stark intrusion into this vista. This would be to the detriment of the character of Belleisle Park as a whole.

4.6 Turning to those objectors who had elected to proceed by way of written submissions, it was stated that Northpark was situated within the settlement boundary of Ayr and SALP policy ENV8 related only to Scenic Areas identified outwith defined settlement boundaries. Neither the Ivy House Hotel nor Northpark amounted to such a visitor attraction that it should be covered by SALP policy TOUR3. The importance of Northpark as an area of public parkland and public open space was recognised by SALP policy ENV5 and policy ENV6, and this was sufficient to ensure that the setting of the Burns‟ related buildings and grounds at Alloway would be maintained.

4.7 Note 1 of policy ENV6, which applied to sites throughout South Ayrshire, as now proposed stated that “exceptionally” such proposals “may be acceptable”. That part of the policy accorded with the provisions of NPPG11. The note did not weaken the protection afforded to the public open space at Northpark. The land adjacent to The Ivy House Hotel lay outwith the Northpark site, and it was open to an applicant seeking planning permission to extend the hotel to submit a statement explaining why the merits of the application outweighed the provisions of policies ENV5 and ENV6.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 There are 4 preliminary matters with which we must deal. First, it was stated for Cala Homes that the basic premise of their submission was “…that the elected members of SAC resolved to dispose of the site at Northpark as it was declared surplus to requirements…The clear inference is that the members approved the publication of SALP as a whole rather than abstract one small part and require a revision of the SALP map.” We have some difficulty with this position. We are in no doubt that SAC as owners stated as long ago as 1997 that the land was surplus to requirements and was available for disposal. However, the decision of the Community Protection and Support Services Committee taken in November 2001 was subject to conditions, one of which is that planning permission would be granted in due course for housing on the site. The Committee did not make a planning decision, and we agree with SAC that it was not entitled to do so. Furthermore, we are in no doubt that the elected members and their officials paid scrupulous attention to the detail of all matters relevant to the proper preparation of CDSALP and SALP. We reject the notion that, either by accident, or deliberately for administrative convenience, the members overlooked a requirement to revise the terms of SALP with regard to the objection site. Accordingly, we find that what Cala Homes state is the basic premise of their case and the associated inference which they have drawn from that are both fatally flawed.

5.2 Second, we are aware of the planning application from Cala Homes which is currently awaiting determination by SAC. This has provided helpful information about how Northpark might be developed were planning permission to be granted for housing on the site. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the focus of our attention must be only on whether the

SALP7 7.33 Northpark

objection site should be allocated for housing within SALP. Accordingly, we have resisted all temptation to stray into those matters of detail which are properly the sole preserve of SAC as the planning authority charged with the task of determining the planning application.

5.3 Third, the Ivy House Hotel is situated outwith the bounds of the objection site and separated from it by a mature beech hedge. It is a non-conforming use within a substantial area which is covered by SALP policies ENV5 and ENV6. As we understand it, the objector to that position is concerned principally, if not solely, about the application of policy ENV6, including its note 1, to any proposal to extend the hotel and its associated facilities. Section 25 of the 1997 T&CPA requires the determination of a planning application to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. SALP policies ENV5 and ENV6, which have been framed to apply throughout South Ayrshire, both presume in favour of safeguarding from development amenity and recreational open space, but they do not place an embargo on acceptable proposals. As we have noted above, a local plan inquiry is not the appropriate forum within which to pursue the interests of a particular proposal for development, whether actual or potential, relating to a particular site. The appropriate way forward for any proposal to extend the non-conforming use of the Ivy House Hotel, within land which is quite clearly and overwhelmingly amenity and recreational open space, is to submit a planning application to be determined on its merits in the light of the policies of the development plan and all other material considerations.

5.4 Fourth, the allotments, to which numerous references were made at the inquiry, lie outside the objection site, and no objection has been made to their continuing to be covered by open space policies in SALP. The use of part of the objection site for parking is a separate matter which is dealt with below.

5.5 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.6 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the site but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. SAC and Cala Homes entered into missives over the site in the 1990s, and the missives have been renewed every year since 1998. If we were to recommend that the site be allocated for housing, and SAC were to accept this recommendation, there would be no ownership constraint preventing development. The site has infrastructure constraints to the extent that there is doubt over the capacity of the local primary and secondary schools. However, we note that the constraint on school capacity is one which affects a large number of sites, and we are not persuaded that it should be regarded as representing an insurmountable obstacle to the development of the objection site at this stage. We accept that, on the basis of a net developable area of 1.2 ha, the site might

SALP7 7.34 Northpark

accommodate up to 17 houses and be built out within one year of detailed planning permission being granted.

5.7 The site lies in the settlement of Ayr. ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that D and K do not apply. In relation to A, the allocation of Northpark for residential development would represent a major discontinuity in a history of statutory planning policy towards the land which stretches back 50 years and more. The proposed disposal of the objection site by SAC is driven by other considerations. We are in no doubt that the area is used regularly as a playing field as well as for informal recreation and enjoyment. NPPG11 makes it clear that cumulative neglect of maintenance should not be used as an excuse for disposal. In the case of Northpark, although the playing surface and lack of adjacent changing facilities make it a less than ideal venue for competitive association football, it is perfectly acceptable for that purpose. The mature trees which lie within the site would benefit from the application of a well conceived woodland management scheme; but the allocation of the rest of the site for housing is not a necessary prerequisite of achieving this desirable outcome. In our experience, housing adjacent to a screen of mature trees often leads to encroachment, lopping and felling undertaken by neighbouring householders. This undesirable behaviour is difficult to monitor and manage.

5.8 The site is situated close to the Burns‟ related buildings and grounds within the Alloway Conservation Area. These are of national and indeed international interest, and we note in passing the references to the possibility of alternative uses of Northpark which would be lost forever if the site were given over to housing. Drawing these strands together, and notwithstanding the objector‟s commitment to provide alternative land for parking at the allotments and for recreation whether at Longhill Avenue or elsewhere in Ayr, we are not convinced that residential development on the objection site would maximise the opportunity for community benefit.

5.9 Under B, the proposal could not be described as making efficient use of either vacant or derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, with the exception of the potential constraint on school capacity, which we deal with above, there is no indication that the existing service infrastructure could not cope with a residential allocation on Northpark, or that sustainable forms of development could not be achieved. Under E and F, housing at Northpark would increase the number of trips by private car generated regularly from the site. However, any residential development would be served by existing public transport facilities. The location of bus stops and the frequency and scheduling of services may not be ideal, but we do not consider that development at the site would run contrary to the thrust and the intent of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.10 Under G, it is obvious that housing on the site at Northpark would involve the loss of existing and recreational open space. We recognise that there is a substantial area of open space in the vicinity of Northpark; and we accept that SAC have some evidence that the soccer pitch may be surplus to immediate requirements. Although there was no hard proposal brought to the inquiry, we also recognise that it might be possible to provide another pitch in substitution either on the periphery of Alloway or elsewhere in Ayr. However, there is more to the Northpark site than just the soccer pitch. Northpark is not an isolated pocket of open space just waiting to be developed. It is an open space that is enjoyed and valued by the community who use it. Northpark forms an integral part of the amenity space of Belleisle

SALP7 7.35 Northpark

Park. It has an ambience, irreplaceable elsewhere, that is different from, and complementary to, the mature parkland landscape of the nearby golf courses. Drawing these matters together, we find that the development of the site with houses would run counter to good planning practice, and not only to the terms of SPP3 but also to those of NPPG11.

5.11 On H, a small part of the site lies within the Alloway Conservation Area. The Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (1998) points out that new development, which is well designed, respects the character of the conservation area and contributes to its enhancement, should be welcomed. However, in our view, the development of houses on Northpark would do nothing to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Alloway Conservation Area whose special architectural and historic interest has been recognised in the designation. Instead, it could detract from it.

5.12 Under I, neither the objection site nor the area in its vicinity are an historic garden or designed landscape to which SALP policy ENV10 applies. Accordingly, the central issue is how the site relates to the wider area known generally as the Belleisle Park. The Northpark site lies at the southern tip of the park and it is surrounded on 3 sides by woodland. It is not part of a strategic network of open spaces. At our extensive site inspection, we saw that the distance, the prominence of the Ivy House Hotel, and the backdrop of trees along Monument Road would all reduce the visual impact of housing on the objection site as viewed from the Belleisle Hotel and by those on the golf course. We can also accept that the trees which line the west side of Monument Road, provided they were well managed, could largely screen a well designed housing development from the view of those travelling on the B7024. However, a housing development could not be accommodated on the site without detriment to the landscape character of the area unless there were substantial mitigation measures put in place which would be in harmony with the mature trees in the vicinity. These would take a substantial time to reach maturity and, in the meantime and certainly for the duration of the SALP period, there would be an inevitable impact on a landscape enjoyed and valued by residents, golfers and visitors to Ayr.

5.13 Even were houses on the objection site to be immediately acceptable, and for the reasons set out above, we consider that they would not, we are concerned that the allocation of this site for housing would set an undesirable precedent. It would render it more difficult for SAC to resist further proposals for developments on the periphery of the Belleisle Park. The cumulative effect of the incremental loss of the park would be to the inevitable irreversible detriment of the landscape character of the area. Regarding J, it is not clear to us that the site has fully satisfied this general principle.

5.14 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. Northpark is on the edge of the Core Town of Ayr, and would be reasonably accessible to the other 2 Core Towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area, and Ayr is a focus for public transport networks. However, for the reasons set out above, we are not persuaded that a housing allocation would be appropriate on this site.

5.15 As far as the other objections are concerned, the Ivy House Hotel lies outside the objection site and, in contrast to the nearby Rozelle Park, there are no significant leisure, recreation or tourist facilities in Northpark which should be covered by SALP policy TOUR3. We have dealt with the matters of SALP policy ENV5 and policy ENV6 elsewhere in this report.

SALP7 7.36 Northpark

5.16 In conclusion, we are not satisfied that Cala‟s proposal would be consistent with the thrust of strategic or national guidance, including ASP; and we do not consider Northpark to be suitable for allocation for housing in SALP.

5.17 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that. the objection site continues to be covered by an appropriate open space designation in SALP.

SALP7 7.37 Northpark

7.7 AYR: ST CATHERINE’S SCHOOL

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 465 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policies ENV6 Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The site is located within the north eastern segment of the built up area of Ayr adjacent to the Dalmilling Golf Course. It comprises 0.8ha of relatively flat land which was part of the playing fields of the former St Catherine‟s Primary School. The site is expected to accommodate 13 dwellings.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION(S)

1.2 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of this site for open space and the deletion of the housing allocation in SALP.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTOR

3.1 The Scottish Sports Council objected to the allocation of the site for residential development because this ran contrary to SALP policy SERV18. It was pointed out that it was stated in the accompanying note that: “Should educational facilities become surplus to requirements, SAC will seek to retain any associated sport or playing fields for public use”. The site should be covered by policy ENV6, and local community groups and sports clubs should be approached to explore the potential for continued positive recreational use and management of the site.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 SAC acknowledged that the playing field might have formed part of the premises of the former St Catherine‟s Primary School but it was not clear whether the school had exclusive use of the land. The school closed around 1992, and the pupils were transferred to the Good Shepherd Primary School at Mainholm Road, Ayr. The needs of that school for outdoor sport were catered for by the extensive playing fields attached to Mainholm Academy. SAC had not received any representations from local community, sports, or youth groups for regular use of the objection site. Nor had SAC been approached by the North Ayr Social Inclusion Partnership in relation to continued recreational use of this site. The land was surplus to requirements as a sports field, and housing was an appropriate alternative use.

SALP7 7.38 St Catherine‟s School

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 The evidence before us is not sufficient to allow us to either confirm or reject SAC‟s view that the objection site is effective. We accept that the site might be able to accommodate the 13 houses indicated in the 2004 Housing Land Audit.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these we find that, under B, the land is neither vacant nor brownfield land. Taking C and I together, we have no reason to suppose that a well designed housing scheme would not maximise the use of existing service infrastructure where sustainable forms of development can be achieved, or that it would not respect the character and townscape of the vicinity. Under D, the site is not in agricultural use. Taking E and F together, the site is within a built up area served by an existing mix of public transport and the additional trips by private car generated from 13 houses on the site would not place undue strain on the surrounding road network. Regarding J, it is not clear that this general principle has been satisfied in full. We find that H and K do not apply.

5.4 We can turn now to an assessment of the site against A and G. It is clear that the redevelopment of the site for housing will involve the loss of existing recreational and amenity open space. Accordingly, the crucial test is whether the proposed redevelopment would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit. We recognise that disposal of the site to a housing developer would generate a capital receipt for SAC and, in a climate of financial stringency, that is a powerful driver. However, NPPG11 notes that all playing fields are potentially significant for their sporting value, and for their value to the local community and the environment, unless proved by survey or strategic studies to be seriously lacking in quality or surplus to requirements. It continues that where they are no longer required for their original purpose the most appropriate alternative uses, dependent on open space analysis, will normally be for other sports or recreational use. It goes on to state that disposals should only be entertained if open space analysis demonstrates that the land is surplus to requirements, taking account of its recreational and amenity value. It also states, amongst other things, that planning permission should not be granted for an alternative use unless it has been established that the land will not be required in the future by the community. In addition, it explains that there should be a presumption against the redevelopment of playing fields.

5.5 We accept that St Catherine‟s Primary School has been closed for more than a decade and that adequate playing fields for the pupils are to be found at Mainholm Academy.

SALP7 7.39 St Catherine‟s School

However, SE policy is perfectly clear: there should be a presumption against redevelopment of playing fields. Accordingly, we are surprised that no substantive evidence was brought to the inquiry to demonstrate that a survey or strategic study has demonstrated that the objection site is seriously lacking in quality or is surplus to requirements, or that it has no value for sports or recreational use, or that it has no significant amenity value. Nor was there any evidence that SAC has been proactive in seeking out the needs and aspirations of the local community and their views on the redevelopment of these playing fields. The site lies within the area covered by the North Ayr Social Inclusion Partnership where access to facilities dedicated to sport, physical recreation and amenity open space could have a disproportionate contribution to make to the mental and physical wellbeing of residents in what has been identified as one of the most deprived areas in Scotland. When we review all of these matters, we are driven to the conclusion that the redevelopment of the existing recreational and amenity open space at the objection site and its allocation for housing is, at best, premature. The allocation for housing would be contrary to SE policy, and we are not persuaded that it would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

5.6 It appears to us that in order to conform to national and strategic policy towards this site SAC are bound to be proactive in seeking out its most appropriate use bearing in mind the need to maximise community benefit. A disposal can only be justified following demonstration of a systematic study of facilities which demonstrates that the site is not only surplus to SAC requirements but also that it has no recreational or amenity value for the neighbouring community. In that context, we agree with the Scottish Sports Council that, in the first instance, local community groups, sports clubs and other interested parties in Ayr including the Social Inclusion Partnership should be approached to explore the potential for continued use of the site for sport, physical recreation and/or open space.

5.7 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be in Ayr, a Core Town, and in the Core Investment Area. However, we are not persuaded that, at this time, a housing development on the objection site would be appropriate.

5.8 In conclusion, the loss of existing recreational and amenity open space at the objection site and its allocation for housing is contrary to national guidance. It is also contrary to ASP as there is no substantive evidence that the disposal of the site for housing would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit. Until that has been demonstrated, the playing field at the former St Catherine‟s Primary School should be covered by SALP policy SERV18 which at note 1 commits SAC, where educational facilities become surplus to requirements, to retain any associated sport or playing fields for public use. The site should also be covered by an appropriate open space policy in SALP.

5.9 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the policy H2A and policy H4 allocations covering the objection site in SALP be deleted; and

SALP7 7.40 St Catherine‟s School

(ii) that, in their place, the objection site be covered by allocations under policy SERV18 and an appropriate open space policy.

SALP7 7.41 St Catherine‟s School

7.8 HEATHFIELD (RESIDENTIAL)

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 296, 387 and 447. British Bakeries Ltd (+ Written submissions) Objecting to: Policy H2A Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Heathfield, and its vicinity, straddles the border between the built up areas of Ayr and Prestwick. Within SALP, the Heathfield Strategy covers an irregularly shaped area which stretches from Prestwick Airport in the north to the built up area of Whitletts in the south. To the west are residential components of Ayr and Prestwick, and to the east is agricultural land contained within the A77 trunk road, beyond which is open countryside. The Heathfield Strategy area is generally flat without distinctive topographical features. It accommodates a mix of land uses and sources of employment. Traditional industries include a sawmill, an abattoir, and a cement plant and more recent developments include car showrooms, leisure uses, a retail warehouse park, a supermarket, and fast food outlets. Heathfield Road runs through the area acting as a spine which links Whitletts Roundabout on the A77 to the east with the A79 (Ayr Road) to the west. The area is well served by bus. Although a mineral railway runs east to west across the southern portion of the Strategy Area, the nearest passenger station is located to the south west of Heathfield on the Glasgow to Ayr line at Newton-on-Ayr.

1.2 The area beyond that which is covered by the Heathfield Strategy accommodates a further variety of land uses. These include: to the west a number of housing developments of different vintages, layouts, and house types; to the north, a golf course and the secondary runway of Prestwick Airport; to the east, agricultural land and a small, unsightly group of disused fuel tanks sited adjacent to the A77; and, to the south, numerous further elements of the built up area of Ayr.

1.3 In SALP, the Heathfield area is identified as the foremost opportunity for significant economic development in South Ayrshire. It sets out, in broad terms, the preferred allocation of land uses within the area covered by the Heathfield Strategy. The objections lodged to various sites within the area covered by the Strategy, and its immediate vicinity, are concerned almost exclusively with the non-allocation of land for residential, commercial, retail, leisure and other service uses. This chapter deals with the objections which relate in whole, or in part, to residential uses. The objection sites can be described as follows:

Site 1 (Seaforth Road): The objection site is a flat piece of ground, rectangular in shape and amounting to some 4.8ha, located close to the border of Ayr and Prestwick and on the western and southern edges of the area covered by the Heathfield Strategy. To the west, beyond a buffer of green space, there is a group of buildings currently occupied by the Territorial Army, and beyond that is housing. To the south, there is further housing; to the east, there is vacant land currently allocated in the strategy for general industry; and to the

SALP7 7.42 Heathfield (Residential)

north, there are playing fields. The site is occupied by a complex of buildings, loading bays, related facilities and various pieces of installed equipment, all associated with the former activities of British Bakeries Ltd. Access is taken from Seaforth Road. At our site inspection, we noted that the complex was now vacant and well secured, but that some buildings showed signs of deterioration.

Site 2 (North of Heathfield Road): The objection site is made up of 2 parcels of land each of which is pentagonal in shape. Both are flat, largely undeveloped and within an area identified in the Heathfield Strategy as suitable for general industry. They are positioned to the east (around 4ha) and west (around 2.5ha) respectively of Boundary Road. Callendar Road runs through the area to the east of Boundary Road. There is residential development to the north and west, and we noted, at our site inspection, that the areas to the south and east are characterised by industrial, warehouse and office buildings of various sizes and types.

Site 3 (South of Heathfield Road): The objection site extends to around 6.5ha, and is irregular in shape. It is bounded: to the north and north east by mixed commercial and industrial development; to the west by Lochside Road, beyond which is residential development and the site of the former British Bakeries operation; and to the south east by a mineral railway line. Access from Heathfield Road is taken from Lochside Road.

Site 4 (Heathfield Road/Forbes Drive): The objection site extends to around 3.5ha, and is rectangular in shape. It has a frontage on Heathfield Road. To the west, there is a housing development, to the north, there is vacant land allocated for general industry, and to the east, there is land allocated for general industry and business. To the south, across Heathfield Road, there are playing fields. The site has outline planning permission, granted in 1999, for a car show room complex. At our site inspection, we noted that the site was cleared and vacant.

1.4 In the adopted Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan, the north eastern segment of Heathfield lies within the green belt, and the remainder lies within the boundaries of the 2 settlements. CDSALP (published in 1999) provided a strategy for the Heathfield area and included a strategic diagram which set out in broad terms the preferred uses within the area. The strategy identified 2 constraints both of which lay outside the direct control of SAC: the operational safety of Prestwick Airport, and the capacity of the junction of Heathfield Road and the A77 Whitletts Roundabout. It stated, amongst other things that, although there had been some interest in the development of some peripheral areas for housing, there was only very limited potential for residential development at Heathfield. The strategy was linked to, and intended to be read within the context of, the Industrial and Employment Land Strategy. None of the 4 objection sites were identified for housing in CDSALP.

1.5 In SALP (published in 2002), the reference to limited potential for housing had been removed, no further detail was provided, and the 4 objection sites continued not to be identified for housing. The Industrial and Employment Land Strategy as set out in SALP provides guidance to investors about the types of activities which are likely to be encouraged within the different industrial areas in South Ayrshire. The aim is to assist in the creation of a stable environment for investment while giving reassurance to existing firms about the type of industry which might locate within their vicinity. It states that attention has been paid not only to the current demand for land but also to latent and possible future demands. It explains that SAC have undertaken a qualitative (our emphasis) land use assessment of

SALP7 7.43 Heathfield (Residential)

existing and proposed industrial areas. Based on that assessment of the provision of industrial land and premises, 15 industrial/employment estate areas have been identified.

1.6 The Heathfield Strategy in SALP covers 5 of the industrial/ employment estate areas as follows: 7-Heathfield, Ayr and Prestwick (General Industry/Distribution); 10-South Sanquhar, Ayr (General Industry/Distribution); 11-Boundary Road, Prestwick (General Industry /Distribution); 12-Heathfield Road, Ayr (Business); and 13- Whitfield Drive, Ayr (Light Industry). Heathfield is recognised as being the subject of intense development pressure for a wide range of high value land uses, including retail, commercial, leisure and housing. The strategy aims to effectively manage and co-ordinate development in order to provide a mix of land uses that complements the functions of Ayr and Prestwick town centres. It emphasises that the Heathfield Strategy must not be viewed in isolation from the principles, aims and objectives of SALP. Along with the associated strategy diagram, it is to be read in conjunction with the relevant policies of ASP and SALP and its Industrial and Employment Strategy.

1.7 The Industrial and Employment Land Strategy makes provision for ongoing industrial restructuring. It aims to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for industrial development while at the same time protecting environmental and residential amenity. The circumstances in which industrial sites can be developed for alternative uses are limited to the following:  the site must be located within a settlement boundary as defined in the local plan; and  the development of the site should not fragment a larger industrial area; and  if the proposed use is residential, the amenity of any residents would not be adversely affected by uses in the vicinity; and  the proposed use must be compatible with other policies in SALP; and  industrial or business use of the site is unlikely or undesirable.

1.8 There were no alterations of substance in the changes to SALP subsequently promoted by SAC. In CDASP, Heathfield is in the Core Investment Area; and Ayr is identified as a Core Investment Town, and Prestwick is identified as a Service Centre.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objections dealt with in this chapter seek the removal of the sites from the industrial land allocation, and their designation for housing along with a variety of other commercial, retail and other service uses.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

Site 1 (Seaforth Road)

3.1 British Bakeries Ltd sought the rezoning of the site at Seaforth Road from industry to housing. The factory was a specially designed bakery plant, and it had operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Its closure followed a major review of facilities across the company. Despite an extensive marketing campaign and informing the local enterprise company, the objectors had not received any inquiries from potential industrial occupiers. British Bakeries

SALP7 7.44 Heathfield (Residential)

Ltd had no plans to reuse the site for production or distribution; and the relatively unattractive flat roofed bakery units would probably require to be cleared by an incoming industrial user. The site had lain vacant for almost 3 years, and this far exceeded the 9-12 months conventionally regarded as a reasonable turn around time.

3.2 The surrounding area was predominantly residential, and industrial use on the site had given rise to some complaints about noise and traffic congestion. SAC had sent a letter in December 2003 encouraging the submission of the planning application that the objectors had submitted in March 2004. That had received a positive response, but its determination had been delayed because SALP‟s policy on affordable housing was still emerging. The proposal would accord with SPP1 because it would promote a sustainable option, and would allow the redevelopment of a vacant brownfield site. The site was accessible to various local amenities, including primary schools. The proposal would be consistent with SPP3 because: it would contribute to the effective housing land supply and choice; it would provide a good quality residential environment; it would make use of existing infrastructure; and it would not affect the existing built up area. The site was accessible by bus and train services and the traffic impact would be acceptable. Residential development would be compatible with the intent of NPPG17 and PAN57.

3.3 Given the amount of industrial land that would be released through SALP at North Heathfield and at Cockhill, the proposal was in tune with the industrial policies of ASP. It would also be compatible with ASP policy L1, all the relevant criteria in SALP policy G8, and policies ADS3 and ADS7.

3.4 The proposal would comply with SAC‟s planning vision and housing objectives for South Ayrshire as well as the relevant criteria in SALP policy STRAT5. CDSALP had indicated that there was very limited potential for residential development at Heathfield. However, without associated reasoning for the change, in SALP it was stated that there was none. Regarding industrial restructuring, the objection site was within a settlement boundary, and it was self-contained with access through an existing residential area. The Heathfield Strategy Area would not be fragmented, and no linkages would be severed. SALP‟s strategic policies would not be contravened, and future industrial use was unlikely.

3.5 Housing on the objection site could be readily integrated with nearby residential development, and there was no danger that its release for this purpose would undermine sound planning policies for the Heathfield Area. There were 2 oil fuel tanks on the site buried below ground, but they could be dealt with at low cost and by conventional means. If the site remained vacant, it would be subject to vandalism and the buildings would continue to deteriorate. As far as the impact on traffic flows in the vicinity was concerned, the problems on Heathfield Road and its vicinity were long standing, and the traffic generated from a housing development on the objection site would make no material difference to them. Relatively small improvements on the local road network would result in disproportionate improvements to traffic flows.

3.6 It was stated that the site could be rendered fully effective within 2 years of the allocation of the site within SALP. The site was capable of accommodating up to 100 houses; and, at a rate of construction of 50 per annum, it could be fully built out 4 years after the adoption of SALP

SALP7 7.45 Heathfield (Residential)

Sites 2 and 3 (North of Heathfield Road and South of Heathfield Road)

3.7 Contrary to the position adopted by SAC, there was no development pressure in respect of these objection sites. The land to the north of Heathfield Road had been available for development for over 30 years without attracting any serious interest. To continue to include it within the marketable industrial land supply cast serious doubt on the approach to industrial land adopted by SAC in SALP. A parcel of land at the corner of Heathfield Road and Lochside Road which had been sold in the mid-1960s had remained undeveloped; and the future of the land with a frontage onto Heathfield Road, which had been thought to have potential for a football stadium and retail development, was still uncertain. Neither of the objection sites was readily visible from Heathfield Road and that detracted from their potential for development. Other sites being promoted elsewhere in the Heathfield area, and at Whitletts Roundabout, were more readily visible and accessible. SAC should have provided the total industrial land supply figures for South Ayrshire in SALP in order that the impact of the loss of elements of land, including any at Heathfield, could be assessed.

3.8 The objector made the following proposals. First, at site 2 to the east of Boundary Road, the parcel should be split so that the land to the north of Callendar Road was identified for housing, and the land to the south of Callendar Road retained for industry and business. Second, at site 2 to the west of Boundary Road, the whole parcel should be allocated for residential development. Third, at site 3 to the south of Heathfield Road the objection site should be split to allow housing on the southern part with the northern part retained for business use.

Site 4 (Heathfield Road/Forbes Drive)

3.9 The outline planning permission granted for a car showroom implied that the site was not required for mainstream business or industrial uses. The site was too large to be developed for car show rooms only and the objector had in mind a mixed use scheme which would comprise: class 4 business units, car show rooms, local commercial leisure, a limited amount of housing, and a local shop. SALP did not contain any policy which would cover what was proposed. SALP policies OPP1, IND1, IND4, IND5 and HFLD1 sought only to promote the land at Heathfield for a limited range of business and industrial uses. A flexible approach to the objection site was required. The scheme promoted by the objector would maximise the early development of the site and the creation of jobs, while diversifying local land uses all achieved within the general aims of SALP. The proposed scheme should be seen as an opportunity to deliver economic development rather than amounting to a loss in the industrial land supply.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 SAC considered that all of the proposals were contrary to ASP, and particularly to its policies ADS1, W2, and W4. ASP had expressed concern about the quality, marketability and location of general industrial land in South Ayrshire, and ASP policy W2 required an additional local plan allocation of 30ha (gross) at Ayr. In compliance, SALP had allocated around 35ha of land for industrial development at North Heathfield, adjacent to Heathfield Retail Park, and within the area covered by the Heathfield Strategy.

SALP7 7.46 Heathfield (Residential)

4.2 Within SALP, SAC were bound to provide for a range of industrial uses in an appropriate range of locations. The Heathfield Strategy Area was an important element in the hierarchy of industrial land supply identified within South Ayrshire, and all 4 of the objection sites were essential parts of that. The requirement to bring forward strategic industrial land to meet the shortfall identified in ASP was designed to add to, not replace, the existing industrial land supply. If the objection sites were developed for uses other than industry, replacement sites would be required nearby.

4.3 The Heathfield Strategy identified the objection sites as being suitable for a range of uses including warehousing, storage and distribution development. A review of traffic capacity at the Whitletts roundabout had not altered SAC‟s view that these uses were realistic and more appropriate than what the objectors now proposed. There was nothing to suggest that the sites were inappropriate for industrial or business development, other than an indication that they had been less attractive to developers for those uses than were other sites with a higher profile. There was a possibility that marketing of the objection sites had been targeted at the wrong client group, and/or put on offer at a higher price than that which could be commanded in industrial use. Thus, for instance, the marketing exercise for site 1 had introduced the prospect of a residential “hope value” by referring to best offers and the potential for residential use.

4.4 SAC considered that much of the land allocated for industry in the Heathfield area had been slow to be developed because landowners had not been sufficiently proactive, in the hope that other uses, notably retail and residential which commanded higher land values, might be approved. Allocation of any of the objection sites for housing would raise the prospect of enhanced land values elsewhere. A number of sites within Heathfield, currently identified for industry, had attracted considerable interest for other uses including retailing and housing. However, the incremental release of industrial land for other purposes would increase the pressure for unwarranted development. Allocation of any of the objection sites, in whole or in part, for housing would undermine SAC‟s commitment to the promotion of Heathfield as a focal point for future employment investment. Faced with the proposition that the continued lack of development at Heathfield would be to the substantial detriment of the prospects for the local economy, SAC stated that “the aspirational and hope values associated with potential development at Heathfield represents a potentially greater threat to investment and the local economy.”

4.5 Contrary to the view that there had been no serious interest in land in the area, Heathfield had proved to be an attractive area for industrial and business investment; and some 11.7ha of land had been developed between 2002 and 2005. Small units had a high occupancy rate. In response to questions, SAC provided some further information on industrial land supply in South Ayrshire. In 1998, there were 101ha of industrial land of which 42.3ha gross were considered to be marketable. Within that total, there were 22.7ha of gross marketable land at Heathfield. In 1997 the take up of industrial land in South Ayrshire was 3.57ha. Over the previous decade, the take up rate averaged 1.58ha per annum. No more recent figures on the supply of industrial land could be provided. It was stated that there were no procedures in place within any of the sections of SAC to monitor the uptake of industrial land. Nor was that information available from the local enterprise company. It was acknowledged that, on the basis of known trends, there could be an over supply of industrial land in South Ayrshire for the SALP period. However, the demand for industrial land reflected the economic cycle and, given their location close to the A77, Prestwick Airport,

SALP7 7.47 Heathfield (Residential)

and the town centre of Ayr SAC believed that, some time in the future, the sites could interest industrial and/or business users.

4.6 It was pointed out that SALP made provision for circumstances where industrial land could be developed for alternative uses. The Industrial and Employment Land Strategy had set out 5 factors to be applied in an assessment of alternative uses on industrial sites. In relation to these: SAC acknowledged that all 4 of the objection sites were within a settlement boundary. However, the loss of any one of these allocations of industrial or business land would fragment the Heathfield Strategy Area, and would set a precedent resulting in increased pressure for housing on other sites within the Area. SAC were not convinced that the introduction of housing into an area characterised by industrial uses, could lead to the creation of an acceptable residential environment on the objection sites. There was either insufficient, or no, detailed information on important matters such as the design of the proposed residential developments and landscaping. Other concerns included: site contamination (notably at site 1); some physical problems relating to vehicular and pedestrian access including the capacity of the junctions at Heathfield Road/Hunters Avenue and Hunters Avenue/Seaforth Road to absorb without difficulty the increase in traffic; and the view that housing was not the preferred use of any site.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which must be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). In this case we find that ownership, deficit funding, the provision of infrastructure and marketability at the objection sites are not insuperable constraints. Although there are 2 underground oil tanks located within site 1, contamination there does not represent an insurmountable obstacle. We have no information on which to base an informed assessment on whether the other 3 sites are affected by contamination. Nor do we have any information about ground conditions which may have been affected by the mining which, we understand, was undertaken in the past in the vicinity of the sites. From the evidence before us at the inquiry, our accompanied site inspection on foot, and numerous other trips in the vicinity by private car we accept that there may be some problems of safety and performance at the junctions at Heathfield Road/Hunters Avenue and Hunters Avenue/Seaforth Road. However, we have no reason to suppose that these cannot be overcome by a combination of schemes of traffic management and some limited investment including the signalising of junctions, or that the road network in the immediate vicinity cannot accommodate any increase in traffic generated by residential development beyond that which could reasonably be expected from general industry. We acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the objection sites but, as the

SALP7 7.48 Heathfield (Residential)

matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. Following clearance and treatment for contamination, and allowing for an appropriate scheme of planting and landscaping, we consider that site 1 might be suitable for between 60 and 70 houses to be completed 4/5 years after the adoption of SALP. We have no information on the capacity of the other 3 sites to accommodate houses, or on the likely delivery, phasing or programming of their construction.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these we find that D, G, H, I and K do not apply. In relation to A, we accept that the sites have been marketed for industrial use without success, that new houses of suitable type and tenure on any of the objection sites would increase the stock and range of choice available, and that some community benefits would accrue. These could be maximised if housing were seen as an integral part of a masterplan covering the Heathfield Strategy Area and, perhaps, in the vicinity. Looking at B, the sites lie in a predominantly industrial area characterised by brownfield land. Regarding C, site 1 is bordered by a green buffer, by housing, and by playing fields on 3 of its sides and by vacant land on the other. The site is well placed to accommodate a housing scheme which would achieve a satisfactory residential environment. We have no reason to suppose that such a scheme could not maximise the use of existing infrastructure, and achieve a sustainable form of development. As far as the other sites are concerned, while we must have reservations about what can be accomplished in an area with a history of industrial, business and commercial development, we have insufficient information on which to base a fully informed judgement.

5.4 When we consider E and F, we recognise that any residential development at the objection sites would increase the use of the private car. Nonetheless, on the evidence before the inquiry, we do not consider that this need be an insurmountable obstacle, even taking into account the possibility of a retail development on the Alexander Sawmills site. From our daily experience of the A77 over several months and at various times, including the morning and evening peaks, we consider that the impact of this level of development on the nature and extent of traffic congestion on Heathfield Road, junctions nearby, and on Whitletts Roundabout should not be overstated. Although we recognise that the roads and their junctions in the vicinity have elements which merit improvement, we are not persuaded that an allocation of one of the objection sites for housing need necessarily be undermined by its contribution to congestion on the road network. In relation to public transport, while the existing routings and interchanges may not be ideal for all potential travellers, there have been recent considerable improvements to the bus services serving the Heathfield area. We also believe that pedestrian and cycle integration could be achieved without undue difficulty. Out of the 4 objection sites, site 1 has the advantage of being closest to Newton-on-Ayr Railway Station (less than 20 minutes walk by our reckoning). In the circumstances, we find that the development of site 1 for housing would be compatible with the underlying intentions of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17. Turning to J, we are not satisfied that this general principle has been met, particularly in so far as it relates to ground stability.

5.5 ASP policy W2 requires an addition to the strategic industrial land supply of 30ha (gross) at Ayr. SALP seeks to achieve this through the allocation of 35ha of land adjacent to Heathfield Retail Park for general industry. In addition to strategic industrial land, ASP points out that local industrial land is also vital. Policy W4 requires that local plans identify, review and maintain an adequate supply of local industrial land to meet future needs and seek to review surplus industrial land for other uses. With the exception of the strategic allocation,

SALP7 7.49 Heathfield (Residential)

the land identified in the Heathfield Strategy Area for general industry, business, and gateway business falls within this local category. In developing their Industrial and Employment Land Strategy for SALP, SAC acknowledge that they have undertaken only a qualitative land use assessment of existing and proposed industrial areas. At the inquiry it was further acknowledged that there were no procedures in place within any of the sections of SAC to monitor in a systematic fashion the take up of industrial land in South Ayrshire, nor was this information available to SAC from the local enterprise company. Although figures were produced for the land supply at 1998, and for the take up for some years before that, no more recent figures on the supply of industrial land could be provided, other than anecdotally. It was further acknowledged that if the pre-1998 trends were extrapolated to the date of the inquiry, and beyond, there would be an over supply of industrial land in South Ayrshire in SALP. Given the poverty of the quantitative information gathered, it is difficult for us to see how SAC can manage efficiently and effectively the industrial land supply in South Ayrshire in response to the various opportunities and the range of changing needs which, it is to be hoped, will present themselves during the intended SALP period. We are driven to the conclusion that, regardless of the economic cycle, one of the likely consequences will be a continuation of planning by appeal at Heathfield.

5.6 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection sites are a part of the built up area of Ayr and Prestwick, which are identified as a Core Town and Service Centre respectively. They are reasonably accessible to other core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire, and they would be located in the Core Investment Area. There is substantial development pressure in the Heathfield area for non-industrial and business uses. While there are issues of public safety to be considered by those promoting development in the vicinity of Prestwick Airport, we are in no doubt that Heathfield lies at the heart of the potential for the generation of income and employment in South Ayrshire. The development of any of the 4 objection sites for housing would act as a catalyst for other elements of regeneration and renewal in the Heathfield area. However, in the absence of further detail, we consider that, at this stage, only site 1 can be allocated for housing and consequently withdrawn from the Heathfield Strategy Area.

5.7 When we consider the proposed allocation of housing at objection site 1 against the criteria in SALP for developing sites allocated for industrial uses, we find that: it is located within a settlement boundary as defined in SALP; it would neither irrevocably fragment the area covered by the Heathfield Strategy, nor would it sever links between industrial users in that area; the amenity of future residents would not be adversely affected by the activity of existing or proposed uses in the vicinity; the policy of SALP is still under debate; and, given the lack of success in marketing the site, we consider that its future occupation by industrial or business uses is unlikely within the intended life time of SALP.

5.8 Finally, in relation to what SAC termed at the inquiry as “hope value”, we are not persuaded by the unsubstantiated contention that land for industrial and business uses at Heathfield has been systematically withdrawn from the market in the hope of attracting higher prices in other uses. The retention of all of the allocation of industrial land at Heathfield within SALP is unwarranted if there is no reasonable expectation that all of it will be taken up within the SALP period. We take seriously the view of the objectors that misplaced retention may well be acting as a break on worthwhile developments. Sound policy should be evidence based and any debate on these matters should be settled by reference to the facts. We find that systematic collection of up to date, quantitative information on the nature, quality and location of industrial land and analysis of trends in the

SALP7 7.50 Heathfield (Residential)

rate of uptake differentiated by type are necessary prerequisites of the evidence based policy making, monitoring, review and evaluation which should lie at the heart of sound planning for industrial land use. We consider that these procedures should be put in place without delay.

5.9 In conclusion, we do not consider that any part of either site 2 or site 3 or site 4 should be allocated for housing at this stage. We find that site 1 is a suitable housing site and, consequently, it should be withdrawn from the area covered by the Heathfield Strategy. The allocation of the site for housing would not be inconsistent with ASP, CDASP or relevant national guidance and advice.

5.10 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the terms of the outline planning permission granted for a car showroom complex at site 4 and the possibility that the release of site 1 for housing would set an undesirable precedent which would threaten the application of sound planning policies in the Heathfield area, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that site 1 be withdrawn from the Heathfield Strategy area, that the general industry allocation covering it be deleted, and that it be identified as a housing site;

(ii) that policy H2A be amended by adding the following:

“Ayr - Seaforth Road

The site comprises 4.8ha of flat land at Seaforth Road from which access is taken. The previous use of the site requires that an investigation of potential land contamination should be undertaken. There is a history of mining in the vicinity and ground stability should be investigated. A traffic statement will be required along with details of access for road vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Structural planting will be required along the eastern boundary to screen the development from land allocated for industrial use within the Heathfield Strategy Area. Following clearance, and allowing for an appropriate scheme of planting and landscaping, the site is considered suitable for up to 70 dwellings;” and

(iii) that no other changes be made to SALP in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.51 Heathfield (Residential)

7.9 HEATHFIELD: EAST SANQUHAR FARM

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 299 and 454 Mr R Cuthbertson (+Written submissions)

Objecting to: Strategic policy H2B Strategic policy IND1 Policy IND5 Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The objection site at East Sanquhar Farm is located between the A77 to the east, and the secondary runway at Prestwick Airport to the west. It is bounded to the north by a track leading from the former Kirklandholm junction on the A77. To the south, the boundary follows the line of the former Ayr Low Road and continues along the side of an unsightly, abandoned fuel depot. From the northern corner of the fuel depot the boundary runs north west to the south east corner of the airport. The site, which is very largely in agricultural use, extends to around 68ha. It is relatively flat in the north, becoming gently undulating towards the south east. East Sanquhar Farm House and its steadings, some other houses, and a large commercial operation all lie within the site. There is some tree and hedgerow planting, but the overall impression is of open, arable farmland, with a limited amount of livestock grazing. From the heavily trafficked A77, there are views over the site towards Prestwick Airport. It was confirmed at the inquiry that a further area of land to the south and east of the A77 was in the same ownership, but that was not part of the objection site.

1.2 One objection (299) seeks the identification of land at East Sanquhar Farm for residential, business and industrial development. A draft masterplan shows how the major part of the site could be developed for housing. The existing industrial operation would be retained and adjoining land to the east and north would be allocated for business and industry. The masterplan assumes that the land to the south and west would be developed for business and industry in line with the Heathfield Strategy as that is set out in SALP. It also envisages the creation of a rail halt and park and ride facility adjacent to the existing Heathfield Retail Park. The development would be served by a central spine road running from Liberator Drive and Semple Road within the Heathfield Strategy area. That would involve the creation of 2 new roundabouts and the spine road would run north either to a roundabout at Kirklandholm or to an existing stump at the Sandyford Toll Roundabout on the A77. The second objection (454), presented in the form of written submissions, provides no clear indication of what the objectors have in mind for the site.

SALP7 7.59 St Cuthbert Golf Course

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of land at East Sanquhar Farm from the Rural Protection Area and its allocation for mixed uses, including housing.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 SAC had not undertaken an adequate assessment of the supply of land for business and industry in South Ayrshire, and there was inadequate monitoring of past, and likely future, take up rates. Although an additional strategic site had been identified at Heathfield, SAC sought to protect all of the existing local industrial land allocation. The gross industrial land supply in SAC was 101ha of which 42.3ha was considered to be marketable. With an average take up rate of 1.58ha per annum that would be sufficient to provide a 26 year land supply. If the take up of 3.57ha in 1998 was applied then there was an 11 year land supply. SAC had acknowledged that only 1.5ha of the 11.7ha of the land developed at Heathfield since 2002 had been for industrial use. East Sanquhar was well placed to provide attractive, high profile accessible sites for business, general industrial use, and specialist firms requiring runway access.

3.2 There was a requirement to identify additional housing land, and new housing could act as a catalyst for economic development. The site could be considered to be effective. There was no basis for rejecting the objection site on the grounds of a lack of school capacity. The site could accommodate between 400 and 500 houses, together with associated landscaping. Development would commence within 2-3 years of the adoption of SALP, and the site would be built out at a rate of around 100 houses per annum. There were no sound environmental reasons why the site should not be considered as suitable for development. Use of the secondary runway at Prestwick Airport was limited almost solely to light aircraft. Neither public safety nor residential amenity presented insuperable difficulties. More detailed consideration of these and related matters could form part of a masterplanning exercise.

3.3 A new distributor road through North Heathfield to Sandyford Toll, as identified on the draft masterplan, would relieve pressure on the Whittlets Roundabout. The additional access stump on the Sandyford Roundabout appeared to have been designed to accommodate a future development between the A77 and Prestwick Airport. There was scope to connect the objection site with Semple Road and Liberator Drive, through the strategic industrial site. Bus services were adequate and could be enhanced to meet emerging needs. The objection site was well placed to take advantage of, and to support, a new rail station wherever that might be sited within the Heathfield area.

3.4 ASP policy G8 provided a set of criteria to be considered in the allocation of land for development. CDASP also contained criteria for use in the consideration of new housing land releases, and its strategic policy 1 provided an overall context for considering new development proposals on a sequential basis. The proposed release of East Sanquhar Farm compared favourably with all of the criteria in these policies. In particular, the local community would benefit from the creation of new, high quality sites for business and industry adjoining newly built residential areas. Both of these uses would provide close support for the retail and commercial facilities at Heathfield. Maximum use of existing

SALP7 7.60 St Cuthbert Golf Course

service infrastructure could be guaranteed by the comprehensive development of East Sanquhar along with Heathfield. The effect on prime quality agricultural land would be less than that resulting from other proposed releases in SALP. By virtue of its location adjoining the main urban area, there was significant scope to ensure good public transport access and pedestrian/cycle linkages between the site and the existing urban area. The impact on natural heritage resources would be limited and there would be no issues regarding flooding, or ground stability.

3.5 What was needed was a proactive SALP which identified a substantial area of land for development subject to a masterplanning exercise which would also cover the Heathfield Area. The release of East Sanquhar Farm should be considered along with a more critical review of brownfield land allocations in Heathfield. Within that wider area there was scope to provide quality land for business and industry, brownfield sites for immediate use for housing, and greenfield sites to be made available for residential and industrial development in the medium to longer term.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 ASP had stated that any future expansion of airport related facilities should be related to specific demands, and the prospects for growth at Prestwick Airport, as well as to the development of unused land both within the airport itself and in the surrounding area. CDASP had indicated that all land bounded to the north and east by the A79 and the A77 should be protected from development proposals other than those related to airport development. The policies applied to the Rural Protection Area did not preclude appropriate development, but the objection site was not suitable for allocation for a large scale mixed use development in SALP.

4.2 Assuming that the whole site was allocated for housing, exclusive of mitigation and applying the SAC standard rule of thumb of 20 houses to the hectare, the site capacity was over 1300 houses. If the land were allocated for that purpose, development might commence some 36 months after the adoption of SALP, but a build out rate of 100 houses per annum was optimistic. There was insufficient evidence on numerous relevant matters including: ground stability; ground contamination; whether the access point proposed could be achieved; the technical and economic viability of the proposed rail halt; the capacity of the existing infrastructure, including drainage; the capacity of schools to accommodate an increase in pupil numbers. Nor was there sufficient evidence to establish whether an acceptable residential environment could be created so close to the A77, the proposed through road and the adjacent airport. The secondary runway had been extended and resurfaced, and it was expected that considerably more use would be made of it in the future. However, no noise survey or risk assessment had been submitted.

4.3 The objector had not provided any figures on the supply of industrial land, nor on its rate of past or likely future take up. By SAC‟s reckoning, there was some 10 or 11 years supply of industrial land in South Ayrshire in locations chosen to facilitate a flexible response to likely investment opportunities. A considerable proportion of the marketable supply was within Heathfield, and SAC had demonstrated a commitment to that location, not least by the allocation there of the new strategic site. The Industrial and Employment Land Strategy provided information on the types of development which would be encouraged to locate at Heathfield and also highlighted the availability of other industrial sites throughout South

SALP7 7.61 St Cuthbert Golf Course

Ayrshire. The strategic industrial and business development site at Prestwick/Monkton had been developed as Prestwick Aerospace Park. An additional strategic industrial site had been identified at Heathfield, and there was no need for the allocation of further land for industrial uses at East Sanquhar Farm.

4.4 The take up of 11.7ha of land at Heathfield in the past 3 years had demonstrated its desirability. A supermarket had taken 5.8ha, a car show room 4.4ha, and a concrete batching plant 0.5 ha. However, SAC had become convinced that land owners were restricting the release of land for business and industrial use in the hope that, sometime in the future, the sites might command a higher price if planning permission were to be granted for retail, residential or other use. Smaller companies were finding parcels of land suitable for their needs. The sites at McCall‟s Avenue and at West Sanquhar Road, Ayr had been assessed as unattractive for business/industrial development and reallocated for housing. There was no need to identify additional land for industrial, business or airport related development. If the development of land within the Heathfield Strategy Area were to proceed along the lines promoted by the objector (299) then the effect would be a net loss of job opportunities.

4.5 Assessed against the general principles of ASP policy G8, SAC had found as follows. A: it was acknowledged that the land could accommodate houses and provide employment opportunities, but these could be made available at other locations identified in SALP. The land adjacent to the curtilage of Prestwick Airport might be required in the future for airport or runway related industries. While it was acknowledged that housing of the appropriate quality in a suitable location could act as a catalyst for economic development, there was no evidence to support a view that the residential development had to be sited adjacent to the area presenting the relevant job opportunities. The objection site was a specific, finite resource and its development within the SALP period would not maximise local community benefit in the longer term. B: the land was neither vacant nor derelict brownfield; and the objector had not lodged an objection to the allocation of industrial land within the Heathfield Strategy Area. C: the site required major new investment, but no details had been provided and, related to that, no evidence had been produced on the capacity of the existing service infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development. D: the development of the objection site would take up prime quality agricultural land.

4.6 E and F: the site was not well integrated into the settlements of either Ayr or Prestwick and it could be expected to require major investment in roads infrastructure. It was not known how the public transport networks could be adapted to serve the development site. There was little likelihood that a railway station would ever be developed on the site indicated on the draft masterplan; and, in any event a rail station was likely to be very low on the list of priorities for that mode of transport in South Ayrshire. As a consequence of its location, there would be an over-reliance on the use of the private car and, hence the objection site was not a sustainable location for major development. G: the site was not identified as recreational or amenity open space. H: a potential Wildlife Site had been identified on the northern section of the objection site, and it was important for significant numbers of migratory and wintering birds. I: the open aspect to the east which contributed to the continuous countryside/rural character experienced by those travelling along the A77 and the views into the airport and out over Ayr and Prestwick towards the Firth of Clyde, would be lost. J: there were no known insurmountable risks arising from flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion; or ground instability. K: there was no information on the specific impact of the proposal on land, water or air quality.

SALP7 7.62 St Cuthbert Golf Course

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The objectors propose a mixed use development at East Sanquhar Farm, which would be mainly based on housing. It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations, additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). With regard to the factor concerning land use, we acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the site but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. On the other factors, we can accept that ownership, site contamination, deficit funding and marketability are not constraints. However, we have insufficient evidence on the physical aspects of the site including ground conditions, and the provision of basic infrastructure including details of access and the impact on the surrounding road network, to make an informed assessment on whether or not these represent significant constraints. We have particular concerns about the proposed spine road, its linkages with Liberator Drive and Semple Road, the proposed roundabouts and about how precisely satisfactory access onto the A77 could be achieved. In the circumstances, we have significant doubts, at this stage, about the effectiveness of the site. One of the objectors (299) and SAC have significant differences about the capacity of the site (400-500 houses compared to over 1300 houses) and, from the evidence brought to the inquiry, it is not clear within that range what the realistic capacity of the site would be if it were to be developed. There is little to support the contention that development, as outlined in the draft masterplan presented by that objector, would be ready to proceed on site within 2-3 years, or that the site could be built out at the rate of 100 houses per annum.

5.3 While the objection site at East Sanquhar Farm lies in countryside, it is not within the area covered by the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment. However, it is within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. Notwithstanding our recommendation in chapter 3.3 that the inner boundary of the green belt at this point should be the A77 (as proposed in SALP), in order to ensure consistency in the way we have dealt with greenfield sites in the area covered by the green belt survey, we have used the framework provided by SDD Circular 24/1985. In particular, we have applied those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above).

5.4 The site is an extension to the existing urban area of Ayr/Prestwick and there is no significant issue of coalescence with Monkton to the north. The A77 and the secondary runway at Prestwick Airport provide strong, easily recognisable physical boundaries to the east and west respectively and, to the south, the site is adjacent to the North Heathfield strategic industrial site and other land allocated for industrial use. On landscape setting, we

SALP7 7.63 St Cuthbert Golf Course

noted at our site inspection that there were clear views westwards across the site towards Prestwick Airport from the heavily trafficked A77. However, the area to the west of the A77 by the objection site is not entirely rural in character, and we do not believe that the detrimental impact on the landscape setting of the built up area or local landscape character is sufficient to undermine the proposal.

5.5 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these we find that G and K do not apply; and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. Regarding A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure on part of the objection site would increase the stock and range of choice available. We also recognise the future potential at this location for industrial and linked uses, including airport and runway related businesses. However, the objectors have done no more than draw attention to the possibilities, and neither have they provided evidence of sufficient detail or weight to convince us that a mixed development of the type outlined would be an appropriate use of the objection site at this stage. In relation to the residential element of the proposal, there are amenity issues to be resolved relating to noise and safety, particularly given the forecasts of growth at Prestwick Airport and the proximity of the secondary runway. Within the context of the industrial element of the proposal, we are bound to note that the evidence on the supply and take up of industrial land provided by SAC was fragmentary and incomplete. It confirmed us in the view, expressed elsewhere in this report, that SAC should undertake the systematic collection of up to date, quantitative information on the nature, quality and location of the supply and rate of take up of industrial land in South Ayrshire, including Heathfield and the vicinity of Prestwick Airport. This is particularly so given our view that, taken as a whole, the evidence presented at the inquiry points towards the existence of an over supply of industrial land. Returning to the objection site, we are not persuaded by the objectors that the development as currently proposed would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

5.6 On B, the objection site cannot be properly described as either vacant or derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, we are in no doubt that a development on the scale envisaged by the objector would require substantial investment in road infrastructure. However, we have insufficient detail on what would be involved and how sustainable forms of development could be achieved. On D, we acknowledge that the site is prime quality agricultural land, but despite this and the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle would be sufficient, on its own, to undermine an allocation for a mixed use development on the site.

5.7 In relation to E and F, any development on the scale envisaged would inevitably increase the use of the private car. We have little information on how bus transport could be enhanced to provide adequate services, and drawing on evidence heard at this, and other, sessions of the inquiry, we believe that the possibility of a railway station or even a halt being developed at Heathfield amounts to no more than speculation. On the evidence before us, we cannot find that development on the site as proposed would be compatible with the intentions of NPPG17 or the Consultation Draft SPP17. Regarding H, although a Wildlife Site has been identified in SALP on the northern section of the site, we note that this is a local designation, which forms part of a larger area and, if the site was to be considered suitable for development, we see no reason why adequate account could not be taken of this interest. Turning to J, we are not satisfied that this general principle has been met, particularly in so far as it relates to ground stability.

SALP7 7.64 St Cuthbert Golf Course

5.8 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The greenfield nature of the site, and its location, means that it serves to control the growth of the built-up area and complements the process of urban renewal. The site also serves to preserve the character of the settlement. To a degree, it also has a role in contributing to the protection of the land around Prestwick Airport. Notwithstanding the fact that this site may fulfil some green belt purposes, we do not believe that the inner boundaries of the green belt, at this location, should be drawn too tightly as explained in chapter 3.3. We therefore do not believe that the site should be covered by a green belt designation, and consider the Rural Protection Area designation proposed in SALP to be appropriate.

5.9 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site is on the edge of the core town of Ayr, and it would be reasonably accessible to the other 2 core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that Prestwick is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. However, in light of our conclusions set out above, we do not consider that this site represents an appropriate development opportunity at this time. In relation to the future expansion of Prestwick Airport, we note that CDASP proposes that all land bounded on the north and east by the A79 and A77 should be protected from alternative uses. There was some debate at the inquiry about whether the protected area extended south to include the objection site (at least in part). We note that the strategic framework set out in the 1999 joint airport study, indicates that the site could be constrained. However, the text in CDASP is not entirely clear on this matter and, until it is confirmed that the site would require protection through the CDASP process, we do not consider that other possible uses need be discounted, including those proposed in the objectors‟ draft masterplan. Looking to the future, if the site were to come forward for development, it should be well integrated, in a sustainable form, into the adjacent urban area. This could be achieved through a co-ordinated approach to development at the objection site and the areas in its vicinity based on partnership working. In this context, we note the preference of the objectors for the masterplan approach.

5.10 In conclusion, while the objection site may have the potential to be a mixed use development opportunity, this has yet to be demonstrated. We do not consider that its inclusion in SALP for this purpose can been justified at this time. We have concerns about this proposal in relation to the thrust of ASP, CDASP and national guidance and advice.

5.11 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that no change be made to SALP in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.65 St Cuthbert Golf Course

7.10 PRESTWICK: ST CUTHBERT GOLF COURSE

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 429 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2A Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 St Cuthbert Golf Course is located to the south west of the town centre of Prestwick and to the north of the area covered by the Heathfield Strategy. There is residential development to its north, west and also to south. The secondary runway to Prestwick Airport lies to the east. To the south of that, and adjacent to the very south east portion of the golf course, is part of the strategic industrial land allocation identified within the Heathfield Strategy. The objectors propose the allocation of a part of the golf course for residential development, and the substitution of the land lost by relocating holes on the strategic industrial site.

1.2 The objection site is very roughly rectangular in shape and forms part of the existing well maintained golf course. To the north and west of the site is residential development; to the east of it is part of the rest of the golf course; and, to the south beyond the club house, is a further part of the course. The proposed site for the relocated holes is pentagonal in shape and forms part of the land identified as part of the strategic land allocation. It has no distinctive topographical features, and it is currently in agricultural use. The secondary runway lies to the north; the rest of the industrial site lies to the east and south; and to the west is the adjacent golf course. The objection site is covered by SALP policies ENV5 and ENV6 and TOUR4.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of part of St Cuthbert Golf Course for housing under policy H2A.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 The St Cuthbert Golf Club had occupied its current site since 1908 and had a record of improving the course and its facilities for the benefit of the members. The further improvements envisaged in the proposal would secure the long term future of the Club and its associated club house. The enhancements would be funded by the sale of the objection site for residential use and the holes lost as a consequence would be replaced by taking approximately 6ha (20%) of the land currently allocated in SALP for the strategic industrial

SALP7 7.66 St Cuthbert Golf Course

site to the south. The objection site was a logical extension to the built up area of Prestwick and could be integrated without difficulty into the local road network. The improvements to the course would result in a much needed increase in housing choice in the Prestwick area along with a net gain of recreational open space in the area. Although the objection site was located outside of the Heathfield Strategy area, the proposal was in tune with the thrust of SALP policy HFD1 and provided an appropriate use for land which lay within the Public Safety Zone of Prestwick Airport. The redevelopment and relocation of part of the golf course would support the implementation of SALP policies TOUR3, TOUR4, ENV5, ENV6 and H4.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 A detailed study into existing amenity and recreational open space throughout South Ayrshire had identified Prestwick as having a relatively small amount of public open space. Even though the golf course was not readily accessible to the general public, it was an important local amenity. The proposed “land swap” site involved a parcel within the Heathfield Strategy Area that had been allocated to meet the shortage of strategic industrial land identified in ASP. Although part of the strategic site was affected by the introduction of a public safety zone and air traffic using the airport was expected to increase that, by itself, did not render the site ineffective. The objector was not in a position to offer an alternative site to compensate for the proposed displacement of the strategic land allocation within SALP.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.2). We do not have sufficient evidence to make a fully informed assessment of whether or not the site is effective. The estimated capacity of the site for 80- 100 houses would appear to be a relatively high given the density of housing in the vicinity. The proposed programming for the site, with the first housing output being in 2009, would appear achievable. However, based on our experience, the proposed rate of completions seems rather optimistic.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles (A-K) which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 2.1 above). We find that D, H, I and K do not apply. In relation to A and G, we have considerable sympathy with the members of the long established St Cuthbert Golf Club in their efforts to improve the facilities at the club house and the quality of the course itself. We can see the attraction to the members of raising

SALP7 7.67 St Cuthbert Golf Course

money through the sale of part of the ground which they control for residential development. Although the allocation of the objection site for housing would increase the number of new and second hand homes available to prospective purchasers in Prestwick, we are in no doubt that there is an adequate choice of housing within that segment of the South Ayrshire Housing Market Area within which the objection site is situated. We have not been provided with any evidence on how the proposed “land swap” would be achieved while also retaining all of the 30ha of strategic industrial land in compliance with ASP policy W2. Within this context, it is difficult to understand how the proposal, when taken as a whole, would result in a net gain in recreational open space in the vicinity.

5.4 We have made our position on industrial land clear elsewhere in the report. We consider that the evidence points towards the existence of an over supply within the SALP period. However, the successful development of the Heathfield Strategy Area lies at the heart of promoting the generating of income and employment all to the benefit of the local economy of South Ayrshire. With this in mind, on the basis of the evidence before us, we can see no justification for the ad hoc erosion of this important strategic location. With that in mind, we consider that there remains a requirement to compensate for the proposed loss of approximately 20% of the strategic industrial land at North Heathfield in order for SALP to accord fully with the intentions of ASP. Drawing together our findings in this and the previous paragraph, we cannot conclude that the proposal would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

5.5 On B, the objection site is part of a golf course and would not make efficient use of vacant, derelict or brownfield land. Regarding C, we accept that that any issues of school capacity would be unlikely to represent an insurmountable obstacle to the proposal. However, even if the site could be integrated with its surroundings, we have no evidence to show how the proposal would maximise the use of existing service infrastructure while at the same time achieving a sustainable form of development. In relation to E and F, we recognise that any residential development at the objection site would increase the use of the private car. However, we find that this would be a relatively small increment on existing levels of traffic. In relation to public transport, while the existing routings and interchanges may not be ideal for all potential travellers, the area is well served by buses. We also believe that pedestrian and cycle integration could probably be achieved without undue difficulty. In the circumstances, we find that the development of the site for housing would be broadly compatible with the underlying intentions of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17. Turning to J, we are not satisfied that this general principle has been met, particularly in so far as it relates to ground stability.

5.6 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site is on the edge of Prestwick, and would be reasonably accessible to the core towns and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. The site would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that Prestwick is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. However, in light of the above conclusions, we do not consider that this site represents an appropriate development opportunity for housing at this time.

5.7 In conclusion, we are not persuaded that the site should be allocated for housing in SALP. Such an allocation would be inconsistent with the underlying thrust of strategic guidance.

SALP7 7.68 St Cuthbert Golf Course

5.8 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the choice of housing sites likely to be available in Troon, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the objection site continues to be covered by an appropriate open space designation in SALP.

SALP7 7.69 St Cuthbert Golf Course

7.11 PRESTWICK: NEW DYKES FARM

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 298 and 484 Written submissions

Objecting to: Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The objection site, known locally as the Paddock, is located to the north of Prestwick town centre, immediately to the south of Prestwick Airport and adjacent to Newdykes Farm Courtyard. The last comprises the former Newdykes Farm House and some associated farm buildings, including stables and a byre, now converted to form the cottages for which planning permission was granted in 1994. The Paddock to the west of this development is part of the former farm lands; the remainder have been the subject of various forms of development. To the north and east, the site is bordered by the Pow Burn, beyond which is the perimeter of Prestwick Airport and a substantial hangar used for aircraft maintenance. To the south and west is a large playing field and an associated pavilion. To the south and east of Newdykes Farm Courtyard is a piece of grazing land and the extensive Monkton and Prestwick Cemetery. At our unaccompanied site inspection, we noted that the Paddock was in rough grass; and within the site there was a former war time billet, now in disrepair, and a residential caravan. We also noted the considerable range of noises of various pitches and intensity associated with the activities being undertaken within the airport.

1.2 In the adopted Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan, the objection site is included within the Prestwick Airport Greenbelt. In CDSALP, the site was covered by policy H7. In SALP, the site is covered by policy ENV5.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek a residential zoning on the objection site.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 The objection site comprised Newdykes Farm Courtyard and the land immediately surrounding. It was stated that living at Newdykes was no different from living beside a main railway line or a main road close to traffic lights. If SAC was intent on imposing what amounted de facto to a cordon sanitaire then this should have been made explicit in SALP. It was questioned why a private company should have permitted development rights within the perimeter of the airport.

SALP7 7.63 New Dykes Farm

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 SAC pointed out that, although the objection site was very close to the airport, it had no direct influence over permitted development rights within its perimeter. There would be inevitable conflict between residential and industrial uses where these were so close together. This consideration had been crucial in the decision to reallocate the objection site to be covered by SALP policy ENV5. It was acknowledged that in the past residential development had been approved close to the airport. However, since then, activity there had intensified, and it now included an aircraft maintenance hanger in the immediate vicinity of the objection site. The suitability of the land at Newdykes had to be assessed in the light of these recent developments, rather than on what might have been appropriate in the past. The objection site had more in common with the adjacent open space areas than the other residential areas in Prestwick. There was no intention to introduce a cordon sanitaire around the airport because that would blight land and stifle development which would otherwise be acceptable.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We do not have sufficient evidence to make an informed assessment of whether or not the site is effective. However, we note in passing some concern about access to the site. We have no detail on the capacity, or delivery, or phasing or programming of development if the site were to be allocated for housing.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these we find that H and K do not apply. Under B, the land is neither vacant nor entirely brownfield land. Taking C and I together, we have no reason to suppose that a well designed housing scheme would not maximise the use of existing service infrastructure or that a sustainable form of development could not be achieved, or that it would not respect the character and townscape of the vicinity. Under D, although the site is in agricultural use, the land is not of prime quality and it is not locally important. Taking E and F together, the site is within a built up area served by an existing mix of public transport and the additional trips by private car generated from a few houses on the site would not place undue strain on the surrounding road network. On J, it is not clear that the site satisfies this general principle in full.

SALP7 7.64 New Dykes Farm

5.4 Turning now to A and G, we take as our starting point the fact that Newdykes Farm House and the Paddock appear to be what remains of a farming enterprise much of the former lands of which have been the subject of development notably to form part of what is now Prestwick Airport. This raises difficult questions about the uses to which the residual can be put. We can accept that residential development might be acceptable in the vicinity of the airport if the number of flights and associated activities were in substantial decline and that was a reliable forecast of future activity. However, at other sessions of the inquiry, we were told of the rapid increase of activity over the past decade; and we accept the consensus of expert opinion that future prospects are even more optimistic. At our unaccompanied site inspection, we heard for ourselves the noise emanating from the various uses at the airport. These were very considerably greater than conceivably could be generated by traffic on a railway or on a main road.

5.5 Given that planning permission was granted for a residential development at Newdykes Farm Courtyard in 1994, we can understand that the objectors might have some difficulty with the SAC position that the objection site is not suitable now for further residential development. Nevertheless, there can be no dispute that the nature and intensity of uses within the perimeter of the airport, especially those close to the objection site, would have a consequential impact on residential amenity for any houses built on the Paddock. We note in passing that there is no evidence which suggests to us that SAC have a cordon sanitaire in mind. An inquiry into objections to a local plan is not the appropriate forum within which to debate permitted development rights as they relate to the airport.

5.6 Drawing these matters together, we can accept that the land to which these objections refer should no longer be in the greenbelt and we can readily understand why SAC have reconsidered its suitability for residential development. When we review the land uses in the surrounding area, we find that an open space designation is appropriate for the objection site and reflects the general character of land use in the immediate vicinity outwith the airport. We are not persuaded that allocation of the objection site for housing would maximise the opportunity for community benefit.

5.7 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site lies within the settlement boundary of Prestwick, and it would be reasonably accessible to the core towns and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. The site would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that Prestwick is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. However, in light of our conclusions reached above, we do not consider that this site represents an appropriate site for housing.

5.8 In conclusion, the allocation of the site for residential purposes would run contrary to ASP. That deficiency is of such weight that we are driven to conclude that the Paddock is not suitable to be allocated for housing in SALP.

5.9 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

SALP7 7.65 New Dykes Farm

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the objection site continues to be covered by an appropriate open space designation in SALP.

SALP7 7.66 New Dykes Farm

7.12 TROON: BENTINCK CRESCENT & OTTOLINE DRIVE

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 294 and 295 Welbeck Estates Co Ltd

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Troon, is a town with a population of 14,700 (2001) located some 12km north of Ayr on the coast of the Firth of Clyde. It is well served by transport links including the Glasgow to Ayr railway, the A78 (Monkton to Greenock), and the A77 (Monkton to Glasgow). A considerable part of Troon is a designated Conservation Area whose character and appearance owe much to the developments carried out in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries under the plans of successive Dukes of Portland.

1.2 The modern structure and morphology of Troon can be traced to 1812 when William Bentinck, 4th Duke of Portland, chose the natural harbour at Troon as a port from which to export coal from his pits in the vicinity of Kilmarnock. In 1838, rail links were extended by the opening of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr line. Housing, spreading out southwards from a core around Templehill, was provided mainly for those employed at the harbour and in related activities. In 1883, the 6th Duke introduced a Feuing Plan intended to appeal to a growing middle class and to attract wealthy residents. Although his vision was not implemented in full, it has had a determining influence on the area to the south and east of the original settlement. Echoes of family names are to be found, for instance, in Cavendish Place, Bentinck Crescent, and Ottoline Drive.

1.3 By the end of the nineteenth century Troon was a Police Burgh (1896) with a population of around 4800. The harbour and the Ailsa Shipyard were major employers. However, alongside that, Troon had emerged as a place of resort for day visitors, and holiday makers. It was also the residence of a number of the very wealthy. The Marine Hotel (1896), many of the houses on Crosbie Road, and the development of nearby Southwood were built during a period of rapid growth which extended into the Edwardian period. The development of the municipal golf courses at Darley, Fullerton and Lochgreen (1907) along with Royal Troon (1886) provided additional attractions.

1.4 By mid-twentieth century, Troon had a resident population of around 10,000 and the town was well established as a holiday resort with a parallel economy based on port related activities. Although the housing of that period typically was less distinguished than that of the Edwardian period and built on smaller plots to higher densities, relatively large areas of open space were provided for communal use and enjoyment. The latter half of the century was one of difficult transition following a sharp reduction in the traditional job opportunities

SALP7 7.75 South Beach Road

at the harbour, in shipbuilding and ship breaking, and in day tripping and tourism. The local economy now reflects its historical strands, albeit in modern guise: activity at the inner and outer Harbour, leisure and recreation with emphases on sailing and golf, and the provision of a range of services for residents and the surrounding catchment area. In recent years, there has been a relatively rapid increase in population as Troon has re-emerged as a popular residential area providing homes for those employed locally, for some commuting to the north, and for others in retirement.

1.5 The 2 objection sites can be described as follows:

Bentinck Crescent (of 1.5ha) is located at the southern end of Bentinck Drive about 2km from the town centre of Troon. It is an irregularly shaped area of ground following Bentinck Crescent to form an outline that was described at the inquiry as being similar in shape to a molar tooth without roots. The site is a generally flat, open space in rough grass interspersed with a few small bushes and trees. At our site inspection we noted that, while not manicured, neither is it unkempt. There was evidence that it is used by dog walkers, and by pedestrians taking shortcuts to houses in Bentinck Crescent from Bentinck Drive. We saw no signs that it was used for either informal or formal recreation. A double row of distinctive weather beaten trees -known locally as “the slanting trees”- runs along the western boundary of the site parallel with Bentinck Drive. Across Bentinck Crescent from the site there are 16 substantial houses, each set within its own large, mature garden grounds. Of these, the majority are in the Arts and Crafts style, and 3 are listed category C(S). At our inspection, we noted that 2 houses were under construction on plots adjacent to Shandwick House. The objection site is located within the Troon settlement boundary and the Troon Conservation Area; and in SALP it is covered by policy ENV5.

1.6 Ottoline Drive (of 0.8ha) is an undulating piece of ground, pentagonal in shape, located about 2km from the town centre of Troon. On 3 of its sides it is bounded by Ottoline Drive, and the houses taking access from that; to the north west is the entry to Troon cemetery; and to the south west, beyond a stone wall, is the cemetery itself. To the north, beyond the Dundonald Road (A759), are the playing fields of Marr College School; to the west and to the south, beyond the cemetery, are municipal golf courses; and to the south east is the woodland of the Darley Plantation. At our site inspection, we noted that the site supports a number of tall, rather spindly, mature trees. These are predominantly Scots Pine and are clustered mainly on the southern portion of the site. In the northern portion, remnant stumps provide evidence of recent felling. A line of sycamores runs along the cemetery wall, and a line of pines has been retained along Ottoline Drive. There is substantial ground cover including rough grass, bracken, bramble and various self seeded trees. Informal tracks suggest that regular short cuts are taken by those walking from Dundonald Road to Ottoline Drive. At our site inspection, the site was unkempt, there was evidence of dog fouling, and it was rendered unsightly by the considerable assortment of litter. The site is within the Troon settlement boundary and, in SALP, it is covered by policy ENV5 and policy ENV6. None of the trees is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

1.7 In the North Kyle Local Plan (adopted 1985) both objection sites were covered by policy R(POL)4 which presumes in favour of open space. In CDSALP, both sites were covered by policy SERV21 which presumed in favour of safeguarding recreational and amenity open space. In SALP, Bentinck Crescent is covered by policy ENV5 and Ottoline Drive is covered by polcies ENV5 and ENV6. SAC propose no change to those positions.

SALP7 7.76 South Beach Road

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the release of both sites for housing.

3. SUMMARY OF CASES FOR THE OBJECTORS

Bentinck Crescent

3.1 The conservation areas at Barhill, , Crosshill, Kirkmichael, and Straiton all had sites identified for housing and the objection site should be covered by SALP policy H2B. The site was adjacent to one of the principal routes leading into, and out of, the town centre; and it was within walking distance of the town centre. An indicative layout had been prepared to show how the site might accommodate 11 detached houses similar in foot print to those already accessed from Bentinck Crescent. The houses and associated garden grounds would take up no more than 50% of the area of the objection site. Three landscaped open spaces would be provided; and the line of “slanting trees” along Bentinck Drive would be retained. There would be little in the way of demand for school places. The site could be considered to be effective.

3.2 The amenity value of the objection site was low; it had no special features; and it did not enhance the appearance of this part of Troon or the amenity of the houses that faced onto it. Development of part of the site would enable the creation of a properly designed and maintained open space. The site was not used for either formal or informal recreation. There was no evidence that there was shortage of formal parks or open space in this part of Troon.

3.3 The site had not been planned as open space; it was not part of an urban street grid pattern; and it was unlike any of the symmetrical or formally defined areas of amenity open space in Troon. The objection site was not part of the 1883 Feu Plan prepared for the 6th Duke of Portland; and the earliest houses could not have been built before 1906. The houses around Bentinck Crescent typically lay in generous plots; and it was those, along with their mature gardens and trees and boundary treatments, which formed their setting. The objection site was a separate parcel of land whose boring appearance did not enhance the setting of any of the residences. Housing at the objection site would amount to infill development on a brownfield site. The indicative layout brought to the inquiry showed how a well designed scheme conforming to an appropriate design brief would preserve and, indeed, enhance the character of this part of the Troon Conservation Area.

3.4 It would have been appropriate for SAC to have given detailed consideration to the indicative proposals and draft design brief prepared by the objectors in order to demonstrate the suitability of the site for housing. That scrutiny would have revealed that the site could be developed so as to have a neutral or positive effect on the Troon Conservation Area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

Ottoline Drive

3.5 The objection site was an area of undeveloped ground situated within the built up area of Troon. It should be considered to be a windfall site. The majority of the sites covered by SALP policy H2B were of a similar size, and it was ideal for a small scale residential

SALP7 7.77 South Beach Road

development of houses, flats, or some combination of those. It was located close to the Dundonald Road, which was one of the principal routes leading in to, and out of, the town centre; and it was within walking distance of Troon railway station. A Feuing Plan dated 1936 showed how the site could be divided into 5 plots. A recent appeal decision gave added support to the objectors‟ case. Two indicative layouts had been prepared to show how the site might accommodate either 12 flats and 3 detached houses or, alternatively, 15 flats. A proposed development brief was also provided. There would be little in the way of demand for school places. The site could be considered to be effective.

3.6 Although the site had some amenity value because it was undeveloped and partly covered by trees, the open space did not merit special protection. Apart from its use as a short cut, the site was not used for either formal or informal recreation. There was no evidence that there was a shortage of formal parks or open space in that part of Troon. The visual amenity offered by the site in its existing state did not outweigh the contribution that the site could make towards providing new houses. As the indicative layouts demonstrated, the site was large enough to accommodate through routes for wildlife.

3.7 A report prepared for the objector noted that: there were no signs of arboricultural management at the site; the trees were suffering because of that; and they would benefit from a structured management programme which should be implemented without any delay. The Welbeck Estate had a duty of care to make sure that all of the trees within their property were safe and did not pose a threat either to the general public or to the roads which bordered the site. With a few exceptions, the trees were in chronic condition. They were dangerous and a high risk to the residents and public who made use of the site. It was recommended that all of the existing trees be clear felled because thinning of the diseased specimens would only open up the others to the possibility of wind throw. The site had great potential to be replanted with more suitable and long lived species.

3.8 It was stated at the inquiry that the objectors, as owners of the site at Ottoline Drive, had little or no incentive to manage the remaining trees or otherwise to contribute to the maintenance of the site as an open space to which the public had access. The problems had been brought to a head by the wind throw resulting from the storms on 26 December 1998. It was suggested that housing on the site would facilitate the introduction of a tree management programme and wildlife corridor while retaining a footpath for pedestrians cutting across the site.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 The objectors had raised no concerns about SALP policy ENV5 or policy ENV6. These were consistent with ASP policy G8 and the terms of NPPG11. The latter referred to the need to protect valuable open space from development, especially where part of an open space network was under pressure from infill development. The objection sites were both valued, distinctive pieces of open space which enhanced the character and amenity of their local areas. They were privately maintained, but it was noted that in this part of Troon, there was a deficiency in local park provision and also play/active area provision.

4.2 The objection site at Bentinck Crescent was within the Troon Conservation Area. The objection site had been left undisturbed since the original street pattern was formed a century ago. It was part of the grid pattern created as part of the 6th Duke of Portland‟s Feuing Plan.

SALP7 7.78 South Beach Road

The open space and the slanting trees were important to the quality and character of the vicinity. The pleasant group of buildings that looked into the site included 3 which were listed category C(S). The preservation of the open space was justified not only for its contribution to local residential and visual amenity, but also for its historical interest. The objection sites could not be classed as infill.

4.3 It was submitted that no weight should be given to the 1936 Feuing Plan which covered the site at Ottoline Drive. Seen in context, the recent appeal decision for Ottoline Drive/Wilson Avenue was not supportive of the objectors‟ position. The arboricultural report highlighted that the objection site had great potential to be replanted.

4.4 SAC had assessed the objection sites under ASP policy G8. They had found that their release for development ran contrary to general principles A, B, and G. In addition, Bentinck Crescent ran contrary to general principle H. There was not enough information to establish conclusively that development would not be contrary to general principles C, E, F and I. Nor did SAC have enough information to assess whether the sites were effective, although they were of the view that housing on the sites was not the sole preferred land use in planning terms.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, eg, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). There was no evidence brought to the inquiry to contradict the objectors‟ proposition that the sites at Bentinck Crescent and at Ottoline Drive are effective. While, in planning terms, housing is not the sole preferred use of the objection sites at either Bentinck Crescent or Ottoline Drive, we accept that it is one of a range of possibilities, and ownership is not an impediment to their use for that purpose. On the basis of a net developable area of 1.5ha and 0.8ha, we also accept that the sites might accommodate 11 houses and 15 units respectively to be built out within one year of detailed planning permission being granted.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that D and K do not apply. Under B, the allocation of either of the objection sites for housing in SALP would represent a major discontinuity in the history of statutory planning policy towards the lands which stretches back 50 years and more. Neither of the sites are brownfield; and we are not persuaded that a site with considerable amenity value can be described properly as vacant. Under C, we have no reason to suppose that housing on either of the objection sites could not maximise the use of existing service

SALP7 7.79 South Beach Road

infrastructure or that sustainable forms of development could not be achieved. We are satisfied that any capacity problems at local schools would not represent an insurmountable obstacle to developments of such a modest scale. Under E and F, there is no doubt that housing at the objection sites would increase the number of trips by private car. However, the number of trips would not add significantly to the traffic flows or to traffic congestion in their immediate vicinity. The sites are both within walking distance of Troon town centre and of Troon railway station. There are regular bus services serving these parts of Troon and there are bus stops nearby. We consider that development of these sites would be compatible with the thrust and intent of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.4 Under H, the site at Bentinck Crescent lies within the Troon Conservation Area. There is no dispute that it is an area of open space left largely undisturbed while all around it there has been considerable planned development. We are in no doubt that the area of open space at the objection site is important to the distinctive character and appearance of the character of the area as we find it today. We can also readily agree that the substantial residences which line Bentinck Crescent are of considerable architectural and historic interest and form an important group within the conservation area. While we recognise that all 3 of the houses which are listed category C(S) are placed within large gardens and set back from the roadway, we consider that development on the objection site would obstruct views of, and from, these buildings to the detriment of their setting. Drawing these strands together, we find that development on the objection site would diminish the historic interest and neither preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area or the listed buildings within it. Accordingly, development of the site at Bentinck Crescent would run contrary to general principle H. No such considerations apply at Ottoline Drive.

5.5 Taking A, G and I together, our starting point is the fact that open spaces serve different needs depending on their size, location, accessibility, landscape design and facilities. Although the objection sites are both long established open spaces they are not playing fields, and they do not provide any essential access routes. Although they form parts of the system of open spaces which characterise this part of Troon, they make no substantive contribution in their present form to defraying the deficit of local parks and play areas which SAC has found. None of these factors run in favour of the retention of the sites as open space.

5.6 While Bentinck Crescent and at Ottoline Drive have those factors in common, they differ in other respects. During our inspections of the vicinity of these sites, we saw for ourselves that the objection site at Bentinck Crescent is not part of an easily accessible network of green spaces. It is quite clear that the objection site enhances the visual amenity of the houses which look out onto the objection site. That amenity is shared by those travelling along Bentinck Drive; and, for those entering Troon, going towards the town centre, it provides an echo of the countryside that they have left behind. Of overwhelming importance, the site and the slanted trees which it incorporates has its own dishevelled charm. As such, it enhances the character of the Troon Conservation Area and, in particular, the setting of the 3 listed buildings in its vicinity. With all these matters in mind, we find that the site at Bentinck Crescent provides a useful but substantially underutilised function as amenity open space; and that, on balance, the allocation of the objection site for housing would not maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

5.7 On our site inspections of the area, we saw that, in contrast to Bentinck Crescent, the objection site at Ottoline Drive does form part of a network of green spaces large and small.

SALP7 7.80 South Beach Road

The latter site is used by dog walkers and others and, despite the absence of a tree management programme, and the ubiquitous littering, we are persuaded that it contributes to local community amenity and enjoyment. The trees on the objection site are visible in long views and they enhance the visual amenity of houses on Ottoline Drive. That amenity is shared by those travelling along Dundonald Road to, and from, the town centre of Troon. 5.8 This is not a site just waiting to be developed for housing. There have been trees on the land for 70 or more years, and their irreversible loss would seriously diminish the appearance and character of this part of the townscape of Troon. Although the residual trees now left are either diseased, mature or over mature, we accept that the land has great potential to be replanted with more suitable and long lived species. We have given no weight to the 1936 Feuing Plan. The circumstances of the appeal referred to by the objectors are not directly relevant to the objection, and we do not consider that the content of the letter of determination supports the allocation of the objection site for housing. We find that the site at Ottoline Drive provides a useful function as amenity open space; that its loss would not respect the appearance and character of this part of the townscape of Troon; and that the allocation of the objection site for housing would not maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

5.8 When we review the evidence, we conclude that housing on either of the objection sites would run contrary to ASP policy G8. Development on either of them would run contrary also to the thrust and intent of NPPG11.

5.9 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection sites are in Troon, they would be located in the Core Investment Area, and they would be reasonably accessible to the core towns within Ayrshire, and to employment opportunities outside of that. We note that Troon is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. While these factors could run in favour of their release for housing, in light of our conclusions set out above, we do not consider that either of the objection sites represents an appropriate development opportunity.

5.10 Even were the principle of housing on either of the objection sites to be acceptable, and for the reasons set out above, we consider that they would not, we are concerned that allocation of either of them for that purpose would set an undesirable precedent. It would render it more difficult for SAC to resist other proposals for developments on valuable and valued open space elsewhere in Troon. The cumulative effect of incremental erosion of that open space would be to the irreversible detriment of the pleasant ambience, amenity, and distinctive character of the settlement.

5.11 There are 2 further matters with which we must deal. First, we recognise the difficulties of managing parcels of ground which are tree covered within built up areas whether these are in private or public ownership. On the one hand, the objection site at Ottoline Drive is open space judged worthy of retention in its present use by SAC. On the other hand, the owners are contributing to the amenity enjoyed by others in the absence of a dedicated income to finance a much needed management programme. We are bound to reject as bad planning practice, the notion that cumulative neglect of the site in its current use, either by accident or design, is a reason for judging it appropriate for a change of policy designation in SALP. In the circumstances, as one way forward, we wonder whether the owner and SAC each might wish to review their obligations as these relate to the objection site and, thereafter, following consultation with other relevant parties devise a management plan for implementation in partnership.

SALP7 7.81 South Beach Road

5.12 Finally, the objectors expressed concern that SAC had come to the inquiry without examining the indicative layout and associated draft design brief provided in support of their case. We acknowledge that the material gave us some helpful information which assisted our assessment of whether the objection sites should be considered to be effective and how they might be developed were housing to be built there. However, an inquiry into objections to a local plan is not the appropriate forum for determining the merits of a particular proposal. The focus of our attention must be on whether the sites at Bentinck Crescent and at Ottoline Drive should be allocated for housing in SALP. For the reasons stated above, we believe that they should not. We note in passing that covering the sites with an appropriate open space designation would not place an embargo on development. Section 25 of the 1997 T&CPA requires that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is open to the objector to test the merits of the indicative layouts brought to the inquiry by submitting a planning application, and any associated proposal for a section 75 Agreement, for consideration by SAC as planning authority.

5.13 In conclusion, we find that the development of houses on Bentinck Crescent would diminish the historic interest and neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Troon Conservation Area or the listed buildings within it. Housing on the site would run contrary to ASP. We also find that the development of houses at Ottoline Drive would run contrary to the ASP.

5.14 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the objection sites continue to be covered by an appropriate open space designation in SALP.

SALP7 7.82 South Beach Road

7.13 TROON: SOUTH BEACH ROAD

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 41 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2A and non-allocation of land for commercial development Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The objection site lies to the south of the town centre of Troon on the west side of South Beach Road. To the west is a well surfaced walkway/cycleway, and beyond that are sand dunes, which have benefited from attention under the Troon Sand Dunes Regeneration Scheme. To the north is a semi-detached stone built property, which is the last house in a finger of development which stretches out from the town centre of Troon and looks out over a manicured area of grass. To the south is a car park well placed for those visiting the beach or taking advantage of other recreational opportunities. To the east, across South Beach Road, and looking out over the objection site, is a row of large, stone-built, predominantly 2 storey, detached and semi-detached houses all set in their own mature garden grounds. Of these the most imposing is the former mansion house known as Crosbie Towers. The objection site is a substantial area of mixed grasses interspersed with a few bushes. At our site inspection, we confirmed that it is currently used for informal recreation including the walking of dogs.

2. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTOR

2.1 The objector suggested that the land should be allocated for commercial or residential development. He considered the objection site to be little more than a wilderness. Only historical accident explained why the housing on the west side of South Beach Road stopped where it did.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

3.1 SAC had allocated sufficient land for housing. They considered that SALP policies TOUR3, ENV5 and ENV6 should apply to the site. Policy TOUR3 was appropriate because the area provided an open and attractive aspect adjacent to the Royal Troon Golf Course, which was a major tourist attraction. Policy ENV5 and policy ENV6 recognised the contribution that this undeveloped land made to the setting of Troon, and the importance of the open space for recreation. To allocate the site for residential development would run counter to the Coastal Strategy set out in SALP.

4. CONCLUSIONS

4.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely

SALP7 7.83 South Beach Road

date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

4.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We have insufficient evidence to make an informed judgement on whether the objection site is effective for housing.

4.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these we find that D and K do not apply. In relation to A, by our reading of the Coastal Diagram which accompanies the text of the Coastal Strategy, the objection site is within the Ballast Bank to South Troon (Area 3) strip which is classified as Coastal Type A: Recreation and Tourism Development Areas. Within that classification environmental improvements will be pursued as a means of promoting it as a visitor attraction. The Coastal Strategy does not entirely rule out development if a suitable proposal were to come forward. Appropriate uses could include hotels, leisure facilities and commercial development which contribute to, and enhance the vitality of, the area. However, we have no evidence to demonstrate that development at the objection site would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

4.4 Under B, the allocation of the objection site for housing in SALP would represent a major discontinuity in the history of statutory planning policy towards the land which stretches back 50 years and more. The land is not brownfield; and we are not persuaded that a site with considerable amenity value can be described properly as vacant. Under C, we have no reason to suppose that appropriately designed development of the objection site could not maximise the use of existing service infrastructure or that sustainable forms of development could not be achieved. We are satisfied that any capacity problems at local schools would not represent an insurmountable obstacle to a modest housing proposal. Under E and F, it is probable that development at the objection sites would increase the number of trips by private car generated regularly from there. However, the number of trips need not add significantly to the traffic flows or to traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity. The site is within walking distance of Troon town centre and of Troon railway station. There are regular bus services serving these parts of Troon, and there are bus stops nearby. We consider that development of the site would be compatible with the thrust and the intent of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

4.5 Under G, it is clear that development at the objection site would involve the loss of existing recreational and amenity open space. Taking H and I, we agree with SAC that this open space enhances the setting of the built up area of Troon. Part of its attraction lies in the manner in which the flora and fauna associated with the littoral penetrate into the built up area. Although it is clear that there has been recent investment designed to improve the general appearance of the vicinity, we noted at our site inspection that the public conveniences adjacent to the objection site are not available for use, and they are so sited that they may attract the unwanted attention of vandals. If the objection site, and its immediate

SALP7 7.84 South Beach Road

vicinity, is to fulfil its potential, the area should be the subject of a management plan which includes the regular clearance of the litter which is an unfortunate, but almost inevitable, consequence of its retention for use for informal recreation and tourist related activities. Nevertheless, we cannot go along with the objector in describing the site as “a wilderness”. On the contrary, we find that it plays an important role in preserving the character and appearance of the Troon Conservation Area. On J, it is not clear that the site has satisfied this general principle in full.

4.6 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site is in Troon, and would be reasonably accessible to the core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that Troon is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. However, while these factors could help a development proposal in this area, in light of our conclusions set out above, we do not consider that this site represents an appropriate development opportunity.

4.7 In conclusion, we find that development of the objection site would run contrary to strategic guidance. Bearing in mind its location within the Troon Conservation Area and the terms of the Coastal Strategy, we agree with SAC‟s conviction that, given its sensitive location, the land at South Beach Road should be retained as open space and given further protection in that use by SALP policy TOUR3 and an appropriate open space designation.

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Accordingly, we recommend

(i) that the objection site continues to be covered by an appropriate open space designation in SALP.

SALP7 7.85 South Beach Road

7.14 TROON: 72 TEMPLEHILL

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 334 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2A Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The objection site lies on the north side of Templehill, a road which runs east to the town centre of Troon. The site is bounded by a well maintained wire fence, and comprises a yard and an associated office block formerly occupied by a business specialising in boat repairs. The objection site is in a prominent location readily visible from Port Ranald Drive to the north and Templehill from which access is taken. The office block is a single storey brick building apparently in good repair. The appearance of the surrounding extensive yard is marred at this entrance to Troon from the Harbour by various objects, large and small, associated with the previous occupant‟s business. To the west and north, the site looks out over open space. To the east is the Branchline Industrial Estate and, adjacent to the office block, there is a modern flatted residential development at 56-70 Templehill. Moving further east along Templehill, there is a major telephone exchange whose modern bulk sits uneasily with the traditional stone built properties nearby. The objection site looks out across Templehill to a row of stone built, slate roofed predominantly 2 storey properties of traditional appearance. These include Pebbles Nightclub and the Anchorage Hotel. Many of the others accommodate business premises on the ground floor with residences above.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of the site for housing in SALP.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTOR

3.1 There was an opportunity for a development on the site at 72 Templehill Road for flatted properties. This would constitute a physical and environmental improvement to the industrial area which lies within Troon Town Centre. The site had been marketed as an industrial opportunity but without success.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 ASP policy W4 required local plans to identify, review and maintain an adequate supply of local industrial land to meet future needs and to review surplus land for other uses. In Troon, SAC‟s approach had been to direct new enterprises to Troon Harbour and to the Branchline Industrial Estate. SAC acknowledged that they did not monitor regularly the availability of properties at either of these locations. However, other than these areas, the

SALP7 7.78 72 Templehill

objection site was the only one identified as suitable for light industrial and small business uses in Troon. Easily accessible and close to the town centre, it would be a difficult asset to replace should demand arise. SAC was bound to assess the character of the area as a whole and devise policies which were in the interests of the community at large. The residential development at 56-70 Templehill was an anomaly within an industrial area. The objection site was vacant and the yard was untidy, but that was not a reason to permit a change from the preferred use.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We have insufficient evidence to make an informed judgement on whether the objection site is effective, and we have no details about the potential capacity of the site, its delivery or programming.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection site against each of these we find that D, G, H, I and K do not apply. Under B, the site is brownfield and vacant. Under C, we have no reason to suppose that housing on the objection site could not maximise the use of existing service infrastructure, or that sustainable forms of development could not be achieved. Under E and F, there is no doubt that housing at the objection site would increase the number of trips by private car generated regularly from there. However, the number of trips would not add significantly to the traffic flows or to traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity. The site is within walking distance of Troon town centre and, less easily, of Troon railway station. There are bus services serving this part of Troon, and there are bus stops nearby. We consider that development of this site would be compatible with the thrust and the intent of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17. On J, it is not clear that the site has satisfied this general principle in full.

5.4 Under A, we take as our starting point SAC‟s view that the objection site is in an area where industrial and business uses predominate. We have some difficulty with this description and also with the notion that the relatively recently approved residential properties adjacent to the objection site at 56-70 Templehill are an anomaly. At our site inspection, apart from residential accommodation, we noted retailing, commercial uses, a telephone exchange, a funeral director, a night club, a hotel, and open space all within 2 minutes walk from the site. It is certainly true that the yard is adjacent to the Branchline Industrial Estate, but access to that is from Port Ranald Drive and Dukes Road, not from Templehill. As things stand, the objection site is contiguous with, but not a part of, the

SALP7 7.79 72 Templehill

industrial estate. When we review the above discussion, we find that 72 Templehill is in an area of mixed uses and there is nothing which drives us inescapably to the conclusion that the objection site is embedded within an area currently characterised by industrial and/or business uses.

5.5 We turn now to SAC‟s view that a shortage of suitable sites in Troon justifies the retention of the objection site in industrial use. We have noted elsewhere that the inquiry has not been provided with the up to date position on industrial land and its take up in recent years, either in Troon or elsewhere. In the absence of this factual information, there is only anecdotal evidence; and this substantially undermines SAC‟s case that it is imperative that the objection site be safeguarded for light industrial or small business use. On the other hand, the objector has not provided a factual basis from which to mount a strong, thoroughly researched case sufficient to justify a finding that residential development rather than an industrial use is appropriate for this site. Accordingly, at this time, we are not persuaded that the allocation of the objection site for housing would maximise the opportunity for local community benefit.

5.6 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site is in Troon, and would be reasonably accessible to the core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that Troon is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. However, while these factors could help a proposal for housing at this location, in light of our conclusions set out above, we do not consider that the objection site represents an appropriate development opportunity.

5.7 In conclusion, we are not satisfied that the allocation of the objection site at 72 Templehill for housing would be consistent with strategic guidance.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that no change be made to SALP in respect of this objection.

SALP7 7.80 72 Templehill

7.15 MAYBOLE: ALLOWAY ROAD

Representation no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 131 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The objection site, which extends to 0.69ha, is located on Alloway Road to the north east of the centre of the town of Maybole. It forms part of a larger area of land which accommodates an office, warehousing and yard area. Since 1977, McGawn Brothers, has run a road haulage business from Alloway Road, and it now operates a fleet of 11 tractor units which can be coupled to tri-axled flat and curtain sided trailers. The company has other premises at Ladywell Terrace, Maybole.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of the objection site for housing in SALP.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 There were 7 parcels of land covered by SALP policies IND4 and IND5 in the area. SAC did not monitor regularly the take up of industrial land. However, many of the existing sites, including the objection site, were underused and there had been little interest in any of them. Bearing in mind the difficult climate within which they must operate, McGawn Brothers were in the process of rationalising and reorganising the operation and much of the site at Alloway Road had been found to be surplus to requirements.

3.2 The predominant land use in this part of Maybole was residential, and there was land identified as suitable for housing both to the east and to the west of the yard. It was intended that the rest of the industrial land in McGawn‟s ownership at Alloway Road would be used for storage and office/administrative purposes. The objection site would be closed off from the remainder of the site; and a new access would be formed to serve the proposed housing.

3.3 The sites identified for housing in Maybole within SALP were in greenfield locations. The objection site was a brownfield windfall opportunity located within the settlement boundary. It was within 700m of Maybole railway station, convenient for bus stops, and within 850m of the town centre. Should the objection site not be allocated for houses, then that land identified for residential development at Alloway Road in the adopted Maybole Local Plan should be carried over into SALP.

SALP7 7.81 Alloway Road

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 The Industrial and Employment Land Strategy and SALP policy IND4 made provision for the redevelopment of industrial land and premises for alternative uses. They allowed for a flexible and pragmatic approach to be taken to particular applications for planning permission. The greenfield housing land allocations had been carried forward into SALP from the adopted Maybole Local Plan; and there were 2 brownfield sites which remained undeveloped. These provided a sufficient choice of housing sites in Maybole.

4.2 Although, on the strength of the evidence currently before SAC, there was no justification for the proposed reallocation of the objection site for housing, that did not preclude alternative development on the site in the future.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). While we know that the site is in the ownership of a party willing to release it for development, we have little or none of the other information required to take an informed view on the effectiveness of the site. Nor are we able to reach an informed view on the capacity, phasing or programming for the site.

5.3 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that G, H, and K do not apply. In relation to A, the Industrial and Employment Land Strategy of SALP recognises the importance of an industrial/employment hierarchy of small, medium and large sized companies working within the economy. These include companies working in different types of industry such as storage and distribution and transport functions. We recognise that those operating in the road haulage industry must continually address the challenges, problems and potentials of what is typically a keenly competitive commercial environment. We can well understand that from time to time this may involve rationalisation and/or reorganisation of the assets of the company including its land holdings. SALP policy IND4 sets out to retain industrial areas and safeguard them against competing land uses. Nevertheless, limited exceptions to the policy may be allowed. In this case, the objection site is located within the settlement boundary of Maybole. The development of the site would reduce the area of, but not fragment, the larger industrial area. There are housing sites to the west and to the east of the objection site. We have noted elsewhere, and are bound to do so again here, that SAC has failed to provide any evidence to contradict a view that there is an over supply of industrial

SALP7 7.82 Alloway Road

land in the vicinity, and that there has been little in the way of significant interest in what has been allocated. This is a serious deficiency. On the other hand, the objector has been able to provide only unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence to support the proposition that the site at Alloway should not be retained and safeguarded for industrial use. That evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that future industrial or business use of the objection site is either unlikely or undesirable.

5.4 Under B, this is a brownfield site. Under C, we have insufficient information to make an informed assessment. Taking E and F together, although the use of the site for housing would generate trips by car, we note the proximity of the site to the Maybole railway station and to bus stops, and the fact that it is within walking distance of the shops and other services in the town centre. Under I, we find that a well designed and landscaped scheme could respect and even enhance the townscape in the vicinity. On J, it is not clear that the site satisfies this general principle in full.

5.5 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection site would be accessible to the Core Town of Ayr, but not so accessible to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. We note that Maybole is identified in CDASP as being in the northern part of an investment corridor, and that it is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. However, in light of the above conclusions, we do not consider that this site represents an appropriate site for housing at this time.

5.6 In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to justify the reallocation of the objection site for housing.

5.7 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that no change be made to SALP in respect of this objection.

SALP7 7.83 Alloway Road

7.16 ANNBANK & MOSSBLOWN

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 293, 341, 384, 442, 467 and 1018 W McLean (WCFM Ltd) (+ written submissions)

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Annbank and Mossblown are located on the B744, B742 and B743, and are more than 5km to the east of Ayr. Annbank is essentially a linear, sprawling settlement, which has grown along the B744. Mossblown is a more compact settlement, whose growth relates to the B742, the B743 and the mineral railway line which passes through the village. Both villages are old mining communities, which have suffered from declining employment opportunities. They are historically linked, with Mossblown having previously been called Annbank Station. Both are now rural, predominantly residential villages, with only a few echoes of their past. They lie in attractive countryside, close to the River Ayr. The Auchincruive Estate, which contains the Scottish Agricultural College, lies to the west of the villages. In 1991, the population of Annbank stood at 930 people and that of Mossblown at 2062 people (808 households). By 2001, there had been a small decline in the population of both villages, with Annbank having a population of 854 people (374 households), a decline of 8%, and Mossblown having a population of 2038 (878 households), a decline of 1%. The settlements provide a range of facilities, including primary schools, local shops, a post office, a community centre, a library, surgery, churches, and recreational facilities and play areas, and Mossblown has the character of a small town.

1.2 A substantial amount of land, extending to over 140ha around Annbank and Mossblown, was the subject of 6 representations lodged in relation to SALP. One representation concerning land at Mossblown Farm was withdrawn during the course of the inquiry. The remaining sites can be described, as follows:

Site 1 (Brocklehill Farm) extends to over 19ha and lies to the north and north west of Annbank. It is of an irregular shape and comprises several grassed fields. To the west and south of the site, there is countryside. To the east, there is the northern part of Annbank incorporating housing, a bowling green, and a public house. In addition, there is a field and the B742, beyond which, is countryside, cottages and the line of a disused mineral railway. To the north, there is the church and housing at the southern tip of Mossblown. In general terms, the site slopes downward from the bowling green at the south eastern corner towards the northernmost point of the site. The site itself is contained by fencelines. The site‟s western and southern boundaries are reinforced. The western boundary is reinforced by a hedgerow containing trees, Muir Burn and a public footpath, and the southern boundary is reinforced by a track and tree belt. The footpath and track link to the footpaths in the woodland adjacent to the River Ayr at Auchincruive. The site previously formed part of a colliery and bing.

SALP7 7.84 Annbank & Mossblown

Site 2 (Brocklebank Farm) extends to around 17ha and is located immediately to the south of site 1. It is of an irregular shape, is predominantly grassed and comprises parts of several fields. To the west and south of the site, there is countryside and, at the south western corner, a sewage works. To the north, there is also countryside, and a row of houses on the opposite side of a track. To the east, the site wraps itself around the edge of Annbank. The site gently undulates and is contained by fencelines to the east, south and north. However, the western boundary is open and comprises a line across a field. The northern and southern boundaries of the site are reinforced by a tree belt and a road respectively. The site comprises grades 3.1 and 3.2 agricultural land.

Site 3 (Drumley Farm) extends to around 7.5ha and is located to the north of Mossblown. It is of an irregular shape, is predominantly grassed, and comprises several fields. To the north and north west of the site, there is countryside. To the south and west, there is housing lying along the northern edge of the village. To the east, there is a minor road and the former Drumley School. The site slopes down towards the north, and it is contained by fencelines. The northern boundary of the site is reinforced by the buildings of the former Burnside Dairy, an access track, hedges, and a small burn.

Site 4 (Mauchline Road) extends to around 4ha and is located to the east of Mossblown. It is approximately L-shaped and comprises a grassed field. To the north of the site, there is the B743, beyond which, lies Temple House (a nursing home). To the west of the site, there is housing at the eastern edge of the village. To the south, there is a mineral railway line, beyond which, lies countryside (some of which was proposed for housing under the withdrawn objection relating to Mossblown Farm). To the east of the site, there is Roadend Farm, an electricity sub-station, and a few cottages. The site slopes down generally towards the south, and is contained by fencelines.

Site 5 (land by The Tap of the Brae Public House) is a small area of ground situated at the north western corner of Annbank. The site is grassed and is incorporated into site 1. The existing boundary of the village at this point is formed by a hedge and trees. The proposed western and northern boundaries of the site are open and comprise lines across a field.

1.3 In the adopted 1990 East Kyle Local Plan, the sites fall outwith the settlement boundaries of Annbank and Mossblown. None of the sites were identified for housing in CDSALP (published in 1999). The sites at Annbank were designated green belt and Scenic Area. In SALP (published in 2002), a small area in site 2 (towards the south eastern corner), and site 4, were identified for housing under policies H2B and H4. Site 4 has a capacity estimated to be in the region of 75 houses. The small area in site 2 extended a housing site which had already been identified in Annbank. In April 2003, SAC granted planning permission for 20 houses on this site, but its boundaries did not reflect those of the housing site which had been identified in SALP. As a result of this, in their initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), SAC proposed a change to Annbank‟s boundaries to bring them into line with the planning permission. This proposal was carried through into the changes made to SALP in March 2004. This change included deleting the additional area which had been identified for housing in SALP. CDASP (published in June 2004) identifies both Annbank and Mossblown as local communities with significant development opportunities.

SALP7 7.85 Annbank & Mossblown

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION(S)

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of the countryside designations covering sites 1, 2, 3, and 5, their inclusion within the settlement boundaries of Annbank and Mossblown, and their allocation for housing. Another objector seeks the removal of the housing designation (policies H2B and H4) covering site 4 in SALP. In addition, the reinstatement of the full area identified in SALP for housing at Annbank is sought. An amendment to the wording of the entry for site 4 under policy H2B is also sought.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

Non-allocation of site 1 (Brocklehill Farm)

3.1 The purpose of the objection was to exclude an area of land adjacent to Annbank from the green belt and include it within Annbank‟s boundary. The site related to a former bing/colliery to the north west of Annbank. An alternative strong boundary to the green belt could be provided, which would replace the weak boundary proposed along the back fences of existing houses. The proposal would move the green belt boundary to Muir Burn with its associated country path and vegetation. The extension of the green belt to Mossblown and Annbank in SALP was well beyond what was required to control the urban sprawl of Ayr.

3.2 Much of the northern part of the site could not be developed for reasons of topography, and a draft illustrative layout suggested that the site could accommodate 140 houses. It might be that a smaller development would be more appropriate. There was a precedent for greenfield housing releases in Annbank and proven developer interest. While a problem had been identified with the lack of traffic capacity at Whitletts Roundabout, this would be overcome by early 2005 when the improvements proposed by SE, which were designed to increase capacity, would be completed.

3.3 The proposed site would be consistent with SPP3, NPPG17, PAN38, and SDD Circular 24/1985. The site was in a sustainable location because of its proximity to Annbank, which had bus services. It offered choice and variety, and would contribute to a range of opportunities in the housing land supply. The green belt boundaries proposed by the objector would be long term and would be appropriate for at least a 12 year period, and there would be no risk of coalescence because of the undulating topography, which would make development in the northern part of the site difficult. The draft housing layout showed that a gap of 0.4km would be maintained between Annbank and Mossblown. SALP should require a masterplan to be prepared for the site, which would ensure that this gap was maintained. There were no opportunities for infill development in the village. The site was accessible by a range of transport, and it might be appropriate to divert the bus services through the proposed development. The difficult existing junction between the B742 and the B743 could be largely eliminated by the provision of a spine road through the development and a roundabout. It would be unlikely that a compulsory purchase order would be required in order to gain the necessary control of all the land needed to construct the road. The nearest part of the objection site was only a 125m from the post office, and the development could potentially justify its own shop. It was not clear to the objectors that there would be any difficulty with the capacity of secondary or primary schools to accommodate the scale of development proposed. SALP made little provision for any further expansion of Annbank.

SALP7 7.86 Annbank & Mossblown

This would mean that there would be no opportunity for further housing development in the settlement.

3.4 The objection site would accord with ASP policies ADS2, ADS3, T1, L5, G1, G2 and G8. There were no known infrastructural constraints which would hinder development. The objectors were developers with a proven track record who were keen to develop the site for housing. The development of the objection site would not result in visual damage or intrusion because existing housing was already visible. A sustainable urban drainage system could be implemented, and there should be no flood risk or ground stability issues. The proposal would not prejudice the enjoyment of the natural countryside and could be sensitively designed, and the rural setting of the country path could be protected. In terms of visual impact, housing in Annbank was already visible on the ridgeline. The only visual effect of the proposal would be to extend development down the slope towards Muir Burn. There was no presumption against development in the Scenic Area. Part of the site was not classified as agricultural land. If Annbank was to expand to the west, it would involve developing prime quality agricultural land. Development on the non-prime land to the south and east of the village would be ruled out for other reasons. While there was a large area of grade 3.1 agricultural land in the vicinity, the objection site had a wetness limitation. There were no known habitat designations in this area, and there would be no loss of recreational or amenity open space. The objector would be prepared to provide a large proportion of affordable houses on site.

3.5 In CDASP, Annbank was in a Core Investment Area, which would be the main focus for regeneration, renewal and new development. Annbank was classified as a settlement with significant development opportunities, and the site could be designed to enhance the landscape setting of the village. CDASP showed that around 500 new houses would need to be built in the Core Investment Area outwith the main settlements, and the objection site could contribute to this requirement. The proposal therefore satisfied CDASP, including the criteria set out for new housing releases. It was noted that while SE were satisfied that CDASP was compatible with the National Planning Framework, they were not persuaded that the ideas put forward constituted a strong enough development strategy to reverse population trends. That would suggest that it would be unlikely that the finally approved ASP would have a lower housing land requirement. There were also no objections arising from the consultation on CDASP to the proposed status of Annbank. The green belt proposed in SALP in the vicinity of Annbank would be incompatible with CDASP because it was too tightly drawn around the village.

3.6 The proposal would satisfy the housing objectives of SALP. This would include stemming rural depopulation. The populations of both Annbank and Mossblown had been static for the last 10 years. In the adopted local plan, the site was not in the green belt, and the proposal would implement recommendation 3 by improving the B742. The plan envisaged moderate levels of development at Annbank. The objection site was one of the few remaining areas suitable for growth around the village. Development of the site could start in 2006/07, and experience suggested that it could be built out at a rate of 30 houses per annum.

Non-allocation of site 2 (Brocklebank Farm)

3.7 Objectors (293) indicated that it would not be economically viable to develop the land allocated for housing in SALP to the west of Annbank for both private and social housing. In

SALP7 7.87 Annbank & Mossblown

addition, the site was not large enough to meet the demand for houses in the village. It had been shown in other villages, such as Drongan and Patna, that an appropriate mix of housing could make settlements in need of regeneration attractive to potential residents. An area 5 times greater than that indicated in SALP was required in Annbank. Such an allocation would help to relieve some of the housing pressure in Ayr.

3.8 The same objectors (1018) welcomed the change made to the boundaries for Annbank in SALP in March 2004, to the extent that the allocated housing site now reflected the planning permission that had been granted by SAC. However, they wished to object to the removal of a part of the original housing allocation shown in SALP. SAC‟s 2002 Development Opportunities Brochure had identified a much larger area for possible housing. Given the level of local demand, the objectors intended to develop the area with planning permission in the short term. This was only the significant site identified for housing in Annbank at this time. In these circumstances, they requested the reinstatement of that area which had been removed from the housing allocation in SALP.

Non allocation of site 3 (Drumley Farm)

3.9 Drumley Farm could accommodate a mix of new housing, including an element of affordable housing, and a significant amount of amenity open space, as well as other environmental benefits. The development of this site would complement the proposed residential development of the adjacent Drumley House School, which was allocated for housing in SALP (and had previously benefited from a planning permission for 10 houses), and the proposed residential conversion of the former Burnside Dairy. The site would have clear defensible boundaries – the small burn, the existing housing development and Drumley House. While the site contained no strong landscape features, it was generally unobtrusive. Development would not affect the skyline, and the site was not adjacent to the Scenic Area.

3.10 Drumley Farm was close to the core of Mossblown and its facilities. It shared an access to the B743 with Drumley House, and it was within walking distance of the village centre and bus stops. There were also good pedestrian and cycle links available. Agreement had been reached with the owners of Drumley House to take access through their land, which would ensure that a single access could serve both developments. The access could be designed to take account of constraints. There would be no issue over the disposal of foul drainage as there was a pumping station on the adjoining land (controlled by the objectors). Surface water could be disposed of jointly with that of the Drumley House proposal.

3.11 There would be community benefit as the objector was about to enter into an agreement under the Rural Stewardship Scheme, which would set aside a small adjacent field as a natural area of wetland. An environmental buffer would also be provided between the housing and the fields. The objection site could address all the issues raised by SPP3, including design, open space, visual impact and density. The development would be likely to require the preparation of a masterplan. It would be accessible by a range of means of transport, and would be sustainable and supported by CDASP. The proposal would provide a manageable opportunity, which could be brought forward on a phased basis. The site could continue to make a contribution to the housing land supply in the medium term. Overall, the development of the objection site would support wider policy objectives and would strengthen the “heart” of Mossblown, and it should be allocated in SALP as a policy H2B opportunity instead of site 4.

SALP7 7.88 Annbank & Mossblown

Allocation of site 4 (Mauchline Road)

3.12 Site 4 which was allocated for housing in SALP, would involve a linear extension of Mossblown, and would have a significant visual impact. It would provide low density housing as a second phase of the new housing development to the west. The proposal would have a damaging effect on this small town and would result in coalescence between Mossblown and the properties lying beyond its eastern boundary. It would result in ribbon development, and housing well separated from the town‟s core and its facilities. The requirement in SALP for structural landscaping along key boundaries recognised the visual impact that the proposal would have on the eastern edge of the settlement. The proposed boundaries at site 4 were no better than those proposed at site 3.

3.13 The site was remote from the centre and would be accessible primarily by car. The proposal would result in a further access being introduced on to a main road where there were already 6 accesses within 500m or so. The main road also contained a number of sharp corners close to the site. There was no evidence to suggest that the proposal benefited from the foul drainage infrastructure required to service the development.

3.14 Site 4 could offer no meaningful contribution to the longer term housing land supply in Mossblown and was, at best, only a short term response. There was no evidence that the proposal would provide for a range of housing needs. The proposal did not appear to offer the opportunity to address the issues raised by SPP3, including design. In addition, the site was in a sensitive location and would be affected by the adjacent green belt. Overall, the housing allocation proposed for site 4 would be remote from the town and should be deleted.

Non-allocation of site 5 (land by The Tap of the Brae Public House)

3.15 There had been a recent planning application for a new house adjacent to the public house, which had been refused, in part, because a section of the site was outwith the settlement boundary. The objector suggested that the boundary of Annbank should be rounded off at this point to include this land. This would allow the house to be reconsidered. SAC‟s report on the planning application had indicated that a house would help to consolidate this part of the village and that it would have a positive effect. The objectors acknowledged that there was an existing hedgerow boundary, but believed that some of that could be retained to improve the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC AND SUPPORTERS OF SITE 4

Non-allocation of sites 1, 2 and 3 (Brocklehill Farm, Brocklebank Farm and Drumley Farm)

4.1 SAC indicated that SDD Circular 24/1985 set out national policy on green belts. ASP defined a number of green belt functions, which incorporated those in the circular. The green belt defined in SALP included land at Mossblown and Annbank. Survey parcels 18, 19 (in part), 23, 24 (in part), 25, 26, 27 and 30 (in part) should be included in the green belt. They contributed to various green belt functions, including landscape setting, controlling the growth of built up areas, and preventing coalescence. Much of the area was also prime agricultural land, and it included several listed wildlife sites. To protect this area, a green belt boundary had been identified, which followed the railway to the north, and the A70 and B744

SALP7 7.89 Annbank & Mossblown

roads, and the River Ayr to the south. SAC had identified green belt boundaries which were logical, readily understood and defensible. The green belt boundary differed from that currently in force because a wider range of green belt functions had now evolved.

4.2 It would be inappropriate to revise the green belt boundaries at this location on the basis of what was said in CDASP because its purpose was to promote consultation and debate, and it was not an agreed policy for change. One possible outcome from the CDASP exercise would be to continue a green belt designation at Annbank. Identified local communities, such as Annbank and Mossblown, had the capacity to accommodate development related to local need, and the ability to take modest levels of development. The scale of development proposed here was excessive, with the exception of the sites contained in SALP, which could be justified and were appropriate in form and scale to the character of the settlements. The sites in SALP could be developed with a mix of affordable and private market housing without undermining their economic viability. There was no concrete evidence to demonstrate that the level of demand for housing was such that sites of the scale promoted by the objectors required to be released. Larger allocations might not result in greater regeneration, but potentially could lead to unduly burdening existing services and facilities.

4.3 Sites 1, 2 and 3 had potential capacities of up to 480 houses, 335 houses and 146 houses respectively, and would result in significant increases in the number of households in the settlements. Site 1 could accommodate a far larger number of houses than that proposed by the objectors (442) at the inquiry (140 houses). Little information had been provided to SAC about their possible impact on existing services and facilities. Housing on site 1 would give the impression of a much larger settlement due to coalescence with Mossblown. While SAC accepted that there would be no physical coalescence, there would still be concerns about visual coalescence. As development of the 3 sites would not result in strong defensible boundaries, SAC believed that there could be development pressure on adjoining ground for further development. In relation to SPP3, development of the sites would have a potentially adverse effect on the character, setting and form of the 2 villages, and on their visual amenity. On NPPG17, public transport in Annbank and Mossblown was restricted to bus services. In addition, the sites were unproven in transportation terms. In particular, there were difficulties at junctions, such as the one between the B742 and B744. Regarding NPPG15, Annbank and Mossblown had the character of “commuter” settlements, and developments of the size proposed would be excessive for the location. If site 1 proceeded, SAC believed that there would no problem of educational capacity in the secondary schools, but that there might be an issue in primary school provision. This was particularly so when account was taken of the housing allocations in the 2 settlements. There was no information on whether this matter could be satisfactorily addressed.

4.4 The development of the sites would be contrary to a number of the general principles of ASP policy G8. In particular, sites 1 and 2 would be inconsistent with general principles A, B, C, D, E, F H and I. There would be no local community benefit (A); the sites were not vacant or derelict (B); there could be a significant burden on existing service infrastructure (C); the sites included areas of grade 3.1 prime agricultural land (D); the proposals would be likely to increase dependence on the private car, and destinations when travelling by bus from Annbank were limited (E and F); the proposals would not serve natural heritage interests (H); there would be significant adverse landscape impacts (I); flood risks had not been addressed (J); and no assessments had been undertaken in relation to land, air and water quality (K). Site 3 would also be inconsistent with a number of the general principles. In

SALP7 7.90 Annbank & Mossblown

particular, in relation to H, there was concern that the preferred access through the adjoining land at Drumley House School would adversely affect the health of the trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The alternative access to the east would be inappropriate visually and would not represent a satisfactory functional link to the small town (I). Sites 1 and 2 were designated Scenic Area in SALP and ASP, and their allocation for residential development would be contrary to ASP policy E1.

4.5 The proposals on the 3 sites conflicted with the adopted local plan, and the designations in SALP were appropriate. The provision of affordable housing would be insufficient to secure the release of any of the sites. There were issues of effectiveness. Sites 1 and 2 could not be regarded as effective because of physical constraints and infrastructure constraints, and because housing was not the sole preferred land use. At site 1, there were also issues of contamination. While effectiveness was an important consideration, and SPP3, PAN38 and ASP all required local plans to allocate effective land, it should be secondary to identifying those sites that would be appropriate for development in principle. The lack of impact on habitat designations did not justify the release of the sites.

4.6 The change to the settlement boundary of Annbank to reflect the planning permission granted for housing on a part of site 2 was appropriate. Including the small additional area now sought, which would fully retain the area allocated in SALP as land for housing, would only serve to further erode the green belt and Scenic Area. In addition, the irregularly shaped site that would result could lead to further pressure for development on the adjoining land. The area identified in the 2002 Development Opportunities Brochure appeared to be a cartographical error because it should have reflected the boundaries of the housing site shown in SALP.

4.7 Overall, the designations of the sites as set out in SALP were appropriate and conformed with national planning guidance and ASP.

Allocation of site 4 (Mauchline Road)

4.8 SAC indicated that the designation of site 4 at Mauchline Road for housing was consistent with SPP3. The site was appropriate in scale and would achieve a satisfactory rate of development. Its capacity had been estimated at about 74 houses, and this would achieve a reasonable level of growth in the number of households (8%) in Mossblown over the SALP period. The site was suitable for development in terms of landscape and visual impact, defensibility of boundaries, accessibility, and servicing. Site 3 was considered less suitable because of access difficulties and the defensibility of its boundaries. The bus routes were directly adjacent to the site on the B743. A planning application had been submitted for site 4, but this remained pending until the inquiry was completed.

4.9 SAC recognised that there was considerable benefit in providing some additional housing land in Mossblown. On balance, they therefore considered that site 4 was suitable when assessed against the general principles in ASP policy G8. Where there were some inconsistencies, for example general principles C and D, these were applicable to all of the greenfield sites under consideration here. There was no merit in preferring site 3 because it conformed to fewer general principles.

4.10 The site allocated in SALP would allow an appropriate form of linear development to take place. The depth of site was consistent with the adjacent development, within which a

SALP7 7.91 Annbank & Mossblown

suitable internal layout had been provided. Structural landscaping would be provided to a depth of 20m along the northern boundary to ensure a continuity of treatment along the B743. While site 4 was further away from shops and other services than site 3, this was only one of a number of factors to be taken into account. The Roads Authority had raised no objection in principle to the allocation of the site for housing, subject to a number of conditions. There would be a requirement to extend the 30mph speed limit, but this would improve road safety. There would be no housing directly adjacent to the electricity sub-station or pylons. The allocation of site 4 for housing was appropriate within the context of national policies and advice, and ASP.

4.11 The developer of site 4 supported SAC‟s position. They indicated that they had first made representations to CDSALP requesting that the site be included within the settlement boundary of Mossblown, and SAC had then included it in SALP. However, during the processing of the outline planning application, some concerns were expressed by local residents about the point of access which was proposed through the existing development. To address these concerns, the application was amended to show that the main access would be taken directly from Mauchline Road. An amendment to the text of policy H2B was therefore requested which specifically recognised the revised access arrangements. The acceptability of the revised access had been confirmed by the Roads Authority.

Non-allocation of site 5 (land by The Tap of the Brae Public House)

4.12 The northern boundary of Annbank proposed in SALP was appropriate. The boundary of the village as proposed in SALP was defined by a fence, mature hedge, and trees. The alternative boundaries proposed by the objectors were not identifiable. It would therefore not represent a sustainable long term boundary. The development of the adjacent bungalow did not diminish the relevance of the mature hedge as an appropriate boundary for the settlement. It was important to consider SAC‟s report on the planning application for the house proposed on site in full because it had indicated that the house would present an uncomfortable juxtaposition with the adjoining public house car park. The report had continued that the house would require the removal of 35m of mature hedge and trees; that it would occupy a visually prominent position (when viewed from the north) on the edge of the Scenic Area; and that it would have an adverse impact on the area. Overall, to alter the northern boundary of Annbank would be contrary to SPP3, and would result in an ill defined and weak replacement boundary.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

SALP7 7.92 Annbank & Mossblown

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). With regard to the factor concerning land use, we acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for sites 1, 2 (in the main) and 3 but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. We have little information on whether sites 1-4 would be subject to infrastructure constraints, but we have concerns about the infrastructure implications of developing sites 1-3 (particularly sites 1 and 2) because of their large size. We also have concerns over site 1 in relation to contamination, given its previous colliery related use. Given that the sites are situated on the edge of villages in a rural setting, we find SAC‟s estimated capacities relatively high, including at site 4. However, we also find the objector‟s estimate for site 1 too low (140 houses [7 houses per ha]). In light of our concerns about site 1, the expected date for commencing development (2007) appears over optimistic, although we accept the estimated completion rate of 30 houses per annum. We do not have sufficient information to form a conclusive view on the delivery of the remaining sites. However, we note that planning permission has been granted for the development of the allocated housing site in SALP on the south eastern edge of site 2, and that a planning application for housing has been lodged in relation to site 4. If allocated, it would therefore seem reasonable to assume that development could start on site 4 relatively quickly after the adoption of SALP.

5.3 The 5 sites lie in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the sites are identified as being related to 3 landscape character areas – Lowland River Valley, Lowland Hills and Ayrshire Lowlands. The sites are within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above).

5.4 There are no issues of coalescence between settlements for sites 2, 3 and 4. We do not consider that any allocation of site 4 for housing would be undermined by the joining of the eastern end of Mossblown to the group of properties at Roadend. The allocation of site 1 would significantly increase the risk of physical coalescence between Annbank and Mossblown. While it was claimed that a minimum gap of 400m would be maintained between the 2 villages, this would depend on the form and layout of development eventually proposed. We acknowledge that there is already visual coalescence between the 2 settlements, but the proposal would result in a significant increase.

5.5 The physical boundaries of Annbank and Mossblown appear to be made up of roads, railway lines, planting and fencelines. Although not ideal, the boundaries of sites 1, 3 and 4 follow defined features. We have some concerns about the western boundary of site 1 and the northern boundary of site 4, given that the sites are large and the features present are limited in nature. The proposed long western boundary of site 2 would be no more than a line across fields, and this would normally be inappropriate. No details of the boundary treatments for the sites have been provided and, if sites 1, 2 and 3 were developed up to their limits, we do not consider that it would be likely that the existing identities of Annbank and Mossblown could be properly maintained. However, site 4 is of a more modest scale, and we consider that developing this site would have a more acceptable effect on Mossblown‟s identity.

SALP7 7.93 Annbank & Mossblown

5.6 We note that the boundaries of the site allocated for housing in Annbank (as changed) are also lines across a field. However, this small site is at least more appropriate in terms of scale for a settlement of this size. While we acknowledge that the addition proposed to this site (the small part of site 2) would have a marginal effect on the identity of Annbank, it offers no advantages in terms of boundaries. We are also not satisfied that this addition has been properly justified. Clearly, the enlarged site shown at this location in the 2002 Development Opportunities Brochure is an error. At the north western tip of Annbank, the existing boundary at site 5 comprises a fenceline, mature hedge, and trees, and we consider it to be satisfactory. No purpose would be served by replacing it with a less satisfactory boundary, as proposed.

5.7 While none of the sites are used for countryside recreation, they contribute passively to the countryside scene at this location for people living and working in and near to Annbank and Mossblown, and those using the local roads and footpaths in the vicinity. In particular, people using the amenity footpath network in the area around sites 1 and 2 benefit from the open nature of these sites. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting any of the proposals.

5.8 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the findings of the study as they relate to the “vulnerability”, “merit”, “contribution” and “sensitivity” of the sites. The sites sit in undulating countryside. Our site inspections of the area showed that the sites are visible from a number of vantage points, mostly notably in short distance views, but they are not visible from any main roads. In addition, sites 1 and 2 are visible in more long distance views. All the sites contribute to the landscape setting of Annbank and/or Mossblown.

5.9 Given our views on the boundaries of the sites, we are concerned that the allocation of sites 1, 2 and 3 for housing could lead to some pressure for further development in the area, particularly in relation to site 2. We are in no doubt that the development of all the sites would swamp Annbank and Mossblown, and we also consider that the development of either site 1 or site 2 on its own would overwhelm Annbank. The development of sites 1, 2 and 3 would significantly extend the built up areas of the 2 settlements and, in the case of site 1, would result, to all intents and purposes, in a ribbon of development extending from the northern part of Annbank to the southern tip of Mossblown. The Lowland River Valley, Lowland Hills and Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Areas would impose constraints on development, but we accept that these are not necessarily factors which would outweigh other considerations. Neither sites 1, 2, 3 nor 4 appear to represent a particularly natural extension of the built up area, and we do not agree that extending housing down the slope at site 1 would result in an acceptable landscape impact. Although a linear extension of Mossblown, site 4 appears the most reasonable in terms of scale. We have concerns about whether an acceptable level of integration, an appropriate landscape framework, and a satisfactory landscape fit could be achieved for sites 1, 2 and 3, and note that there is a lack of details which indicates otherwise. As such, we do not consider that the proposals for these sites would satisfy the broad terms of PAN44 or SPP3. The objectors at site 1 were prepared to reduce the size of the proposed development, but it was not clear that there was a more satisfactory alternative available. Overall, we believe that the development of sites 1, 2 and 3 could significantly erode the landscape settings of Annbank and Mossblown, and have a significantly adverse effect on landscape character. In contrast, we believe that the effect of developing site 4 on the landscape setting of Mossblown, and on landscape character, would

SALP7 7.94 Annbank & Mossblown

probably be acceptable. We acknowledge that the effects of the proposals at site 5 and the allocated site at Annbank would be minimal, but this does not give them any specific advantage.

5.10 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that G and K do not appear to apply in these cases, and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available in the 2 settlements, and that additional households would help support businesses and other facilities of benefit to, and valued by, the local community. In this context, we recognise that the release of land for housing at both Annbank and Mossblown would make a contribution to their regeneration and would be in line with ASP policy ADS4, which highlights them as targets for priority integrated action. However, we are not convinced that allocations for housing on all of sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 would have anything but an unacceptably disruptive effect on the scale, character and structure of the settlements. At Mossblown, while we acknowledge that site 3 has some advantages, we believe that site 4 offers a better and more appropriate development opportunity at this time. In addition, although we consider that Annbank could reasonably absorb a small additional number of houses beyond that allocated in SALP, we are not convinced that the alternatives before the inquiry have been properly thought out or could be considered acceptable at this stage. On B, the sites are greenfield, and do not therefore make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, no specific matters were highlighted which suggested that service infrastructure, including education, or considerations of sustainable forms of development, present insurmountable obstacles to some further residential development at the 2 settlements. However, we would have concerns about the implications of developing sites 1-3. Turning to D, although the sites all constitute agricultural land, it is not clear to us that they are in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on any of the sites.

5.11 In relation to E and F, we recognise that any residential development in the settlements would inevitably increase the use of the private car. The indications are that the local road network would be able to accommodate some development at this location. However, at site 1, there is a problem at the junction between the B742 and the B743. The solution proposed of providing a spine road through the site, which would replace (to all intents and purposes) the existing road, is flawed, because the objectors do not control all of the necessary land. It cannot be assumed that a compulsory purchase order would not be required, or that this would be a straightforward process. We have no details of the access proposals for site 2. The most appropriate vehicular access to site 3 would be through the adjoining site (Drumley House School), but we note that there are potential difficulties with this route. At site 4, the vehicular access arrangements have been changed to take direct access off the B743. On the basis of our site inspection, we are satisfied that this would be likely to be appropriate, and consider that the text in SALP should reflect this revised arrangement. There is no railway serving either settlement, and the existing routings and interchanges are not ideal for all potential travellers. However, given that these are rural settlements, there is sufficient in the way of services to persuade us that all sites under consideration are reasonably related to public transport provision. It is not clear how pedestrian and cycle links would be achieved on sites 1, 2, 3 or 4, but we have no reason to believe that satisfactory arrangements could not be made at sites 1, 2, and 3. While site 4 is

SALP7 7.95 Annbank & Mossblown

more peripheral to the facilities in Mossblown, we are not persuaded that this, in itself, makes it a less appropriate housing allocation than site 3. Drawing these matters together, while public transport provision may be reasonable, given our doubts over the access arrangements for sites 1, 2 and 3 we are not satisfied that these proposals could be regarded as entirely conforming with the underlying intentions of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17. We have less doubts about site 4.

5.12 On H, sites 1 and 2 are included in the Scenic Area. The details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying the Scenic Area‟s precise boundaries were not brought to the inquiry. We acknowledge that the Scenic Area designation covers a much larger area, and that this is the time to review its boundaries. Based on our site inspections of Annbank and Mossblown, it is not clear to us why certain areas have been omitted from the Scenic Area and others included. However, if both sites 1 and 2 are to remain outwith the settlement boundary and are not to be released for housing, we see no logic in excluding either of them from the designated area. On J, it is not clear that all the sites have satisfied this general principle in full.

5.13 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The greenfield nature of the sites, and their location, mean that they serve to control the growth of the built up area and complement the process of urban renewal. The sites also serve to preserve the character of Annbank and Mossblown. However, we do not believe that the green belt purposes are so strongly reflected in site 4. In general terms, we are of the view that the land around Annbank and Mossblown is performing a green belt function. In chapter 3.3, we recommended that the green belt boundary be reviewed, and the review should extend to this area. We believe that the exact extent and line of the green belt in the vicinity of these 2 settlements should be considered further through this process. The interim policy position outlined in chapter 3.3 should not be taken as any agreement on our part to the suggestion that the green belt boundary should be drawn further to the west.

5.14 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection sites would be adequately accessible to the core towns and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire, predominantly by car. We note that Annbank and Mossblown are identified in CDASP as local communities with significant development opportunities. However, in light of the above conclusions, we consider that only the sites already allocated in SALP are appropriate for development at this time. Indeed, sites 1 and 2 could well exceed the “modest levels” of development envisaged for local communities such as Annbank and Mossblown, and we are not persuaded that there is a sufficient justification for allowing both sites 3 and 4 to progress. We believe that Annbank could benefit from a further small allocation for housing at this stage and, while it is not a recommendation, SAC may wish to give this matter some consideration.

5.15 In conclusion, we do not consider that sites 1 (Brocklehill Farm), 2 (Brocklebank Farm) or 3 (Drumley Farm) represent suitable development opportunities for housing at this time. We are concerned about their scale, and the materially adverse impact that they could have if developed. We acknowledge that the impact of site 3 would probably be less than that of developing sites 1 and 2. However, we are in no doubt that, when all matters are taken into account that the development of site 4 (Mauchline Road) would be preferable to that of site 3. Given our reservations about the boundaries at site 5 (land by The Tap of the Brae Public House) and the proposed addition to the site already allocated for housing at Annbank

SALP7 7.96 Annbank & Mossblown

(the small part of site 2), we consider that there should be no adjustment to the settlement boundaries in SALP (as changed) at these locations. We believe that the only site appropriate for housing would be site 4. We consider, on balance, that its allocation for this purpose would broadly satisfy the thrust of national and strategic guidance. We acknowledge that the wording in policy H2B for this site should be amended to reflect the potential for taking access from Mauchline Road. The extent and line of the green belt should be determined through the review recommended in chapter 3.3.

5.16 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the Rural Stewardship Scheme at site 3 and the contention that site 1 was the only suitable part of Annbank for development, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that sites 1 (Brocklehill Farm), 2 (Brocklebank Farm) and 3 (Drumley Farm) be not allocated for housing in SALP, that they remain outwith the settlement boundaries of Annbank and Mossblown, and that they be covered by countryside designations;

(ii) that the extent and line of the green belt be reconsidered as a part of the green belt review recommended in chapter 3.3, and that the interim policy position outlined in that chapter be adopted in the interim;

(iii) that policy H2B be amended insofar as it relates to site 4 (Mauchline Road), as follows (changes in italics):

“The site comprises 3.8ha of relatively flat land located to the east of the existing small town and recently constructed dwellings. The northern boundary is defined by a hedge/fence along Mauchline Road, an electricity sub-station and former farm cottages to the east and a freight railway line to the south. The site is expected to accommodate 75 dwellings. Access to the site can be taken through the existing development located to the west (Johnstone Drive) or direct from Mauchline Road. Structural landscaping will be required along the northern boundary with Mauchline Road and along the eastern boundary with the electricity sub- station and dwellings at Roadend. This structural landscape planting will be required to be of a depth of at least 20m to ensure continuity with the landscaping at the adjacent residential area;” and

(iv) that no other amendment be made to SALP, as changed, in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.97 Annbank & Mossblown

7.17 COYLTON

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry 218, 223, 225, 226, 233, 281, 282, 283, 292, 413, HHLtd 426, 460, 477, 539 and 1111 Harkiss Homes (+ Written Submissions)

Objecting to: Policy H2B Policy H4 Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Coylton is a sprawling settlement located some 10km east of Ayr on the A70 Ayr to Cumnock road, and close to the boundary with the area of Council. The inset maps which accompany the text of SALP include Coylton/Hillhead as Map 6a and Coylton/Joppa as Map 6b. At the inquiry there was a largely sterile debate about whether Coylton should be considered properly as one settlement or as two divided by the area of open space between the areas of Hillhead and Joppa. We noted at our site inspection that the 2 elements are separated visually and physically. We recognise that the various facilities are dispersed between the 2 elements and that the pedestrian and cycle access between them is less than perfect. Nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence to persuade us that, taken together, they function as 2 parts of a single community. Accordingly, we consider that, for practical purposes, Coylton is usefully considered as a medium sized settlement which is composed of 2 elements each of which is contained by a boundary from spilling into the surrounding countryside.

1.2 The current morphology and the dispersed pattern of residential development and facilities within the settlement, and nearby, can be traced to the origins of Coylton as the 3 separate groupings of: Laigh (Low) Coylton, New Coylton (Coylton/Hillhead) and Joppa (Coylton/Joppa). What is now the line of the A70 was amongst those authorised by the 1767 Ayrshire Road Act, for repairing and widening. This improvement had a considerable effect on the distribution of population in the vicinity. The old village centre at Laigh Coylton, its church and its manse were by-passed. By 1806, feuing alongside the new road had begun near North Duchray at what was to become Hillhead; and similar developments took place at Joppa. By the mid-nineteenth century Laigh Coylton, New Coylton and Joppa had emerged as small clusters of buildings separated from one another by surrounding countryside.

1.3 At our site inspection we saw that the 3 historical elements of the Coylton area, noted above, can still be recognised. Low Coylton now lies to the south and outside of the settlement boundary as drawn at Coylton/ Hillhead. The church is in ruins, the manse is operating as a B&B, the public house continues as the Coylton Arms, there are 2 industrial concerns, and farming continues at the long established Carbieston Mains. In striking contrast to the circumstances at Low Coylton, there has been considerable residential development in Coylton/Hillhead and in Coylton/Joppa notably since 1970. These 2 elements of the current settlement of Coylton, now consist predominantly of modern housing; and their former east to west alignment along the Ayr to Cumnock Road (A70) has been

SALP7 7.98 Coylton

replaced by a north south orientation. Coylton/Hillhead and Coylton/Joppa remain separated by open countryside but, at its narrowest, this is less than 300m in width. Through this run electricity pylons and the Coylton sub-station is situated next to the A70. Although there is evidence of a now dismantled minerals railway which ran north to south through Coylton/Hillhead, there is no active railway in the vicinity of Coylton.

1.4 Over the past 15 years or so there has been an increase of around 25% in the population of Coylton. This translates to an increase of about 30% in the number of households; and the land supply projection for Coylton allows for a further 10% increase in households in the period to 2009. With minor exception, the increase in the population of Coylton has taken place, and is planned to take place, at Coylton/Joppa. The main built up area of Coylton/Joppa now extends to the west of its historical heart and to the north and south of the A70. It accommodates many businesses and facilities shared with Coylton/Hillhead including: a bowling green, tennis courts, a sports hall, the Kyle Hotel, the Spar and Costcutter grocery shops, a post office, a pharmacy, a petrol service station and the primary school.

1.5 The oldest buildings in Coylton/Hillhead are to be found around the junction of the A70 (Hillhead Street at this stretch) and Manse Road extending west and south along these roads respectively. In the mid twentieth century housing was built by the local authority on the higher ground to the south of the A70. Accessed via Lorne Terrace, it was contained by the line of a former mineral railway. Later housing infilled the frontage of Hillhead Street and further housing and flats were built to the east of Manse Road. Coylton/ Hillhead accommodates many businesses and facilities shared with Coylton/Joppa including: the Memorial Hall Activity Centre, Coylton Library, a health centre, a church, the Finlayson Arms Hotel, a general store, 2 hairdressers, a hot food outlet, and a veterinary practice and pet supplies outlet.

1.6 The 9 sites under consideration can be described as follows:

Site 2 (Gallowhill Farm) is a rectangular piece of ground adjacent to the Gallowhill farm steading. The land is well screened from the residential development to the west by mature trees running along the unmade track which provides access to the farm. To the north, Woodhead Road provides a readily recognisable boundary; and to the east and west the site looks out over open countryside. The site lies outside the settlement boundary of Coylton/Joppa in countryside covered by a Rural Protection Area allocation. At our inspection we noted that the land was in grass.

Site 3 (East of Hole Road) is a small triangular shaped piece of land, amounting to some 0.68ha, located at the southernmost extremity of the built up area of Coylton/Joppa. To the north west is a farm track leading to Barngore Farm beyond which are the rear gardens of houses with frontages on Dalrymple View; to the south west is Hole Cottage and Hole Road; and to the south east the site looks out over open countryside. At our site inspection we noted that the land was in grass, that it slopes gradually to the south and east, that it is readily visible from the rising ground to the south, and that the southern boundary is not defined by any physical or other readily recognisable boundary. We also visited the housing development to the west across Hole Road. At this stretch, Hole Road is a main distributor linking Coylton/Joppa with the south. It lies in countryside covered by a Rural Protection Area allocation.

SALP7 7.99 Coylton

Site 4 (Barngore) is an irregularly shaped parcel to the rear of Coylton Primary School. At our site inspection we noted its relationship to the school to the north and the fact that none of its other boundaries follow any easily identifiable topographical feature. The site lies in countryside covered by a Rural Protection Area allocation.

Site 5 (South of Corsehill Farm) which is of irregular shape, comprises some 4.4ha of land lying immediately to the south of the A70 and adjacent to buildings associated with Corsehill Farm. At our site inspection we noted the electricity pylons which run through the middle of the site. The site was in grass. The site lies in countryside covered by a Rural Protection Area allocation.

Site 6a and Site 6b (North and South of Corsehill Farm): Site 6a is very roughly rectangular in shape and lies to the north of the A70 (Ayr Road). The western limit is the shortest of the 4 and it follows a field boundary; moving eastwards along the Ayr Road the southern boundary follows the rear gardens of houses with frontages on Ayr Road; the eastern boundary runs north along the line of the B742; and the northern limit runs along field boundaries and looks out over a considerable expanse of open countryside. Electricity pylons run through both sites. Site 6b lies to the south of that identified as site 5. It is bounded to the north by that site; to the west by a field boundary; and to the south and east the boundary runs along the B742. Both of the elements of this objection lie outside the settlement boundaries of Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead in countryside covered by the Rural Protection Area policy designation.

Site 7a (West of Manse Road) comprises some 1.05ha, and is very roughly, rectangular in shape. To the north are houses with frontages facing onto the A70; to the west within the site are the remains of a dismantled railway line with the rear gardens of houses on Corsehill Avenue beyond; to the south, the site is partially bounded by Manse Road and looks out to open countryside; to the east, the northerly section is bounded by the back gardens of houses with frontages on Manse Road and the southerly section looks onto Manse Road itself. The site falls gently from north to south. At our site inspection the field was in grass. We noted the exposed portion of sewer pipe and the erosion of part of the dismantled railway line to the west of the site. The site lies in countryside covered by Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area allocations.

Site 7b (East of Manse Road) comprises some 3.34 ha of land narrow at the north and wider at the south, and it slopes fairly steeply from north east to south west. The eastern boundary is provided by a belt of mature woodland. This also extends part way across the southern boundary which otherwise looks out towards countryside and the former manse at Lower Coylton. The western boundary runs northwards past Coylton Cemetery and rear gardens of properties with frontages on Manse Road. The site is accessed from the A70 from its existing junction at Manse Road. At our site inspection we noted that the field was in grass. It lies in countryside covered by Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area allocations.

Site 7c (Carbieston Avenue/Lorne Terrace) is bounded to the north by a mix of properties with frontages on Ayr Road, to the east is a substantial scheme built by the local authority. At our site inspection we took particular care to identify the western boundary which is in the vicinity of the B742, and the southern boundary which is in a parcel of land beyond an existing hedgerow. We noted that the site is in a prominent position within the surrounding landscape; and that the western and northern portions of the site have been disturbed by former mining activities. We also saw the conically shaped spoil heap topped with the

SALP7 7.100 Coylton

remains of a derelict and unsightly World War 2 look out post. The site was in rough grass. The site lies in countryside covered by Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area allocations.

1.7 The 1990 Strathclyde Structure Plan Update made reference to a proposed Coylton by pass and the preparation of a masterplan to guide the building of 500 houses. Accordingly, we can understand the disappointment of prospective developers that circumstances had so changed that when the masterplan finally emerged in 1998 the notion of a by pass had been put to one side and, consequently, SAC had been driven to a position in which the allocation of land for housing had to be to reduced to that sufficient for 251 homes. In the adopted 1990 East Kyle Local Plan, the sites all fall outwith the settlement boundary of Coylton. The local plan also refers to provision being made for a general access road to serve 200 houses. The building out of these houses changed the morphology and internal structure of Coylton/Joppa very considerably; but there were particular consequences for land at Hole Road East (Site 3) which we consider below. In the same period, Coylton/Hillhead did not have a recent rapid increase in population or significant change to its emerging built form.

1.8 None of the sites were identified for housing in CDSALP (published in 1999). In SALP (published in 2002), the position remained the same except for site 3, which was included as a housing site under policies H2B and H4. It was identified as suitable for 12 houses because it would represent a logical rounding off of this part of the village. The requirements included the provision of structural planting along the southern boundary and the submission of a traffic assessment. In SAC‟s initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), they continued to resist sites 2, 4, 5, 6a, 6b and 7c. A final view on sites 7a and 7b was delayed until a traffic assessment had been submitted. SAC decided to delete site 3 from the list of housing sites on the grounds that the benefits of a residential development at this location did not outweigh the loss of a locally valued landscape. In addition, they indicated that the proposed boundary was not as defensible as the existing one. They had received 18 letters of objection to the allocation. CDASP (published in June 2004) identifies Coylton as a local community with significant development opportunities.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION(S)

2.1 In essence, the objectors all seek the allocation of their sites for housing, and their inclusion within the settlement boundaries of Coylton Joppa or Coylton Hillhead (as appropriate).

2.2 We consider that the objection sites fall into 3 groups: those promoted for development by HHLtd at Coylton/Hillhead (Sites 7a, 7b and 7c); those in the immediate vicinity of Coylton/Joppa (Site 2, Site 3, and Site 4); and those that lie between Coylton/Hillhead and Coylton/Joppa (Site 5 and Sites 6a and 6b).

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

Sites 7a, 7b, and 7c (all at Coylton/Hillhead)

3.1 The objectors, HHLtd, are a local organisation employing local labour to construct and market new build housing with a particular focus on affordable housing. HHLtd came to the inquiry to promote an indicative masterplan which brought together what they regarded as

SALP7 7.101 Coylton

the most suitable sites for residential development in the Coylton area. They should all be allocated as greenfield housing release opportunities. Implementation of their masterplan in 3 phases would deliver outcomes which met objectives common to SE, SAC, the local community, as well as HHLtd. The present designation of the sites within the Scenic Area and Rural Protection Area did not stand up to critical analysis. Inclusion of the sites within the settlement boundary would neither damage the overall landscape quality nor detract from the setting of Coylton/Hillhead.

3.2 The Strathclyde Structure Plan identified Coylton as a suitable location for 500 houses to be built within a framework provided by a masterplan prepared by the planning authority. The Coylton Masterplan, approved in August 1998, reflected the fact that necessary improvements to the road network had not been put in place and, consequently, the land release was sufficient only for 251 houses. By now, these house were almost completely built out; there was very little housing land available at Coylton; and SALP made provision for only a further 12 houses at Coylton /Joppa. Many of the facilities considered necessary for the larger community envisaged by the Strathclyde Structure Plan had been provided, but they served fewer households than that plan had in mind. It was submitted that although the population of Coylton had increased by over 25% within the last 15 years, a further 145 houses on the 3 sites could not be described as a large scale development and the increment could be accommodated without detrimental effects. HHLtd found the position of SAC difficult to understand given their support for a similar sized expansion at Tarbolton.

3.3 Experience at nearby Drongan suggested that there was an unfilled demand for housing in the Coylton area predominantly amongst local people and including first time buyers. The indicative masterplan showed how the 3 proposed sites could make up the shortfall in housing resulting from the non-implementation in full of the proposals contained in the Strathclyde Structure Plan. Site 7a and site 7b could accommodate a total of 80 houses with a further 65 at Site 7c. The total of 145 would incorporate a proportion of affordable housing. The sites were under the control of HHLtd. Topographic surveys had revealed no physical constraints. There were no drainage issues at any of the sites. All 3 sites had been thoroughly assessed against all the relevant constraints and found to be well suited to be considered part of the effective land supply.

3.4 A mixture of house types and tenures could be built on all 3 sites; and the development proposed in the HHLtd masterplan would extend Coylton/Hillhead without loss of any of its essential form and character. The proposal would enhance the landscape and natural heritage of the vicinity by adding a substantial area of woodland and hedges. In addition, some degraded, derelict land at Site 7a and Site 7c would be restored to productive use. All 3 sites would be accessible by foot and cycle. The housing built in the last decade or so had been overwhelmingly in Coylton/Joppa rather than Coylton/Hillhead and development of the 3 objection sites would redress the imbalance. Further benefits would include: improved traffic movement on the A70; controlled junctions where the B742 and Manse Road meet with the A70; improved connectivity between Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead and access to the facilities sited there; a network of footpaths and cycle ways; a car park and turning area away from the A70 convenient for the Coylton Primary School. At the inquiry, it was emphasised that, for financial reasons, the off-site benefits provided by the developer would have to be reduced pro-rata with the amount of land, and hence the number of units, allocated for residential development.

SALP7 7.102 Coylton

3.5 It was submitted that the impact of development related traffic on the local road network was not likely to be significant. Technical matters, including site access, visibility splays, position of road signs, and details of road junctions were not matters of dispute. The proposed scheme of development would improve road safety, calm traffic, and reinforce to motorists that they were driving in an urban environment. They would be well served by public transport whose provision was little different from that available to the outlying areas of the large towns in South Ayrshire or the land preferred for greenfield release at NET.

3.6 Although the 2 settlements of Coylton/Hillhead and Coylton/Joppa were physically and visually separate, they were functionally linked. Residents shared: shops, services, community and recreational facilities, schools and churches. However, the links between the elements were disjointed, inconvenient and, on occasion and in places, even unsafe. Particular attention was drawn to the location of Coylton Primary School and the nature and extent of traffic congestion on the nearby stretch of the A70. Parents dropping off and picking up their young children parked their vehicles at the side of this busy, main road because there was no provision for car parking at the school. As a part of the HHLtd masterplan it was proposed to provide a substantial car park for the primary school and safe footpaths and cycle ways linking Coylton/Hillhead and Coylton/Joppa. If any one of the sites was excluded then the car park at the school would not be built. As far as education was concerned, it was submitted that SAC had accepted that there were no capacity problems associated either with the denominational primary school or at either of the non- denominational and denominational secondary schools serving Coylton. Notwithstanding SAC‟s reservations, there was no good education reason to justify exclusion of the 3 sites from the allocation of housing land at Coylton.

3.7 It was intended that site 7a accommodate around 30 houses. The site would be well integrated within the existing settlement, and built within clearly defined boundaries partly on brownfield land. It was intended that the site 7b would accommodate around 50 houses. Planting at the south east corner of the site would screen the houses from the cemetery. Improvements would be undertaken at the junction of Manse Road and the A70 in the interests of road and pedestrian safety. It was intended that the land at Site 7c should accommodate 65 houses. The development of that site would round off the existing housing estate at Hillhead without breaching the distinction between Coylton/Hillhead and Coylton/Joppa. HHLtd controlled the land to the south and west of the site and, with the help of an appropriate scheme of planting and landscaping, a strong defensible boundary could be formed which would limit development in this locality in the longer term. Improvements to the junction of the B742 and the A70 would be undertaken in the interests of road and pedestrian safety.

3.8 It was submitted that SAC had produced no convincing evidence that an adequate field study had been undertaken to support their position that the area covered by HHLtd‟s masterplan fell within the Sensitive Landscape Character Area, as defined in ASP. The key diagram in ASP was indicative and not intended to define local boundaries. Indeed, SNH had stated that a regional based assessment should not be applied at a locally specific level. The landscape witness had demonstrated, following a field study and using maps of an appropriately detailed scale, that the land covered by the masterplan could not properly be described as “sensitive” as that term was used in ASP. SAC had acknowledged that sites 7a and 7b were relatively self contained, were well screened from the A70, and had the benefit of the mature shelter belt to the east. As far as site 7c was concerned, structural planting could create, within a few years, a long term defensible boundary sufficient to counter any

SALP7 7.103 Coylton

perception of coalescence between Coylton/Hillhead and Coylton/Joppa. Development at Site 7c would improve near and distant views from the A70, the B742, and several minor roads by softening the harsh edge of the existing housing. It would permit the restoration of an unsightly spoil heap, the lookout and accesses to the wartime chambers below ground level. Careful siting of house types within the site would ensure that the skyline was not breached.

Site2 (Gallowhill Farm)

3.9 The objector stated, in written submissions, that he was a long term resident of the area whose family had farmed Carbieston Mains at Lower Coylton for over 70 years. The existing housing development to the west was served by the farm access road to Gallowhill Farm. His detailed proposals, which were as yet at draft stage, would include: an element of housing; a recreation and dog walking area; a pond on low lying land suitable for educational initiatives; 2 small wooded areas; and a pedestrian access to Coylton Primary School. The proposals would take pressure off the A70; and they would provide an alternative access to the A70 at the western extremity of Coylton/Joppa.

Site 3 (East of Hole Road)

3.10 The objector, Harkiss Homes, considered that the removal of site 3 from SALP through the pre-inquiry modifications was unjustified. It was accepted that there were no readily distinguishable features by which the southern site boundary could be recognised, but high quality structural planting and landscaping would allow a strong defensible boundary to be created. An allocation for houses would provide an excellent opportunity to round off the settlement, and it would be a natural progression of existing development. It would add to the variety and choice of housing sites. The site could accommodate 12-15 houses and was fully effective. Development would not involve a loss of valuable agricultural land. The proposal was sustainable, and it would help local services and facilities to expand. Access could be provided. Development would be started within 12 months of obtaining planning permission.

3.11 Housing would be carefully planned and designed; and it could be contained comfortably and unobtrusively in the landscape. The perimeter landscaping would link to the landscaped belts proposed in association with the land releases to the west and east. There would be a positive impact on the appearance of Coylton and its southern approach. The draft Coylton Masterplan, published in 1995, included a substantial release to the south of Coylton. A comprehensive survey had identified areas where development would have an unacceptably adverse impact. The objection site was identified for development. Although the approved masterplan, published in 1998, did not include the release of the objection site, the landscape assessment remained valid.

3.12 Safe and convenient access could be taken directly from Hole Road. The traffic impact assessment submitted in connection with earlier developments which had been released through the approved masterplan was on the basis of 70 houses. While the development of the objection site and the site to the west would result overall in around 80 houses being built, the existing road infrastructure could cope.

3.13 The proposal would satisfy the housing objectives of SALP by maintaining a range, choice and distribution of sites and by helping to stem rural depopulation. The site‟s

SALP7 7.104 Coylton

identification in SALP and the Proposals Map provided clear policy support for residential development; and SAC had clearly considered the site was an appropriate release. The deletion of the site clearly contradicted the terms of SPP1 and PAN49. A release would accord with the policies and objectives of SPP3 and Coylton could accommodate further housing development. The proposal to allocate the site for houses was not undermined by the terms of PAN44, and SAC had stated in SALP that the site should be identified for housing in order to provide a more logical and rounded boundary to Coylton.

Site 4 (Barngore)

3.14 The objector stated in written submissions that the site (which was referred to as “South east Coylton” and for which no site description was given) could be developed as an integrated extension of a settlement which had been expanded in line with strategic planning policy. The site could be screened along its southern and eastern edges by advanced structural planting and there were no landscape, nature conservation, heritage or agricultural designations (sic) affecting the site. It could be serviced from adjoining development with direct links, other than by car, to local facilities and public transport. There was scope to improve traffic movements and safety at the junction between the A70 and Hole Road. The release would round off the settlement and any adverse impacts in terms of landscape and land use could be mitigated. A range of quality house types could be provided along the urban edge. There would be no conflict with existing land uses; and the site could be effective within 5 to 7 years.

Site 5 (South of Corsehill Farm)

3.15 The objector stated, in written submissions, that the site was available, and that there was developer interest. Allocation for residential development would meet part of the shortfall in the housing land supply identified in ASP; and it could incorporate affordable housing thereby avoiding the need for prospective residents to migrate to Ayr, Troon or Prestwick. A triangular piece of ground, some 10m-30m deep, to the south of the buildings at Corsehill Farm would be set aside for landscaping.

Site 6a and Site 6b (North and South of Corsehill Farm)

3.16 The objector stated, in written submissions, that a well designed tree planted area would provide a pleasant soft edge to Coylton rather than an undesirable urban form. The treatment would be similar to that proposed for the large site identified in SALP at SEA. A car park and a roundabout could be constructed at no cost to SAC and allay the fears of local residents about congestion in the vicinity of Coylton Primary School.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

Sites 7a, 7b, and 7c (all at Coylton/Hillhead)

4.1 It was submitted that the starting point for consideration of the objection sites should be the suitability of Coylton for the level of residential development proposed by HHLtd. It was pointed out that SALP policy STRAT 1 required that large scale proposals be directed to the 5 main towns of Ayr, Prestwick, Troon, Maybole and Girvan; and 65 houses would

SALP7 7.105 Coylton

amount to large scale development. Neither the Strathclyde Structure Plan, nor the masterplan for Coylton in either its draft or final form identified Coylton/Hillhead as suitable for greenfield release. Coylton/Hillhead is physically separate from Hillhead/Joppa. It would not be realistic to expect people to walk from the objection sites to the facilities in Hillhead/Joppa (estimated at more than 3km per round trip) or to the primary school. The population in Coylton had increased from 1921 (768 households) in 1991 to an estimated 2608 (1100 households) in 2005 and the land supply projection to 2009 identified a further 97 households. There was no evidence that Coylton was a suitable case for economic regeneration. If the objection sites were to be developed, there would be difficulty in accommodating the new pupils at Coylton Primary School. The proposed development would have no regard to the cumulative impact of a succession of development over time at Coylton.

4.2 Turning to transport matters, it was submitted that: in the absence of major employment opportunities in Coylton, the objection sites would cater primarily for people who worked elsewhere; the objection sites were not situated near a rail link; while there was a satisfactory level of bus services to Ayr, services to other nearby destinations were infrequent, particularly to the east, and many trips required an inconvenient change of bus.

4.3 All 3 sites were classified as grade 3.2 agricultural land and their development would result in the loss of locally important agricultural land. While some very small parts of 2 of the objection sites were brownfield, all of the sites were predominantly greenfield, and they lay in the Rural Protection Area outwith the settlement boundary drawn round Coylton/Hillhead. It was for SALP to set out the precise boundaries for the Sensitive Landscape Character Area having regard to the key diagram in ASP. SAC had carried out an extensive field survey in accordance with a robust methodology; and SNH had no difficulty with the fact that the sites were covered by the Scenic Area designation.

4.4 Development at site 7a would result in a loss of this green finger of countryside which contributes to the rural character of Coylton; and it would adversely affect the views currently enjoyed by the houses to the east and west. Development of site 7b would have a detrimental impact on views from the existing housing and from the cemetery. Although views from the east were currently blocked by trees, the objector did not have ownership or control over the land on which they were growing. Site 7c was highly visible to the north, south and west. It could be seen from key visual receptors on the A70 and B744 as well as from minor roads and from the housing on Carbieston Avenue and Lorne Terrace. Development there would reduce the gap between Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead both visually and physically and increase the perception that the 2 elements were coalescing. The boundary proposed by HHLtd was arbitrary and inappropriate. Structure planting should reinforce an existing physical boundary rather than seek to create a new one.

4.5 It was submitted that none of the 3 sites fared well when assessed against the principles for the allocation of land for development set out in ASP policy G8. Their development would not maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; it would not make use of vacant and derelict brownfield land; it would not maximise the use of education infrastructure; it would not avoid the development of locally important good quality agricultural land; it would not avoid increasing the need to travel by private car; and it would not respect the landscape character of the area.

SALP7 7.106 Coylton

Site 3 (Hole Road)

4.6 At the hearing, SAC stated that the site was unsuitable for housing, and that the SALP designation, as changed, was appropriate. The proposal would have an unacceptable visual impact on the landscape and the village setting, and would not create a readily defensible boundary. The site was greenfield; it was classified as grade 3.2 agricultural land; and the southern boundary comprised open countryside and would not be readily defensible. The principal concerns related to landscape impact, including that on the southern approach to Coylton. The proposal was at odds with SPP3, NPPG15, PAN36, PAN44 and PAN52. The site was in a “commuter area”, and its development would jeopardise its rural identity.

4.7 The proposal would be contrary to ASP policies E1, G2 and G5. It would be contrary to general principles A, B, D, H and I of policy G8. In relation to these principles, SAC explained that there had been considerable residential development recently, with a 25% increase in population between 1991 and 2001. A further release would be inappropriate. The site would not contribute to the reuse of previously developed sites, and in the glossary of terms grade 3.2 agricultural land was considered to be good quality. The proposal would not conserve the natural environment. Any development would be highly visible from the south, and the effect of this would be compounded by the nature of the surrounding landscape which comprised open fields providing little in the way of natural screening. The additional traffic on the road network could cause a problem.

4.8 The masterplan for Coylton, published in 1998, was prepared in response to the 1990 Strathclyde Structure Plan Update and land was released for up to 251 houses. In that plan the objection site was not considered appropriate for development. The settlement boundary followed the existing urban edge which was strong and defensible. The site was deleted from SALP following consideration of the 18 objections received and a detailed analysis which took into account of all the issues raised. At this location the existing housing and farm track provided a readily defensible boundary for Coylton/Joppa. Development of the objection site for housing would lead to an unacceptable visual impact on the surrounding landscape and the setting of Coylton/Joppa particularly as viewed from the elevated ground to the south.

Site 2 (Gallowhill Farm), Site 4 (Barngore), Site 5 (South of Corsehill Farm), and Site 6a and 6b (North and South of Corsehill Farm)

4.9 The objectors to these sites had all elected to proceed by way of written submissions. The approach of SAC to their concerns was broadly similar, and the essence of the SAC position on each of them can be summarised as follows.

4.10 The development of additional housing at site 2 would be an unsustainable and incremental encroachment into the surrounding countryside. It would neither enhance local amenity nor reduce traffic flows or congestion on the existing road structure. The boundaries to the south and east were not defensible. Development would result in unacceptable visual intrusion into the countryside. The land at site 4, site 5 and sites 6a and 6b was important to the setting and rural character of Coylton /Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead. The proposed new boundaries at Site 4 were not well defined and would not be readily defensible. The surrounding landscape was characterised by open fields in agricultural use which provided little in the way of screening. Views from inside the settlement and on its approaches would be irreversibly damaged. Similar considerations applied at site 5 and sites 6a and 6b. In addition, development of any of these sites for housing would result in the undesirable visual

SALP7 7.107 Coylton

and physical coalescence of Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead which in this vicinity were only 250m apart. The proposed boundaries would not be defensible.

4.11 ASP policy G8 provided general principles against which proposals for the release of new land for development must be judged. Assessed against the principles set out in the policy the site was not suitable for residential development. Taking each of the criteria in turn:

 The population of Coylton grew by 25% in the period 1991-2001, and it would not be appropriate to release a further site within the SALP period (A).  The objection sites were all greenfield in agricultural use (B).  The use of these previously undeveloped parcels of land would run contrary to the principles of sustainable development in this locality (C).  The land was grade 3.2 agricultural land, ie good quality land according to the glossary of terms in ASP (D).  Coylton was served by regular bus services but there was no rail service. The majority of movements were by private car and additional development would increase dependence on that mode of transport (E and F).  The sites were important pieces of open space which contributed to the rural character of Coylton (G).  The development of any of the sites for housing would not conserve the natural environment; and there were no built heritage locations in their vicinity (H).  Development at any one of the sites would threaten the landscape character of the area (I).  There were no known risks of flooding but further investigation would be required (J).  The development of good quality agricultural land would amount to an adverse effect (K).

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We have little or none of the information required to establish the effectiveness of site 2, site 4, site 5, and sites 6a and b. On the basis of the evidence before us we are satisfied that sites 3 and 7 would be effective.

SALP7 7.108 Coylton

5.3 As far as site 3 is concerned, we consider the estimated capacity of the site at 12-15 houses to be relatively high in view of its exposed location on the edge of a rural settlement. Nonetheless, we accept that the scheme could be fully built out within one year of receiving planning permission, and within 18 months to 2 years of the adoption of SALP. Turning to sites 7a, 7b and 7c, we note that these have been promoted as components of a 3 phase development providing 30, 50 and 65 houses respectively. Given the restriction imposed by the former mineral railway line which runs north to south along the western boundary of the site, we have reservations about the capacity of site 7a to accommodate as many as 30 houses. However, unless unforeseen difficulties emerge, we consider that site 7a could be fully built out within 2 years of the adoption of SALP with the other 2 phases following over its intended lifetime. We have no details on the capacity, delivery, phasing, or programming for any of the other sites.

5.4 All of the sites lie in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the sites are identified as falling within the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area. In SALP they are all designated as Rural Protection Area, and fall outwith the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. While SDD Circular 24/1985 does not therefore apply in this case, many of the principles it contains are relevant, in particular, maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, and preventing coalescence.

5.5 When we consider coalescence, our starting point must be that although there is a readily visible gap between the built up areas of Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead at its narrowest this is only about 300m. There is no doubt that this serves a valuable function in maintaining the separation between Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead. It is obvious that the allocation for housing on sites 5 and 6 would amount to physical coalescence.

5.6 The physical boundaries to Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead are made up of roads, fencelines and farm tracks. In general terms, we do not regard fencelines as amounting, in themselves, to defensible boundaries. As things stand, we do not consider that any of the sites before us, with the single exception of site 7a, can be described as having defensible boundaries such that development to their limits would maintain the existing identity of either Coylton/Joppa or Coylton/Hillhead. Lines drawn across fields would normally be even less acceptable than established fencelines, and we believe that it would be better if structural planting reinforced an existing physical boundary rather than seek to create a new one. In this context, there is nothing persuasive before us to suggest how this deficiency might be tackled at site 3 or to indicate that an exception might be justified. We are not persuaded that what is proposed by HHLtd for Site 7b is adequate for the task or that Site 7c can be made acceptable.

5.7 Turning to landscape setting, from our site inspections we were able to confirm that housing on Sites 2, 4, 5, 6a and 6b, and 7c would be visible from numerous vantage points in short and long views from major and minor roads. We are satisfied that, even with boundary treatment, there would be significant damage to the landscape setting of Coylton as a whole if residential development went ahead on any one of them. In particular, we are in no doubt that development of site 6a and site 6b would swamp Coylton to the severe detriment of its character and setting. Although site 3 is readily visible especially by those travelling north along Hole Road, development of the scale proposed would not have any significant effect on the landscape setting of Coylton/Joppa.

SALP7 7.109 Coylton

5.8 Turning to site 7c, we saw from our site inspection that it is prominent in the landscape, and we acknowledge that the remnants of previous uses on some parts are not aesthetically pleasing. However, we cannot agree that the structural planting proposed by HHLtd would be sufficient to limit the damage to the landscape setting of Coylton were houses to be built there as proposed. We find that sites 7a and 7b are relatively self contained and, in particular, they are well screened from the heavily trafficked A70. Nevertheless, although they benefit from the mature shelter belt to the east, that land is outwith the control of HHLtd. Given the topography of site 7b, and its proximity to the sensitive landscape to the south, doubt has been raised in our minds about the effect that any development would have on the landscape setting of Coylton/Hillhead when, as is inevitable, these mature trees have to be replaced. As far as site 7a is concerned, its development would be in tune with the emerging grain of this part of the urban fabric of Coylton which, as we have noted, is evolving from an east /west to a north/south orientation. We note the constraints that are imposed by the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area, but believe that some development could be absorbed at this location.

5.9 Drawing all these matters together, we have concerns about whether an appropriate landscape framework and a satisfactory landscape fit could be achieved. However, we believe that housing at site 7a, as outlined by HHLtd, could be reasonably accommodated within the landscape setting of Coylton, without having a materially adverse effect on landscape character; and that residential development there would not be inconsistent with the thrust of SPP3 and PAN44.

5.10 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that G and K do not appear to apply; and all relevant matters in relation to I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice in what is still a predominantly rural settlement, and that additional households would provide further close support for businesses and for other facilities of benefit to, and valued by, the local community. The recent programme of building at Coylton/Joppa has changed very considerably the morphology and internal structure of that element of Coylton. With this in mind we agree with SAC that any further development there would not pay adequate regard to the cumulative impact of a succession of developments over time. For that reason alone, we cannot agree that either site 2, or site 3, or site 4 should be allocated for housing. However, Coylton/Hillhead has not experienced that relatively rapid expansion.

5.11 On B, with the minor exceptions at sites 7a and 7c, the sites are all greenfield, and none make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, we are satisfied that site 3, site 7a, site 7b and site 7c can be serviced satisfactorily with water and drainage; and no specific other matters have been drawn to our attention to suggest that reasonable provision for service infrastructure and sustainable forms of development cannot be made. We are not satisfied that any problem with capacity in the local primary school would represent an insurmountable obstacle to a development of a modest scale, such as at site 7a. We have insufficient information to make an informed judgement on the service infrastructure implications of the other sites. Turning to D, although the sites all constitute agricultural land, it is not clear to us that they are in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on any of the sites.

SALP7 7.110 Coylton

5.12 When we consider E and F, we recognise that any residential development at Coylton would inevitably increase the use of the private car. We have seen as pedestrians, and experienced for ourselves as drivers, the conditions at this stretch of the A70 and the network of minor roads nearby. We can readily understand the concerns of those who reckon that any further increase in road traffic would be undesirable notably if it increased the number of movements in the vicinity of the primary school. We have already found that there are sound planning reasons for not releasing any further sites in Coylton/Joppa. Even if all 3 of the sites promoted by HHLtd at Coylton/Hillhead were developed with 145 houses we consider that this would not significantly add either to existing traffic flows or to problems of congestion in this vicinity. There is no railway station but all of the sites, including site 7a, are fairly close to the A70. While the existing routings and interchanges are not ideal for all potential travellers, there is sufficient in the way of bus services to persuade us that the sites are adequately related to public transport provision. We are satisfied that a reasonable level of cycle and pedestrian integration could be achieved if any of the sites were to be developed. We find that the development of any of these sites for housing would not be incompatible with the underlying intentions of NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.13 Regarding H, site 7a, site 7b and site 7c all lie within the Scenic Area. The details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying the Scenic Area‟s precise boundaries were not brought to the inquiry, and we were told by SAC, at this session of the inquiry, that the details could not now be found. We do not consider that this allocation, in itself, would be sufficient to prevent the release of site 7a for housing. However, despite the extensive evidence presented on behalf of HHLtd, we have no quarrel with site 7b and site 7c, which would remain outwith the settlement boundary, remaining allocated as Scenic Area. On J, it is not clear that all the sites have satisfied this general principle.

5.14 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection sites would be adequately accessible to the core towns and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire, predominantly by car. We note that Coylton is identified as a local community with significant development opportunities. However, in light of the above conclusions, we consider that only site 7a represents a reasonable development opportunity. We note that HHLtd promoted their sites at Coylton/Joppa through a masterplan which exemplified what might be achieved by adopting a holistic approach to residential development at Coylton/Hillhead. We recognise that HHLtd‟s masterplan would reinforce the trend towards a north/south orientation for Coylton rather than the historic east/west one, and we have no difficulty with that. However, as we have stated, we are not convinced that sites 7b and 7c should be released for residential development as proposed. We recognise that this removes the underpinning from HHLtd and the additional benefits which might have accrued were the 145 house to have been built in 3 phases as they have suggested. Looking to the future, we suggest that a masterplan approach driven by SAC as planning authority, working in partnership with all interested parties, would be the way forward in fulfilling the potential for further development at Coylton as a whole, and Coylton/Hillhead in particular.

5.15 We have considered whether what we recommend below would amount to a large scale development. We find that even if, contrary to our finding, Coylton/Joppa and Coylton/Hillhead were to be identified as 2 settlements rather than 2 elements of the same settlement we cannot go along with the SAC position that 65 houses would amount to a large scale development either in absolute or relative terms. The application of that position across the SALP area would destroy the logic of allocations elsewhere in South Ayrshire.

SALP7 7.111 Coylton

5.16 We are in no doubt that each of the settlements in South Ayrshire should be considered as a separate entity with its own problems and potentials. HHLtd expressed surprise that land for housing should be released at Tarbolton in SALP but no comparable allocation was made for Coylton. However, one size will not fit all, and that is the approach that we have adopted in assessing the merits of the objections before us and in making our recommendations to SAC on the way forward.

5.17 In response to matters drawn to our attention in evidence, we made special site inspections to Coylton Primary School in order to observe the current arrangements and volume and composition of movements of pedestrians and vehicles in the periods before and after the times when the children arrive and depart. We were disturbed to find that at any one time there could be as many as 18 cars parked at the side of this busy stretch of the A70 thereby creating considerable congestion. We saw for ourselves the use of the forecourt of the nearby petrol filling station for manoeuvres of which some were ill-mannered and others down right dangerous. If our recommendation below is accepted there will be no opportunity open to SAC to achieve, through planning gain, dedicated off road parking for cars carrying the young pupils. We recognise the limits of our remit in preparing our report, but we must note in passing our disquiet about the current arrangements. We trust that our recommendation below will not dissuade SAC from playing their full part in seeking out, through all the means available to them, a satisfactory solution to what amounts, in our view, to an accident waiting to happen.

5.18 In conclusion, given the light of the recent rapid expansion of Coylton/Hillhead neither site 2 (Gallowhill Farm), nor site 3 (East of Hole Road), nor site 4 (Barngore) should be allocated for housing. None of these sites, including that at Hole Road, offers a realistic prospect of an easily recognisable topographical or other settlement boundary which would be defensible against further development pressure. As far as site 5 (South of Corsehill Farm) and sites 6a and 6b (North and South of Corsehill Farm) are concerned, the proposed boundaries would not be readily defensible and any development of these sites would result in the undesirable visual and physical coalescence of the 2 elements of the settlement of Coylton which at their narrowest are less than 300m apart in this vicinity. Coylton/Hillhead has not experienced relatively rapid expansion but of the sites promoted only Site 7a (West of Manse Road) fulfils the necessary conditions for release. We are satisfied that the allocation of this site for housing would be broadly consistent with the thrust of ASP, CDASP, and national guidance and advice.

5.19 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that site 7a (West of Manse Road) be removed from the Rural Protection and Scenic Areas in SALP, that it be identified as a housing opportunity under policy H2B, and that the settlement boundary of Coylton/Hillhead be amended as deemed appropriate by SAC;

SALP7 7.112 Coylton

(ii) that policy H2B be amended by adding the following:

“Coylton/Hillhead – Manse Road

The site comprises 1.05ha of land to the west of Manse Road within the settlement of Coylton. To the north are houses with frontages facing on to the A70; to the west are rear gardens of houses on Corsehill Avenue; to the south, the site is partially bound by Manse Road and looks out on to open countryside; to the east, the northerly portion is bound by the back gardens of houses with frontages on Manse Road and the southerly portion looks onto Manse Road itself. The site falls gently from north to south; and the remains of a dismantled railway line run along the western boundary. That previous use of the site requires that an investigation of potential land contamination be undertaken. A traffic statement will be required along with details of access, including access for cyclists and pedestrians. Allowing for an appropriate scheme for planting and landscaping, the site is considered suitable for up to 20 dwellings”; and

(iii) that no other change be made to SALP in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.113 Coylton

7.18 CROSSHILL

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 18, 1016, 1085, 1093, 1095 and 1098 W & R Baird (+ Written submissions)

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Crosshill is located on the B7023, around 4km to the south east of Maybole and approximately 12km to the south of Ayr. It nestles close to the valley floor and is a compact, linear settlement, which has spread north eastwards over the years. In 1991, the population of the village stood at 531 people and appeared relatively stable. At present, there are 220 households in the village. Crosshill was originally based on the weaving industry, and the Crosshill Conservation Area is focussed on the historic core of the village, which lies along its western side and is characterised by traditional terraced cottages. The conservation area extends beyond the settlement boundary to the fields lying to the south west of the village around Dalhowan Burn. The village provides a range of facilities for local residents, including a primary school, a post office, a community hall, a local shop, a recreation ground, and a bowling green.

1.2 The 2 sites under consideration are located on the south eastern edge of the village to the rear of Dalhowan Street and Kirkmichael Road. Both sites are owned by the same party (W & R Baird), and they can be described, as follows:

Site 1 (South of Kirkmichael Road) extends in total to 12.2ha and is irregular in shape. It comprises 4 fields and is currently used as grazing land. While in general terms the landform rises up to the south, the site itself is gently undulating. The northern boundary is formed by Kirkmichael Road itself and the rear of the properties facing this road. The western boundary is formed by the rear of the properties facing Back Street and the eastern edge of the housing site proposed by SAC in SALP. The western and southern boundaries are formed by field boundaries. The boundary treatments comprise, in the main, a mix of hedges and fencelines, interspersed with individual and small groups of trees. There is also a small burn on the southern boundary. The site comprises a mix of grade 3.1 and grade 3.2 agricultural land. The eastern edge of the conservation area is adjacent to the site. Prior to this session of the inquiry taking place, the objectors indicated that they proposed to restrict any housing to the field immediately to the rear of the properties on Kirkmichael Road and Back Street. The site extends into the field to the east in order to provide vehicular access on to Kirkmichael Road. The reduced area amounts to around 3.2ha.

Site 2 (Rear of Dalhowan Street) extends to 1.1ha and is located between the western edge of site 1 and the rear of the properties facing Dalhowan Street. It slopes down from west to east. The boundary to the north would be the boundary of the southernmost property on Back Street. The boundary to the south would be a field boundary comprising a hedgeline. The proposed vehicular access on to Dalhowan Street would extend the site into the field to the

SALP7 7.114 Crosshill

south. The site comprises grade 3.1 agricultural land, and is used for grazing. It is adjacent to the conservation area.

1.3 In the 1962 Ayr County Development Plan, the sites fall outwith the settlement boundary of Crosshill. Neither of the sites was identified for housing in CDSALP (published in 1999). In SALP (published in 2002), while site 1 remained outwith the settlement boundary, site 2 was identified as a housing release under policies H2B and H4. Its capacity was estimated to be in the region of 20 houses. At that stage, it was envisaged that access would be taken to site 2 through the gap between 81-85 Dalhowan Street. However, immediately prior to the approval of SALP, SAC granted planning permission and listed building consent for housing in this gap. As a result of this and subsequent consents, SAC recognised in their initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), that alternative access arrangements would be required. In the changes made to SALP in March 2004, SAC therefore changed the point of access to site 2 to the south of the dwellings on Dalhowan Street. In May 2004, the owner of the sites wrote to SAC indicating that they no longer wished site 2 to be considered for housing, only site 1. In June 2004, SAC deleted site 2 from SALP, but made no further allocation for housing on site 1. CDASP (published in June 2004) includes Crosshill within an Investment Corridor. It identifies the village as a local community with small scale development opportunities.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, W & R Baird seek the removal of the countryside and Scenic Area designations on site 1, its allocation for housing, and its inclusion within the settlement boundary of Crosshill. Other objectors seek confirmation that site 2 is not to be allocated for housing.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 The objection by W & R Baird was unusual because it related to a greenfield housing allocation proposed by SAC on land owned by the objector (site 2). If financial gain had been the only motivation, then the safest strategy would have been for the objectors to have supported SAC. Instead the release of site 1 was sought. While the potential developable area extended to some 12ha, the objectors acknowledged that development of the whole site would swamp the village. The reduced area now proposed for development could accommodate 30 houses, which would allow for reinforcement of existing planting and a high standard of landscaping and open space. The only difference between W & R Baird and SAC was their views on the merits of site 2 and site 1. SAC had continued to support the development of site 2 for quite some time, despite the difficulties with access, and this indicated that they supported the principle of a residential greenfield extension to the village. Site 2 had also been the subject of other objections relating to the inappropriate location of the revised access, and the adverse effect that any development would have on the character and setting of Crosshill, including the conservation area.

3.2 The policy context supported the principle of development at Crosshill. In relation to SPP3 and NPPG17, development of site 1 would not result in coalescence, it would protect Crosshill‟s landscape setting, it would not result in the loss of any recreational land, and it would be readily accessible by a range of transport. As there was also a requirement to

SALP7 7.115 Crosshill

release greenfield land, site 1 would have the advantage of being adjacent to the built up area. The release of site 1 in preference to site 2 would be in accord with Government guidance and advice. The Scenic Area designation covered much of South Ayrshire and was broad brush in nature, as could be seen from the way in which site 2 had been treated by SAC.

3.3 The development of site 1 would be consistent with the approach of ASP. Site 1 was not classified as green belt and was not in as sensitive a location as other sites which had been released for housing. There were no known infrastructural constraints (including sewage) which would prevent development. The proposal would not be undermined by policy G8 or other policies. There would be no adverse landscape impact or damage. The proposal would be visible from the east, west and south, but would be contained by existing development and planting, and would appear as an integral part of the village. No precedent would be set for further development, because any planning application on land to the south east could be rejected on the grounds of landscape impact. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems would avoid the prospect of unacceptable pollution, and there were no known flood or erosion risks in the area. The proposal would not prejudice the enjoyment of the natural environment and could be sensitively designed. It (the reduced site) would be on non-prime agricultural land in compliance with SALP, and in contrast to site 2. Site 1 was unaffected by special habitat designations. The proposal might allow for additional recreational and amenity space to be provided, and it would maximise the use of existing service infrastructure. There were no ground stability issues to resolve. In addition, it was difficult to see how the capacity of the primary school could be a problem for a limited development such as that proposed. Only 10 more houses were being proposed than on site 2. The potential residential site in the village (Milton Street/Bruce Square) had not been pursued, despite SAC having granted outline planning permission. At one stage, SAC were content to promote both that site and site 2. The development of site 2 would not be prevented by the fact that a small part of it was adjacent to the conservation area, because the site was on rising agricultural land.

3.4 In CDASP, Crosshill was in a location where additional economic development opportunities, including additional housing provision, should be identified and promoted. Schedule 3 showed that around 400 houses would require to be built in the investment corridor. Crosshill was seen as a settlement with small scale development opportunities, and site 1 could benefit from this. This site was also of a scale which would allow it to benefit from well managed structural landscaping, for example, along the eastern boundary.

3.5 The release of site 1 would meet the housing objectives of SALP as it would allow for a choice of housing land and would help in a small way to stem the decline of rural population. SAC would not appear to be opposed to the principle of developing an access road on the site. Pedestrian access could be provided through the grounds of the Community Centre to the school and centre of the village. Crosshill was restricted in its future growth by the area‟s topography, the possibility of flooding, and the presence of a slurry store which in the near future would require to be relocated closer to site 2. Site 1 would have physical boundaries (a burn, tree and hedges), and site 2 had no definable boundaries. Site 1 would result in a balanced pattern of development in Crosshill, and a safe access, with good visibility, which would be better than SAC‟s new access for site 2. A design brief could be prepared to ensure an appropriate development took place. There was nothing to stop site 1 coming forward relatively quickly, but no details could be provided at this stage. Site 1 should in all the circumstances replace site 2.

SALP7 7.116 Crosshill

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 Following the grant of planning permission for the development of the ground between 81-85 Dalhowan Street, SAC saw no reason why an alternative access to site 2 could not be provided to the south. However, once they had been notified in writing that the owners of this site no longer wished it to be considered for development, they concluded that it was constrained and they had no option but to delete it from SALP. There were no objections lodged to this proposed change to SALP.

4.2 SAC indicated that site 1 comprised a number of field parcels, and that Crosshill had developed in a traditional, linear form. The site was in the Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area. The original objection to SALP had covered a larger area of 12.2ha. The requirement to protect the countryside from inappropriate development was consistent with national guidance and advice. The allocation of site 1 would be inconsistent with SPP3 because: it was of an excessive size for the village and would not relate to the village‟s linear form; the village‟s landscape character, setting and appearance would be adversely affected; the site‟s boundaries would not be as defensible as those proposed in SALP; the development would result in irreversible, ad hoc development in the countryside leading to pressure for further development; and it would create a precedent.

4.3 Of the 4 key statements of strategic intent in ASP, 3 were relevant here, and they related to: the countryside and the environment; the vitality and viability of existing settlements: and the principles of sustainable development. It was clear from ASP‟s key diagram that the countryside at this location was intended for designation as Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area. The proposal for site 1 would not comply with policy G8 general principles A, B, C, D, E, F, H and I and other ASP policies. In particular, the proposal did not make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land; it did not offer the opportunity to maximise the use of existing service infrastructure; it would in part involve the loss of prime agriculture land; it would encourage car based travel and the village was not well related to public transport routes; it would not conserve the natural environment or built heritage; and it would have an adverse landscape impact. ASP policy G1 gave priority to new development in existing settlements. CDASP did not help the proposal because it was only a document for discussion and consultation.

4.4 SAC considered that placing the settlement boundary at the rear of the properties on Dalhowan Street, Back Street and Kirkmichael Road was appropriate. This line represented a defensible and easily recognised boundary which effectively delineated the settlement from the adjacent countryside. The drawing of settlement boundaries in this context was a practical planning tool and did not define a settlement in historic or community terms. The proposed settlement boundary for site 1 would be insufficiently robust to resist pressure for future expansion of Crosshill.

4.5 SAC believed the designations covering the site to be appropriate. The Rural Protection Area designation reflected the close proximity of this area to Maybole, Ayr and Prestwick. In addition, the boundaries of the Scenic Area and the sensitive landscape character area had been refined during the preparation of SALP.

4.6 The development of site 1 would not consolidate or enhance Crosshill. While it was accepted that the site was not included in the Conservation Area, it was still unsuitable for residential development. SAC considered that the proposal would have a material impact on

SALP7 7.117 Crosshill

the local transport infrastructure, including the B7023, and did not believe that the issues raised had been satisfactorily addressed. The alternative site would therefore not accord with NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17. In addition, SAC indicated that it would be unlikely that Crosshill Primary School would be able to accommodate all of the pupils (9) arising from the development, and it might not be possible to extend the school. SAC did not believe that the site was effective because housing was not the preferred land use and there were uncertainties over physical and infrastructure constraints. It was noted that a drainage impact assessment would be required. Site 1 should not be allocated for housing, particularly as the objectors (W & R Baird) had confirmed that they had been approached by a housebuilder seeking to develop 100 houses to the south of Kirkmichael Road.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example,, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). Site 2 is not effective because the owner has indicated that he is not prepared to release it for housing. Turning to site 1, we acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. We are satisfied that the site is likely to be marketable. However, we have little information on whether the site is subject to any physical or infrastructure constraints. This is important for the larger site (12.2ha), particularly in relation to the traffic implications of developing a site of this size. We have less concern about such constraints in relation to the reduced site (3.2ha), but we are still not in a position to draw any firm conclusions. We acknowledge that the larger site could accommodate a development of a substantial scale. We do not accept that it would be likely that the reduced site could easily be restricted to a development of 30 houses. Given its size and the relatively dense form of development in the adjoining historic built up area, we believe that a development of around 40 houses could be reasonably accommodated taking into account the points made by W & R Baird about the need for boundary treatments and open space. There were no details of phasing or programming, and we are therefore unable to draw any conclusions on the delivery of the site.

5.3 The 2 sites lie in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the sites are identified as being within the Middle Dale Landscape Character Area. In SALP, the sites are designated Rural Protection Area and fall outwith the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. While SDD Circular 24/1985 does not therefore apply in this case, many of the principles it contains are relevant, in particular, maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, and preventing coalescence. In this case, there are no issues of coalescence with other settlements.

SALP7 7.118 Crosshill

5.4 The physical boundaries of this part of Crosshill are made up predominantly of fencelines and hedges running along the side or rear of existing properties. Although we do not regard these boundaries, in themselves, as defensible, neither site would offer a noticeably better boundary. The boundaries for site 2 would be lines across a field, but at least the eastern boundary would have some logic to the extent that it would continue the rear boundary line of the properties facing Back Street. For site 1, the eastern and southern boundaries would comprise hedges and fencelines, and a small burn (to the south only). While burns can form defensible boundaries, we are not satisfied that this would be the case here. No details of the boundary treatments for either site have been provided and, if both were developed up to their limits, we do not consider that it would be likely that the existing identity of Crosshill could be properly maintained. However, we acknowledge that at site 2 the effect on the village‟s identity would be more marginal.

5.5 Turning to landscape setting, the sites sit in open countryside. Our site inspections of the area showed that the 2 sites (particularly site 1) are visible from a number of vantage points in short and distance views, but not from any main roads. Both sites contribute to the landscape setting of Crosshill. Given their ill defined boundaries, we are concerned that development of either site could lead to pressure for further development. This offsets any benefit that may arise from the rounding off of Crosshill by the development of site 2. It also significantly lessens the attraction of any development of the reduced area in site 1, particularly as the proposed main vehicular access would be positioned to serve the development of the full site. We are in no doubt that the development of all of site 1 would swamp Crosshill, and even the development of the reduced site would represent a substantial development for the village. We acknowledge that both developments would largely be seen within the context of existing housing, and we are not persuaded that any constraints imposed by the Middle Dale Landscape Character Area would significantly inhibit the development of the sites. However, site 1, in either form, would not reflect the development pattern of this part of Crosshill, and it could not be described as a natural extension of the existing built up area. We have concerns about whether an appropriate landscape framework or a satisfactory landscape fit could be achieved. As such, we do not consider the proposal for this site would satisfy the broad terms of PAN44 or SPP3. Overall, we believe that the development of site 1 (either in full or part) could significantly erode the landscape setting of Crosshill, and have a significantly adverse effect on landscape character. We accept that the adverse effect of developing site 2 on the landscape setting of Crosshill would be less than that of developing site 1.

5.6 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that G and K do not appear to apply in these cases, and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available in a small settlement, and that additional households would help support businesses and other facilities of benefit to, and valued by, the local community. In this context, we believe that there is some further scope for limited residential development at Crosshill. On B, the 2 sites are both greenfield, and neither make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, the position concerning service infrastructure is not entirely clear, including the extent to which the capacity of the local primary school represents a real obstacle to development. We accept that pressure could be placed on existing services resulting in an unsustainable form of development if site 1 is developed in full. This does not necessarily

SALP7 7.119 Crosshill

apply to the reduced area of site 1 because it has to be considered in the context that SAC had previously promoted site 2 for development in SALP and, at that stage, were presumably satisfied that the allocation, albeit a smaller one, was in accord with this general principle. Turning to D, while we acknowledge that the sites are at least, in part, classified as grade 3.1 quality agricultural land, they do not appear to be in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on either of the sites. The fact that the reduced site 1 is only on grade 3.2 quality agricultural land does not, in itself, particularly help the case for allocating this area for housing.

5.7 In relation to E and F, we recognise that any residential development at Crosshill would inevitably increase the use of the private car. It seems to us that, with the possible exception of the full development of site 1, that the local road network would be likely to be able to cope with the traffic generated by the development of either of the other sites. The proposed vehicular access point for site 1 appears reasonable. For site 2, we are not persuaded that a vehicular access at the point proposed by SAC would be unacceptable on the grounds of road safety. SAC have reservations about public transport provision and, while we accept that the bus service is limited (approximately one an hour), we do not believe that it is unreasonable for a small village located in the countryside. Integration with the village through the provision of pedestrian and cycle links has not been finalised. However, it seems to us that adequate arrangements could probably be made for both sites 1 and 2. While we have some concerns about whether the full development of site 1 would meet the underlying intentions behind NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17, we are satisfied that the other proposals would broadly conform to national guidance.

5.8 On H, both sites are included within the Scenic Area and are adjacent to the Crosshill Conservation Area. Regarding the Conservation Area, we have no details of possible layouts or designs for either site. However, on the basis of our site inspections, we are broadly satisfied that a modest, sympathetically designed development on either site could preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. We have considered the importance of the 2 sites to the conservation area, including its setting, and the desirability of extending the conservation area‟s boundaries to include any part of the sites. While we have concluded that the sites contribute to the conservation area, we do not consider their contribution to be so significant that it would justify extending the boundaries. In the case of the Scenic Area, the details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying its precise boundaries were not brought to the inquiry. We acknowledge that the Scenic Area designation covers a much larger area, and that this is the time to review its boundaries. However, if both sites are to remain outwith the settlement boundary and are not to be released for housing, we see no logic in excluding either of them from the designated area. Turning to J, it is not clear that the sites have satisfied this general principle in full.

5.9 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The sites would be accessible to the Core Town of Ayr, but would not be readily accessible to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire given the village‟s location to the south east of Maybole. We acknowledge that Crosshill is within an investment corridor and is identified as being a local community with small scale development opportunities. Such communities are seen as being affected by a range of constraints, mostly related to their historic importance or landscape setting. Taking this together with the conclusions set out above, reinforces us in our view that it would be inappropriate to release these sites for housing in SALP. In particular, we are not

SALP7 7.120 Crosshill

persuaded that development on site 1 would satisfactorily respect either the setting or character of Crosshill. Future housing opportunities in Crosshill should be of an appropriate scale and in a suitable location. They should be brought forward within the context of formulating a strategy for the village based on developing a sustainable community within its rural surroundings.

5.10 In conclusion, we do not consider site 2 (Rear of Dalhowan Street) to be effective. We are concerned about the effect the development of site 1 (South of Kirkmichael Road), either in full or part, would have on landscape setting and on landscape character. We believe that site 2 has more potential to accommodate a development which could be successfully integrated into Crosshill than site 1. We acknowledge that SAC‟s removal of site 2 from SALP has satisfied those who objected to its inclusion as a residential development opportunity. Overall, as things stand, we do not consider that the allocation of either site for housing would be consistent with ASP, CDASP or national guidance and advice.

5.11 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the contention that there is no other direction in which Crosshill can expand, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that no amendment be made to SALP, as changed, in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.121 Crosshill

7.19 FISHERTON & DUNURE

Representations no: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 11, 368, 539, 1002, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1017, 1033, HHLtd 1091 and 1103 (Written Submissions)

Objecting to: Policies H2 and H4 Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Fisherton is a community of around 100 permanent residents located about 12km south west of Ayr. The core of the village is close to the junction of Station Road and the A719 Ayr to Girvan road. Across that road is the Fisherton Primary School. A feature of the settlement is the two rows of modern detached houses standing in their own garden grounds and commanding spectacular views out across the Firth of Clyde. They follow the line of the now dismantled Maidens and Dunure Light Railway. A small development at Fisherton Place has filled in gaps in the Ayr road frontage and some of the space between this and Fisherton Avenue. Dunure is a former fishing village with a population of around 500 located about 1.5km north of Fisherton. Dominated by the 14th Century Dunure Castle, now in ruins, the early settlement grew around its small harbour. Residential development is now concentrated on the sloping ground above, and many properties have uninterrupted views out across the Firth of Clyde towards the Holy Isle and Arran beyond. 1.2 The sites can be described, as follows: Site 1 (Fisherton): The objection site, of approximately 1.4ha, forms part of a gently undulating 3ha field which, at the time of our accompanied site inspection, was in grass. The underlying topography of the field slopes down from north east to south west. The western boundary is formed by: the rear of properties with frontages on Fisherton Avenue, a cairn, a private sewage treatment plant, and some mature woodland beyond which is the line of the dismantled railway. The northern edge of the 3ha field is formed by a stone built dyke that follows the Ladywell Burn as it flows east to west down towards the Firth of Clyde. The eastern boundary is a ragged hedgerow and some post and wire fencing outside and outside of that is a grass verge which runs along the A719. The southern boundary is formed by the built up area of Fisherton and includes the former police station and housing. As things stand, SAC propose that the site should lie in countryside outside the proposed settlement boundary for Fisherton. It is within countryside and is covered by the Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area policy designations. Site 2 (Fisherton): The objection site, of approximately 0.52ha, is a triangular area of land to the west of Ayr Road, Fisherton. The site is bounded: to the north by land which comprises site 1 and, in part, it overlaps with that; to the west by the rear of properties on Fisherton Avenue; and to the east by the rear of properties with frontages on Ayr Road. The southern boundary extends to the rear of the house at 1 Fisherton Place. At our accompanied site inspection we noted that the site includes: some grazing land to the north which is also within site 1; two unsightly, vacant buildings in poor condition; and a parcel of derelict land accessed directly from Fisherton Place. An outline planning application for residential development and involving the demolition of the existing derelict buildings on the site was submitted in November 2004 (04/01703/OUT).

SALP7 7.122 Fisherton & Dunure

Site 3 (Fisherton): The objection site, of some 0.65ha, comprises a V shaped area of land bounded to the east by the line of the A719 Ayr Road, to the north by properties with frontages on Station Road, and to the south by open countryside. At our site inspection the land was in grass. In SALP the site lies in countryside outside the proposed settlement boundary for Fisherton. It is covered by the Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area policy designations. Site 4 (Dunure): The objection site, of approximately 1ha, comprises a parcel of vacant greenfield land located on a steep north western slope. It is accessed from Arran View which, at our site inspection, was lined with parked cars thereby narrowing the width available for the passage of vehicles. The site is bounded by: properties on Arran View to the south west; gardens to the rear of Kennedy Drive to the south east; and field boundaries to the north west and north east. The area to the north west forms part of the Dunure Conservation Area. An outline planning application for residential development at the site was submitted in 1994 but was withdrawn prior to determination (94/00029/OUT). 1.3 The land now identified as site 1 has a complicated history some of which is shared with site 2 and site 3. In summary, the position is as follows. A duly made objection to SALP on behalf of HHLtd related to 2.6ha of the 3ha field to the north of the centre of Fisherton which now accommodates site 1 and part of site 2. At a special meeting of the Planning Committee, held in August 2003, SAC decided that housing there would involve an excessive and inappropriate scale of development when compared to the size of the existing village. In March 2004, a further special meeting of the Planning Committee approved, as part of the Schedule of Proposed Changes to SALP, a release of 1.4ha of land at Fisherton for residential development in accordance with policy H2B and policy H4. Figure 22 of the Schedule indicates a revised settlement boundary for Fisherton and the extent of the proposed release. In response to this, the National Trust for Scotland (1033) and Mr Morton (1103) advised that the parcel of land proposed for residential development (site 1 and part of site 2) formed part of a larger area (which includes site 3) which is the subject of a Conservation Agreement between the Trust and Mr Morton. Signed in 1972, and legally binding on all successors in title, the aim is to protect the area which it covers from development and conserve it as open space, farmlands, woodland or recreational grounds. 1.4 In June 2004, in the circumstances as then known to them, the Planning Committee concluded that, given the legal impediment, site 1 was unlikely to come forward for development and, consequently, it should be classed as ineffective. Accordingly, in a Further Proposed Change to SALP they deleted the residential allocation, again amended the settlement boundary, and included the 1.4ha of land as part of the Rural Protection Area covered by the Scenic Area policy designation. In a letter dated November 2004, HHLtd sought the reallocation of the 1.4ha (site 1) for residential development including an element of affordable housing. At the end of February 2005 an application was submitted by the owner of the land to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland seeking a discharge of the burden in the Conservation Agreement.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of sites 1, 2 and 3 for housing, and the removal of the housing allocation in SALP from site 4.

3. SUMMARY OF CASES FOR THE OBJECTORS

SALP7 7.123 Fisherton & Dunure

Site 1 (Fisherton)

3.1 On behalf of HHLtd it was stated that the site should be identified under policy H2B for housing. An indicative layout showed how the site might be developed in roughly equal parts for general and affordable housing, and how the remainder of the 3ha field to the north of the objection site might be used for a landscape buffer and amenity space. Ayrshire Housing had confirmed, in a letter dated November 2004, that they would welcome the opportunity to participate in a joint development.

3.2 There were no insuperable difficulties relating to the provision of drainage and water even for a number of houses greater than the 35 now proposed; and there were no constraints imposed by the physical characteristics of the site. There was adequate capacity at the local primary and secondary schools. Access to the site would be taken from the A719 and pedestrian access would be provided along that road to the rest of the village. The objectors‟ landscape witness had undertaken an analysis which fully supported SAC‟s assessment in the published SALP. Site 1 should not be included within the Scenic Area because it was neither of a sensitive landscape character nor of high scenic quality. The site was well able to accommodate residential development without detrimental impacts on either the character or landscape setting of Fisherton; and the scheme proposed by HHLtd would enhance the existing settlement by providing a better defined edge and integration with the surrounding area.

3.3 Walking and cycling infrastructure would be available sufficient to meet the requirements of NPPG17. The local shop and school were accessible. For some of the longer trips cycling and public transport were realistic alternatives to the private motor car. The objection site was well related to existing public transport links; and no road safety or capacity issues would arise as a consequence of the residential development proposed.

3.4 It was submitted that it was crucial to recognise that SAC would have included site 1 within the settlement as an area to which policy H2B would apply were it not for the burden in the Conservation Agreement. SAC had accepted at the inquiry that the site met the requirements of ASP policy G8. In a letter dated March 2005, SAC had written that if there were to be a change of circumstance such that the constraint of the legal agreement were no longer to apply to the site then, subject to other relevant considerations, they might regard the site as an appropriate and effective housing development site. It was further submitted that, if the application to the Lands Tribunal were to be successful, site 1 would be regarded properly as effective. On the other hand, even if the site were to be judged ineffective in consequence of the legal impediment, it could be covered by policy H4. Alternatively, it could be included as a policy H2B site subject to the caveat that, although it was ineffective at present, that was only by reason of the burden in the Conservation Agreement. By the time SALP was adopted the decision of the Lands Tribunal should be available and the matter settled.

Site 2 (Fisherton)

3.5 It was stated in written submissions, that the objectors would be willing to pay for, and lay, a new waste water/sewage pipe. That would connect the existing houses, the primary school, and the houses on Station Road and it would continue down to Dunure. The integration into the landscape of the small development that the objectors had in mind would not be an insurmountable problem even in this sensitive coastal area. Indeed, it could be an asset to the local community. Access to the site could be taken from Fisherton Place.

SALP7 7.124 Fisherton & Dunure

Site 3 (Fisherton)

3.6 It was suggested that the merits of this site should be considered because there was a shortage of suitable housing land in Fisherton and Dunure.

Site 4 (Dunure)

3.7 This site was steeply sloping and its use for housing would require the creation of costly development platforms, thereby placing its viability in doubt. Ayrshire Housing, in their letter dated November 2004, had confirmed that the former Carrick Housing Association had participated in a feasibility study which showed that the site “was beyond economic development due to the severe slope”. There had been no other developer interest since at least 1990. There was no evidence that economic considerations relating to the development of the site had changed since the completion of the feasibility study in 1994. Subject to the relaxation of the title burden, site 1 was a more realistic opportunity than site 4 for the delivery of much needed affordable housing.

3.8 Arran View was heavily used for on street parking and that reduced reducing its effective width to 3m. Its footpaths were not uniform and, at some stretches, they were only 1m wide. Access to a development on the objection site could not be provided to a standard which met the requirements currently applied by SAC; increased traffic would have a deleterious impact on the amenity of residents on Arran View; and poor visibility at the junction of Kennedy Drive and Station Road represented a hazard to both road traffic and to pedestrians.

4. SUMMARY OF CASES FOR SAC

Site 1 (Fisherton)

4.1 The initial proposal to develop 2.6 ha of the 3ha field for housing was clearly excessive. However, bearing in mind the lack of alternative sites in, or in the vicinity of, Fisherton, part of the field could form the northern extent of a smaller scale residential allocation all within a suitably drawn settlement boundary. This approach would provide an opportunity for limited growth of the settlement and the development of affordable housing within the Fisherton and Dunure area. Following discussions in October 2003 it had been agreed with the objector that 1.4ha of the 2.6ha originally suggested could accommodate a limited number of dwellings. By including the objection site in the Schedule of Proposed Changes approved in March 2004, SAC had borne in mind that in allocating land for residential development, they must be confident that the site was effective and likely to be built out within the SALP period.

4.2 SAC considered that the Conservation Agreement was a relevant material planning consideration and represented a significant legal impediment to any development at the objection site. In the light of the information available to them, SAC had concluded that they were bound to delete the proposed allocation of land for residential development because it could not be described properly as effective. However, there was merit in retaining Fisherton as a settlement. The revised settlement boundary was defensible and easily recognisable and it marked the break between the built up area of the village and the adjacent countryside. Site

SALP7 7.125 Fisherton & Dunure

1 should continue to be covered by the Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area policy designations.

4.3 SAC acknowledged that site 1 could accommodate up to 35 new residential units; and, in principle, it was accepted that it could be serviced adequately with water and drainage. There was a need for affordable housing in the Fisherton/Dunure area; and a search for alternative sites in the vicinity had not revealed a suitable alternative. However, bus services were infrequent and likely to change to a demand response regime in the evenings. There was now a planning application for development south of the objection site which, if approved, would leave the proposed footpath along the A917 as the only formal pedestrian link from the site to the existing built up area of Fisherton (04/01703/OUT).

4.4 It was submitted that the critical point was whether a site which was not effective should be included within SALP policy H2B. The lifting of the constraint represented by the Conservation Agreement required a decision from the Lands Tribunal. On the information available, a decision might be forthcoming before the end of 2005. If the burden were to be lifted then SAC would have regard to that when considering the merits of site 1 for housing.

Site 2 (Fisherton)

4.5 At its meeting in June 2004, the Planning Committee had deleted the proposed residential development on site 1. However, they considered that there was merit in retaining a settlement boundary drawn along the rear of the properties on Fisherton Avenue and Ayr Road. The portion of site 2 that extended south of that boundary included the vacant buildings; the northern portion (which overlapped into site 1) lay outwith the settlement boundary now proposed for Fisherton. Proposals for residential development within the settlement boundary could be assessed under the relevant suite of policies within SALP. An application in outline for residential development on the land currently occupied by the vacant buildings was before the council for determination (04/01703/OUT).

Site 3 (Fisherton)

4.6 Allocation of the objection site for housing would run contrary to the relevant provisions of ASP; it had been consistently regarded as being a part of the countryside; and it merited inclusion within the Rural Protection Area and as part of the Scenic Area. The site was not well-contained; housing would be prominent in the landscape, and it might lead to pressure for further unwarranted development of the adjacent countryside. Site 3 was part of the larger area of land that was subject to the Conservation Agreement. That would not permit residential development and, consequently, it was not effective in ownership or land use terms.

Site 4 (Dunure)

4.7 Site 4 represented an opportunity to provide new housing within Dunure. It had been included as part of the established land supply since 1990 with a capacity to accommodate 10 residential units. The approved Housing Land Audit noted that it was not expected that the site would come forward for development before 2010. Although the site was not effective now there was no insuperable obstacle to its becoming effective in the future. The existing access road at Arran View was adopted and maintained by SAC, and it provided an adequate

SALP7 7.126 Fisherton & Dunure

link to the surrounding network. Although the land was steeply sloping, the topography was not a fatal impediment and there was no technical evidence to suggest that the site could not be developed for housing.

4.8 It was submitted that, unlike greenfield sites identified under SALP policy H2B, policy H4 sites did not require to be effective. The site might have been beyond economic development a decade before. However, land values had increased considerably since then, and a development proposed in current circumstances might be economically viable.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). Site 1, part of site 2, and site 3 cannot be considered to be effective because these parcels of land are covered by the adverse title condition in the Conservation Agreement. Site 1 is not constrained by any other of the 7 factors. We do not have sufficient information to reach a fully informed view on site 2 or on site 3. Following our site inspection, we are in no doubt that topography runs against the easy development of site 4, and the access arrangements to any housing there would be far from ideal. When we take these deficiencies into account together with the fact that apparently site 4 has not attracted serious developer interest for at least the last 15 years, we cannot consider it to be effective and able to make a contribution to the 5 year land supply. Indeed, when we take a longer view, we have such serious reservations that we consider that site 4 should be removed from the established land supply. The capacities estimated for site 1 (35 houses), and for site 4 (10 houses) appear reasonable. Based on densities in the vicinity, we believe that it might be possible to develop one house on that portion of the site which does not overlap with site 1. We have insufficient information to form a view on the capacity of site 3. Because, at the time of the inquiry, the Conservation Agreement remains in place, we cannot speculate on the likely delivery of housing on site 1, or site 2, or site 3.

5.3 In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the objection sites (with the exception of the southern portion of site 2) are all identified as falling within the Raised Beach Coast Landscape Character Area. SDD Circular 24/1985 does not apply in this case, but many of the principles it contains are relevant, in particular, maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, and preventing coalescence. In this case, there are no issues of coalescence.

5.4 The existing northern limit to the built up area of Fisherton is uneven and a fenceline does not form a readily defensible physical boundary. As proposed, the northern boundary

SALP7 7.127 Fisherton & Dunure

to site 1 would be no more than a line across a field; and we cannot accept that, by itself, that would amount to a defensible boundary for the settlement. However, the Ladywell Burn to the north, the trees to the west which run along the line of the dismantled railway line, and the A719 to the east can all be regarded as defensible. A scheme for landscaping and structural planting in tune with the mature trees to the west and covering all of the rest of the 3ha field, which we were told is in the control of HHLtd, would serve to maintain the identity of Fisherton in the long term. This could be reinforced by establishing an entrance to the village along the lines proposed by HHLtd. Were all this to be achieved, it would be sufficient to permit, in a village of this size, the settlement boundary to be drawn along what was described at the inquiry as a natural fault line. The southern limit of site 2 is within the proposed settlement boundary but its northern limit extends into site 1. The southern limit of site 3 is no more than a fenceline beyond which is further open countryside. That is not a defensible boundary. Turning to site 4 at Dunure, it was obvious to us at our accompanied site inspection that the north eastern edge of the built up area had already been breached by unauthorised development without apparent difficulty. Nor were we convinced that the northern boundary of the proposed site is readily defensible.

5.5 Turning to landscape setting, the area to the north of site 1 within the 3ha field is readily visible from a number of short and long views particularly for those travelling on the A719. We can well understand why that land, and the views out over the Firth of Clyde, should be highly valued; and we consider that it is well worthy of designation within a Scenic Area. Site 1 as dealt with at the inquiry is much less sensitive. We are persuaded that, given adequate screening, it can accommodate a development on the scale proposed by HHLtd, without detriment to the landscape character of the vicinity. This remains the case even taking into account the constraints imposed by the site being within the Raised Beach Landscape Character Area. Development of housing in harmony with its surroundings at site 2 would have no significant impact on the landscape setting of Fisherton. We have no evidence on site 3 to persuade us that the screening proposed for site 1 could have a comparable beneficial impact. As far as site 4 is concerned, we consider that, unless treated very sensitively, housing could have an adverse effect on that part of the conservation area which lies to the north west and the landscape setting of Dunure. Drawing these matters together, we believe that housing at site 2, and at site 1 as outlined by HHLtd could be accommodated within the landscape; and it would not be inconsistent with the thrust of SPP3 and PAN44.

5.6 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 against each of these we find that G, J and K do not apply; and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, there is no dispute that there is a need for affordable housing within the vicinity of Fisherton and Dunure; and the provision of around 17 affordable houses at site 1 would be of considerable local community benefit. We accept that a search has revealed that there are no alternative sites in either Fisherton or Dunure which are suitable for development on this scale. We recognise that additional new houses in this rural area would add to the number and choice in the stock; and they would help to support businesses and other facilities of benefit to, and valued by, the local community. On B, none of the sites makes use of vacant and derelict brownfield land.

5.7 Regarding C, all 4 sites can be serviced satisfactorily with water and drainage; and no other matters have been drawn to our attention that suggest that service infrastructure or considerations of sustainable forms of development present insurmountable obstacles to

SALP7 7.128 Fisherton & Dunure

residential development. There is adequate capacity within the local primary and secondary schools to accommodate the forecast increase in their rolls. Turning to D, at the time of our site inspection, all of the sites, including the northern portion of site 2, were in grass. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on any of the sites. When we consider E and F together, we recognise that any residential development would increase the use of the private car. However, the likely car ownership associated with 35 residential units at site 1, of which about half would be affordable homes, even when taken together with what might be accommodated at sites 2 and 3, would not add significantly to traffic flows or to problems of congestion in this vicinity. The vehicular access arrangements to site 4 are far from ideal. The sites are all close to the main Ayr to Girvan road and, within the context of rural settlements, there is sufficient in the way of bus services now, and as proposed, to persuade us that they are related adequately to existing public transport routes. We find that the development of the objection sites for housing would not be incompatible with the intentions of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.8 On H, all of site 1, part of site 2, and all of site 3 are included in the Scenic Area. The details of the field survey undertaken by SAC for the purpose of identifying the Scenic Area‟s precise boundaries were not brought to the inquiry. The Scenic Area designation covers a large area, and this is the time to review its boundaries. On the basis of our site inspection, we find that the northern part of the 3ha field is rather more sensitive than the southern part which accommodates site 1. Therefore, we can agree that, in this case, drawing the boundary of the objection site along what was referred to at the inquiry as a natural fault line can be considered to be acceptable provided that substantial structural planting is put in place to form a well defined, defensible edge. We do not believe that the release of site 1 could be resisted on the grounds of the Scenic Area designation. If site 3 is to remain outwith the settlement boundary and is not to be released for housing, we see no logic in excluding it from the Scenic Area.

5.9 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection sites would be accessible to the Core Town of Ayr, but not readily accessible to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. We note that Fisherton and Dunure are identified in CDASP as being towards the northern limit of an investment corridor. However, in light of our conclusions set out above, we consider that only sites 1 and 2 should come forward for development, subject to the caveat referred to below.

5.10 In relation to the Conservation Agreement, there appears to be no dispute between the parties that were the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to discharge the burden then site 1, site 2, and site 3 could be covered by policy H2B. We cannot delay our report to SAC until the decision of the Tribunal is available. As we understand it, if the Lands Tribunal were to decide that the burden should not be discharged then it would be open to the applicant to the Tribunal to appeal the decision. All this might take some considerable time; but it would be helpful to all parties if, throughout that, the approach of SAC to residential development at the objection sites was made clear. We recognise that SAC is faced with a very unusual set of circumstances. We suggest that a straight forward way of dealing with them is simply to include objection site 1 and site 2 within policy H2B with the caveat that it cannot be considered effective until the constraint of the Conservation Agreement has been removed. If the Lands Tribunal were to decide that the burden of the Conservation Agreement should be

SALP7 7.129 Fisherton & Dunure

discharged, and if that decision were to be reached before the adoption of SALP, then there would be no need to include the caveat.

5.11 In conclusion, subject to the final outcome of the case currently before the Lands Tribunal, we find no impediment to the allocation of site 1 and site 2 for housing. However, we find, on the evidence before us, that site 3 cannot be assessed as suitable. The combination of constraints at site 4, are sufficient to warrant its removal from SALP

5.12 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that site 1 should be allocated for housing and included within the settlement boundary and the text of policy H2B should be amended as follows:

“Fisherton

The site comprises 1.4 hectares of relatively flat land in an elevated coastal location. It is expected that the site will accommodate 35 dwellings. The development should present its main frontage to Ayr Road, from which access should also be taken. Particular attention should be given to creating a recognisable new frontage for Fisherton along the northern boundary of the site. This should include provision for landscaping and structural planting in tune with the mature trees to the west, and covering all of the remainder of the field to the north such that the identity of Fisherton would be maintained without detriment to the landscape character of the vicinity. Pedestrian and cycle access should be provided to Ayr Road and also to Fisherton Place. Building height should be sensitive to the exposed location. All new landscaping should respect the gently undulating nature of the land in the vicinity and the local microclimate. The site itself should be screened by suitably landscaped and contoured bunds.”

(ii) that site 2, including the portion of the site within the settlement boundary as now proposed by SAC, should be allocated for housing within SALP; and,

(iii) that site 4 should be deleted from the policy H4 designation in SALP and the settlement boundary of Dunure amended as deemed appropriate by SAC.

SALP7 7.130 Fisherton & Dunure

7.20 LOANS

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 133 and 399 Written submissions

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Loans is a compact settlement located just to the east of Troon on the A759. Historically, development has been focussed on the area to the north of the junction between Main Street (A759) and Dundonald Road. To the north, west and south of Loans, there is countryside. To the east, there is the A78 with countryside and hills beyond. Between 1991 and 2001, the population of Loans grew from 436 people to 701 people, an increase of some 61%. More recently, there has been further housebuilding in the village, which has been located along its eastern edge, in the area leading up to the A78. The village provides a number of local facilities for residents. Additional facilities are available in Troon and Barassie (including 2 railway stations), and in the centre of Ayr, which lies over 10km away. At its narrowest, Loans is separated from Troon by a distance of only around 250m.

1.2 The 2 sites under consideration lie to the north of the village, and they can be described as follows:

Site 1 (North of Seaview Terrace) extends to around 1.4ha and comprises a corner of a field to the north west of the junction between Main Street and Seaview Terrace. The southern and eastern edges of the site are formed by hedging. There are houses on the opposite sides of both roads. The site itself is essentially rectangular in shape and flat. It comprises grade 3.1 agricultural land.

Site 2 (Robertloan Farm) extends to around 2ha and comprises fields located between the A78 to the east and Main Street to the west. To the north of the site, at its narrowest part, there is a single house with some mature trees in the vicinity. To the south, there is a recent housing development, which is separated from the site by a hedge and some planting. Along the eastern boundary, there is a hedge. The site is essentially triangular in shape, and it slopes down from the A78 and the northern edge of Loans towards Main Street. The objectors have identified the northernmost part of the site as an area of possible structure planting. The site comprises grade 3.1 agricultural land.

Reference was also made to land to the south and west of site 1 by Muirhead, but the exact location and extent of this site have not been identified.

1.3 In the adopted North Kyle Local Plan, the sites fall outwith the settlement boundary of Loans. Neither of the sites was identified for housing in CDSALP (published in 1999), but NET (chapter 6.1 above) was identified as a possible strategic housing release. In SALP (published in 2002), the position concerning the 2 sites remained the same. However, NET was confirmed as a strategic housing release under policy H3A. There was also an alteration

SALP7 7.131 Loans

to the settlement boundary of Loans which saw its north eastern corner extend further northwards. This change followed on from the granting of planning permission for a small development of 6 houses to the rear of Wardlaw Crescent. In 2002, outline planning permission was refused (on appeal) for housing developments on the southern part of site 2. In SAC‟s initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), they continued to resist the release of the 2 sites. CDASP (published in June 2004) includes Loans within the Core Investment Area. It identifies the village as a local community with small scale development opportunities.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of the green belt designation covering the sites, their allocation for housing, and their inclusion within the settlement boundary of Loans.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

Site 1 (North of Seaview Terrace)

3.1 SALP had missed the opportunity to define a long term defensible settlement boundary along the north western edge of Loans. In addition, the southern boundary of NET was poorly defined, and greater consideration should be given to its treatment. Loans and NET should be considered together, and SALP should seek to properly define the settlement boundaries at these locations. The southernmost portion of NET should be deleted, and the text in SALP adjusted to reduce the number of houses proposed. Site 1 should be allocated in its place as part of an amended strategic policy H3A. There should be an added requirement that the new urban boundary to Loans should be completed to form a defensible long term boundary, which defined the settlement in the same way as at NET. In this way, both the edges of NET and Loans would be safeguarded. The site at Loans would clearly “square off” the northern edge of the village. A landscaped boundary treatment would match the edge provided for the development on the other (eastern) side of Main Street. The objectors also had doubts about the deliverability of NET.

3.2 If the reconsideration of NET resulted in even less land being identified for development, the opportunity should be taken to strengthen the urban boundaries of Muirhead to the south, which could include some modest residential development with associated structure planting. The edge of Muirhead required completion, and this land could be developed for affordable housing, with the land at Loans being allocated for mainstream housing. This would allow the overall extent of new housing to be spread throughout the area. The remaining land between NET, Loans and Troon could then be safeguarded and given over to the public good for use as public parks and amenity ground. SAC referred to a wide range of policies which the release of the site would contravene. However, these policies were equally applicable to SAC‟s favoured site at NET.

Site 2 (Robertloan Farm)

3.3 SALP identified no new sites for housing in Loans. Instead, all of the land for housing had been allocated in Troon and Barassie. Loans had experienced considerable

SALP7 7.132 Loans

growth in the 1990s, and the pressure for additional development continued. There was no indication that the scale of development had overwhelmed the village. Almost every other settlement in South Ayrshire had been allocated some land for housing in SALP. To allow for no additional housing land in Loans for the period of SALP was short sighted.

3.4 The objection site represented the northernmost limit of Loans, and it would provide a defensible edge. The land beyond it was affected by noise levels arising from the A78, and there were power lines crossing it. In addition, a suitable access from Main Street could not be achieved. The area contained mature trees, and its southern boundary was a hedge which could be reinforced as part of any development of the objection site.

3.5 Dundonald Hill, to the east of the site, represented a strategic skyline. From distant viewpoints, this skyline would not be adversely affected by the further development of Loans. The A78 provided an effective eastern limit to the built up area. The highest point to the west of the A78 was already occupied by development (Stable Wynd). On the objection site, any development could be designed to avoid the local skyline. In addition, a combination of existing tree cover and further landscaping could be used to offset the visual impact on the approach to the village from the north (A759). There would be no difficulty in integrating any development with the existing modern housing in Loans, and the generally compact form of the village would be maintained. It had been some considerable time since the objection site was in full productive agricultural use.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 Neither objector made any reference to the effectiveness of the sites. SAC considered that the sites were not effective because housing development was not the sole preferred land use, and because there were uncertainties in relation to physical and infrastructure constraints. The designation of the objection sites for housing would be inconsistent with the terms of national guidance and advice, including SPP3 and PAN44. The designation of the sites as green belt was fully in accord with ASP, and their development for housing would be contrary to ASP policy G8 general principles A (maximising community benefit), B (using brownfield land), D (avoiding prime quality agricultural land) and I (respecting landscape character). In general terms, ASP directed development to existing settlements. The sites performed several of the purposes identified in ASP for the green belt (including controlling the growth of built up areas; preventing coalescence; and preserving the character of towns). SAC relied on the 2002 appeal decisions on site 2. They did not consider that there had been any change in circumstances since the decisions had been taken.

4.2 In SALP, SAC believed that they had identified an appropriate, defensible, logical, easily recognisable boundary for the northern edge of Loans. The inclusion of the sites in the green belt meant that there was a presumption against residential development. At site 1, the boundaries proposed by the objectors were arbitrary lines in a field, and were not defined on the ground in any way. No evidence had been submitted to demonstrate whether a defensible boundary could be formed. The allocation of site 1 for housing could lead to unwarranted pressure for additional residential development to the north and west of the site. At site 2, the settlement boundary proposed in SALP was formed by the existing landscaping at Stable Wynd and Wardlaw Crescent. In SAC‟s green belt surveys, site 1 had been identified as “highly vulnerable” and “highly sensitive”, and site 2 as “vulnerable” and “sensitive”. SAC believed that the case for including these sites in the green belt was increased once account

SALP7 7.133 Loans

was taken of the results of the surveys for the adjacent parcels of land. The green belt boundary proposed at this location would be continuous, would have a degree of permanence, and would provide stability and endurance.

4.3 The allocation of these sites would result in irreversible, ad-hoc development in the countryside. There would be an erosion of landscape character, and the landscape setting and appearance of Loans would be adversely affected. With particular reference to site 2, development would increase the perception of visual coalescence between Loans and Troon when travelling northwards on the A759. The proposal would also constitute ribbon development that would not relate to the traditional built form of Loans, and it would be highly visible. Neither site could be described as a rounding off or “squaring off” of Loans.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). With regard to the factor concerning land use, we acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the sites but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. We have little information on whether the sites are subject to any physical or infrastructure constraints. In addition, we have little detail on the capacity or programming for either site. In these circumstances, we are unable to draw any conclusions on the potential effectiveness of the sites or their delivery.

5.3 The 2 sites lie in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the sites are identified as being within the Lowland Coastal Landscape Character Area, and they are close to the boundary with the Lowland Hills Landscape Character Area. The sites are within the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. SDD Circular 24/1985 is therefore of some relevance in this case, in particular, those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above).

5.4 There is an issue of potential coalescence between Loans and Troon. On the western side of Loans, the gap is only around 250m. While the development of neither site would result in this distance being reduced, the development of site 1 would take the very northernmost part of Loans closer to the edge of Troon. The possible allocation of land for housing on the eastern edge of Troon, by Muirhead, could reduce the distance between the settlements. If NET is to proceed, the gap between the settlements on the northern side of Loans would reduce to around 350m. The development of both sites, particularly site 2,

SALP7 7.134 Loans

would reduce this gap, and would increase the risk of coalescence arising. However, we accept that the allocation of the 2 sites would not result in physical coalescence. There would be increased visual coalescence, but we are satisfied that this would be unlikely to have such a significantly adverse effect that it would undermine any allocation in SALP.

5.5 The physical boundaries of Loans to the north are made up of roads and a hedge reinforced by more recent planting. Neither site has a more appropriate and defensible boundary. In the case of site 1, the boundaries amount to no more than lines drawn across a field. For site 2, the northern boundary comprises the southern edge of an existing property. No details of the boundary treatments for site 1 have been provided. While structure planting may be intended, there is nothing before us which justifies an exception to our general view that it would be better if such planting reinforced an existing physical boundary rather than seeking to create a new one. At site 2, an area of possible structure planting has been indicated in the northernmost part of the site, which is the shortest boundary. In time, such planting could develop into a defensible boundary. However, if both sites 1 and 2 are developed up to their remaining limits, including the A78 and A759 on site 2, we are not satisfied that the existing identity of Loans could be properly maintained. It has also not been shown that an appropriate boundary which maintained the identity of the existing settlement, could be provided for the area to the east of Troon by Muirhead.

5.6 While sites 1 and 2 and the area to the east of Troon are not used for countryside recreation, they contribute passively to the countryside scene at this location for people living on the edge of Troon and Loans, and those using the main and local roads in the vicinity. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting the 2 proposals.

5.7 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the findings the study made in relation to the “vulnerability” and “sensitivity” of the sites. The sites sit in open countryside which if NET proceeds, would be substantially reduced in size. Our site inspections of the area showed that the 2 sites are visible from many viewpoints. Both sites contribute to the landscape setting of Loans and their importance will increase should NET be developed. Site 1 forms part of a significantly larger area and, even with boundary treatments, could lead to pressure for further development. Any benefit that may arise from “squaring off” Loans would be offset by ill defined development in the corner of a largely flat open field. As outlined in chapter 6.1, we can see no advantage in omitting the southernmost part of NET and allocating site 1 for housing in its place. We are also not persuaded that there would be any significant advantage in further reducing the area of NET and releasing other land in the locality. Indeed, the wider benefits that could potentially arise from promoting a major strategic housing land release could be lost. The development of site 2 would extend the existing strand of development on the eastern side of the A759 substantially further north out of Loans. To all intents and purposes, it would constitute ribbon development. While it may be possible to avoid the breaching of the “strategic skyline”, the slope on site would increase the prominence of any development. We acknowledge that both developments would largely be seen within the context of existing housing, and we are not persuaded that the constraints imposed by the Lowland Coast Landscape Character Area would significantly inhibit the development of the sites. However, neither site could be described as a natural extension of the existing built up area of Loans, and we have concerns about whether an appropriate landscape framework and a satisfactory landscape fit could be achieved. As such, we do not consider that the 2 proposals would satisfy the broad terms of

SALP7 7.135 Loans

PAN44 or SPP3. Overall, we believe that the 2 proposals could significantly erode the landscape setting of Loans, and have a significantly adverse effect on landscape character.

5.8 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles (A-K) which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that G and K do not appear to apply, and all relevant matters in H and I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available in a small settlement, and that additional households would help support businesses and other facilities of benefit to, and valued by, the local community. However, the recent housebuilding in Loans has changed the village‟s morphology and its internal structure. With this in mind, we are concerned that any further development in Loans would not pay adequate regard to the cumulative impact of a succession of developments over time. We therefore consider that the allocation of either site for housing would be inappropriate at this time. On B, the sites are greenfield and neither would make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Regarding C, we have insufficient information to make an informed judgement on either site. Turning to D, while we acknowledge that the sites are classified as grade 3.1 quality agricultural land, it does not appear that they are in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on either of the sites.

5.9 In relation to E and F, we note that there are 2 railway stations in the wider area (at Troon and Barassie). We are also aware from other sessions of the inquiry that Loans is served by buses and that the bus routes go past the sites. We are satisfied that the sites are related adequately to public transport provision. It is not clear from the submissions how integration would be achieved with the village and wider area through the provision of cycle and pedestrian links. These matters notwithstanding, we recognise that any residential development at Loans would inevitably increase the use of the private car. While both sites appear reasonably well located for the strategic road network, we have no details on the vehicular access arrangements proposed for either site or their potential effects on the local roads. If vehicular access can be achieved satisfactorily, the development of either site for housing would not be incompatible with the underlying intentions of NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17. Turning to J, it is not clear that the sites have satisfied this general principle in full.

5.10 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The purpose relating to Prestwick Airport is not relevant in this case. The greenfield nature of the sites and their location mean that they serve to control the growth of the built-up area and complement the process of urban renewal. They also serve to preserve the character of Loans. We believe that they have an important role to play in maintaining the gap between Loans and Troon, particularly if NET is developed.

5.11 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection sites would be reasonably accessible to the core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. They would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that Loans is identified as a community with small scale development opportunities. Such communities are seen as being affected by a range of constraints, mostly related to their historic importance or landscape setting. Taking this together with the conclusions set out above and the prospect of

SALP7 7.136 Loans

large scale development in the immediate vicinity, reinforces us in our view that that this is an inappropriate time to bring forward new sites on the edge of the village. In addition, we do not consider that the development of either site would respect the setting or character of Loans. As such, we do not believe that they represent appropriate residential development opportunities. In considering future possible development opportunities in the village, we believe that it would be important to seek to maintain the gap between Loans and Troon, including that which would remain should NET proceed.

5.12 In conclusion, given the recent expansion of Loans, neither site 1 (North of Seaview Terrace) nor site 2 (Robertloan Farm) should be allocated for housing at this time. We have concerns about the adverse impact development would have on landscape setting and landscape character, and the potential for coalescence. For site 1 and the land on the eastern edge of Troon, there are further concerns about the defensibility of the boundaries. In coming to our conclusions, we have taken into account the possibility of NET being developed. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that the proposals put forward for the 2 sites would be consistent with ASP, CDASP or national guidance and advice.

5.13 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that no change be made to SALP in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.137 Loans

7.21 MAIDENS

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 1, 361, 446 and 476 Metropolis Developments Ltd Malin Housing Association (Written submissions) Objecting to: Policies H2 and H4 Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Maidens is a village of some 441 residents (Census 2001) located at the southern end of Maidenhead Bay about 3km miles north of Turnberry, 8km west of Maybole, and 20km south west of Ayr. Between 1893 and 1902, the Ailsa Shipyard conducted its business at a site to the west of the current built up area; and at our site inspection we noted vestiges of former uses including a disused slipway. Although the former manager‟s substantial house overlooks that land, it is now included within the settlement boundary of Maidens as 47 Harbour Road (also known as The Knowes). The settlement boundary follows the garden area of that property which is defined by fencing largely in a poor state of repair.

1.2 Developments in the mid and late twentieth century altered considerably the structure and morphology of Maidens as it evolved from a fishing village and relatively remote haven for artists and others to a popular holiday resort and retirement area. An extensive finger of housing emerged and access for most was taken from Ardlochan Road; the Redgates caravan sites were developed with static and touring pitches; and the Malin Court Hotel and Residential Home was opened in 1980. The core of the settlement is now around Harbour Road. Current facilities include a local post office; a primary school, 2 small general stores, and a restaurant. Recreational facilities include a well kept bowling green. To the south west are the internationally renowned Turnberry golf courses; and to the south, on a plateau above the littoral, the remains of a former World War 2 airfield are still visible.

1.3 The objection sites can be described as follows:

Site 1 (Malin Court) is located on a plateau of land, about 4.6ha in extent, which rises to the south of the built up area of Maidens. The Malin Court Hotel and Residential Home, its car parking areas, and its pleasant garden grounds lie adjacent to the east. To the north are the rear gardens of houses with frontages on Baineshill Drive; to the south west the site is bounded by a post and wire fence beyond which is the Turnberry/Kintyre Golf Course; and to the north west is objection site 2.

Site 2 (Harbour Road) lies to the south east of Harbour Road and south west of the main built up area of Maidens. It is separated from the latter by a steep, rocky outcrop covered in a mixture of rough grass, bracken and other vegetation. Access from Maidens is taken by means of an unmade single lane track which cuts through the outcrop. Most of the objection site is situated to the south of the track and comprises sloping greenfield land covered with a mix of overgrown vegetation. At the western edge of the site are security gates beyond which is Port Murray House, a modern dwelling which overlooks Port Murray itself. The

SALP7 7.138 Maidens

objection site is bounded to the south by a post and wire fence beyond which is site 1. To the west and south west is site 3.

Site 3 (The Knowes area) is located to the west and south west of Harbour Road and to the west of the built up area of Maidens. The site extends northwards to the foreshore, westwards towards the curtilage of Port Murray House, and southwards to the track which serves Port Murray House. The land slopes down towards the west and the south west towards the Firth of Clyde. At our site inspection we noted a small derelict brick building, an area of hard standing, and parts of a disused slipway. These appear to be all that remains of the former Ailsa Shipyard. Number 47 Harbour Road is included within the objection site whose north west boundary overlaps with the settlement boundary of Maidens as identified in SALP.

Site 4 (Ardlochan Avenue) is located on the eastern perimeter of the built up area of Maidens to the south east of Ardlochan Avenue/Ardlochan Grove. With the exception of a small finger of land on its eastern boundary, it is rectangular in shape and comprises 4.5ha of generally flat, greenfield land. Although it slopes gently down towards Maidenhead Bay, it remains elevated above the houses to the west. To the north west the site is bounded by the rear gardens of properties with frontages on Ardlochan Avenue and Ardlochan Grove from which access would be taken; to the south west and, in part, the south east, it is bounded by the Redgates Caravan Park; and to the northeast and, in part, the south east, it is bounded by a post and wire field boundary beyond which is open countryside.

1.4 The development plan relevant to all of the objection sites is ASP and the Ayr County Development Plan. In the Carrick Local Plan, published in Draft in 1988 by the former Kyle and Carrick District Council, the Maidens Village Town Map identified objection sites 1, 2 and 4 as agricultural land lying in countryside outside the boundary of Maidens. The Draft was not progressed to adoption, and it was formally abandoned by SAC in February 2000. In CDSALP, objection sites 1, 2 and 3 were located outside the settlement boundary of Maidens in countryside within the Scenic Area and covered by the Rural Protection Area designation. Site 4 was within the settlement boundary and covered by policy H5. There were no changes in SALP except that site 4 is now covered by its policy H4.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the allocation of sites 1, 2 and 3 for housing, and the deletion of the housing allocation covering site 4.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

Sites 1 and 2 (Malin Court and Harbour Road)

3.1 The Malin Housing Association was the owner/operator of the facilities at Malin Court. The undeveloped land to the west of that on site 1 was surplus to their requirements, and its sale would release funds to cover the ongoing costs of running the facilities. Site 2 was owned by Metropolis Developments Ltd and could be developed jointly or separately with site 1.

SALP7 7.139 Maidens

3.2 In other settlements in South Ayrshire the boundary of the Rural Protection Area had been drawn to exclude existing housing and new housing allocations. The objection sites were sufficiently far from the sea front that they would not compromise coastal protection objectives. The sites would meet most of the objectives of ASP policy G8. In particular: they were close to the centre of Maidens and they would help to support local services thereby yielding wider community benefits. The land adjacent to site 1 was already developed; and site 2 benefited not only from an allocation in the Carrick Local Plan but also from subsequent planning permissions. Sites 1 and 2 might loosely be termed infill, and there was no derelict or brownfield site that provided a suitable alternative. Residential development would make use of available roads and other infrastructure. Access to site 2 could be achieved from Harbour Road itself; and access to site 1 could be taken directly from the A719 and then linked to site 2. Neither was suitable for agriculture; and both were reasonably close to public transport. Suitably devised schemes of development need not have a significant effect on the landscape character of the area.

3.3 The objection sites were both free of constraints and both could be developed in the short term incorporating suitable landscape treatment to provide a quality residential environment, including an element of affordable housing. The development of either, or both, of the sites could be governed by a masterplan approach. That would ensure that an appropriate scale and quality of development was delivered which addressed detailed landscape considerations and created a defensible settlement boundary.

Site 3 (The Knowes area)

3.4 It was emphasised in written submissions that the site to which the objection referred included 47 Harbour Road, the access to that, and its curtilage. For the avoidance of doubt, the area to which the objection referred was indicated on a site location plan at a scale of 1:1250 dated August 2004.

3.5 Reference was made to a site plan dated 1896 on which were to be found the location of the Ailsa shipyard and the shipyard manager‟s house (now known as The Knowes or 47 Harbour Road). These properties had always been in the same ownership, they were functionally related, and they should be considered as being contained within the same site. The Carrick Local Plan showed 47 Harbour Road (The Knowes/the former shipyard manager‟s house) and the shipyard as being one property. SALP now showed that site arbitrarily sub-divided. The house was within the settlement boundary; and that part of the objection site was still in its original use as a residence. The site could not be considered to be in an isolated coastal area; and it was not separate from Maidens in either functional or landscape terms. The substantial remains of the former Ailsa Shipyard were clearly evident; this brownfield land was properly described as vacant or derelict; and it was not in active or beneficial use.

3.6 The objectors‟ intention was to provide an additional dwelling house on a plot of which part was identified within the settlement boundary in SALP and part outside of that. It was acknowledged that access to the site from the track leading to Port Murray House was difficult, limited and restricted. However, the plot proposed for development would be accessed via another made up track which led from Harbour Road and that could be readily improved.

SALP7 7.140 Maidens

3.7 The position of the objector was summarised as follows. The settlement boundary of Maidens at this stretch was arbitrary and had no basis in land ownership, land use, or physical features. The historic boundaries of the Ailsa Shipyard were logical and related to physical features. The subdivision of a parcel of land with a long history as a unit was contrary to good planning practice and it set an unfortunate precedent. The land was brownfield and integral to the settlement of Maidens. The settlement boundary should be adjusted to include the whole of the objection site.

Site 4 (Ardlochan Avenue)

3.8 SALP had failed to provide for an adequate choice of housing in Maidens in terms of location, size and type. There had been no interest in the greenfield policy H4 site at Ardlochan Avenue. Development there would involve a major intrusion into countryside; and the site was on the periphery of the village relatively distant from existing services and facilities. It was a constrained opportunity which was clearly ineffective. In any event, it could only offer a continuation of the suburban pattern of development typical of the housing adjacent to it. Development at Ardlochan Avenue would have a greater impact on the countryside, landscape, and general environment than would occur at either site 1 or site 2. In marked contrast to these sites, site 4 could not provide clear, defensible boundaries to Maidens.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

Sites 1 and 2 (Malin Court and Harbour Road)

4.1 In drawing the settlement boundary of Maidens, SAC had been mindful of the need to guide development to appropriate locations and for the boundaries to be sustainable, defensible, logical, easily recognisable, and continuous. The rear curtilages of residences provided an appropriate settlement boundary in this vicinity, and they marked the line between the built form of Maidens and the countryside beyond.

4.2 Additional development at site 1 or site 2 would result in irreversible harm to the landscape character, setting and appearance of Maidens because: additional development on this plateau above Maidens would be prominent in the landscape; it would neither consolidate nor enhance the built form of the settlement; it would be physically and functionally separate from the rest of Maidens; it could not be readily integrated with the village; and the proposed south western boundary was not as defensible as that proposed in SALP. Residential development at site 1 could not be described properly as infill.

4.3 There was evidence of developer interest at site 2 and a history of planning permissions, but these should be accorded little weight in assessing the merits of the objections. Development there and/or at site 1 would lead to pressure for further ad hoc, incremental development in the vicinity. Assessed against the principles incorporated in ASP policy G8 the results were as follows:- A: even taking into account the contribution to funding the costs of operating the Malin Court Hotel and Residential Home, it would not maximise the opportunity for community benefit; B: the land referred to as surplus was greenfield, and residential development at either of the sites would not make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land; C: it would not maximise the use of existing infrastructure where sustainable development can be achieved; H: it would not conserve the

SALP7 7.141 Maidens

natural environment or the built heritage because part of site 2 was within the Turnberry Castle to Maidens Provisional Wildlife Site which might contain uncommon plant species; and I: development on either of site1 or site 2 would have a significant, irreversible adverse effect on the character, landscape setting and appearance of Maidens.

4.4 It was acknowledged that the proposal for site 1 could be accommodated in terms of its impact on the road network. The existing vehicular access and egress point for the hotel and residential home could be utilised for a residential development on this site. However, further work was needed to demonstrate effectiveness in terms of traffic access to site 1 and internal circulation. The site could not be considered to be effective because housing was not the preferred use. At site 2 the existing access could not serve more than 2 dwellings and any additional development would require the road to be brought up to adoptable standard. It was considered unlikely that this could be achieved economically for the size of the development envisaged. In short, any allocation of site 2 for housing within SALP would be premature.

Site 3 (The Knowes area)

4.5 It was acknowledged that the Draft Carrick Local Plan (1988) had included the former Ailsa Shipyard within the settlement boundary of Maidens; and the land to the south of the unmade access from Harbour Road had been allocated for approximately 6 houses in accordance with its policy 7. However, the Carrick Local Plan had never been adopted. It was formally abandoned in February 2000 and, accordingly, the relevant plan covering the objection site was the Ayr County Development Plan (1962). Within that, the site was shown as agricultural land located outside the boundary identified on the Maidens Village Town Map.

4.6 Industrial activities on the objection site ceased at the turn of the twentieth century. Since then, the great majority of the site had returned to a natural state through re-vegetation by indigenous shrubs and grasses. Although it was acknowledged that the former shipyard at the site was not greenfield, after careful consideration, SAC considered that it was entirely inappropriate for residential development. The site was countryside covered by the Rural Protection Area and Scenic Area designations. Development of land on the objection site would be contrary to ASP policy G8 general principles B, C, H, I, and J.

4.7 SAC had used the same methodology in the definition of Scenic Areas in South Ayrshire as had been used in ASP at the strategic level. The Coastal Strategy classified the coastal area south of Maidens as “undeveloped”. Development at this location would not be sympathetic to the form, setting and character of Maidens. The land to the east of Harbour Road was difficult of access, physically separated from the village by the large rocky mound, and functionally divorced in terms of its current land use. Further development in this location would result in irreversible, long term damage to the character, setting and appearance of the locality.

4.8 An outline planning application had been submitted by the objector (04/01718/OUT) but subsequently withdrawn. It related to the proposed construction of one dwelling adjacent to the curtilage of 47 Harbour Road and within the area of land occupied by the former shipyard. The route for vehicular and pedestrian access proposed was from Harbour Road and ran through the existing garden ground at 47 Harbour Road.

SALP7 7.142 Maidens

4.9 The settlement boundary of Maidens at this stretch was clearly defined using the curtilages of the dwelling houses at 47 Harbour Road, 43 Harbour Road and 31 Harbour Road. This boundary was appropriate, defensible and easily recognisable. Although part of the land might be considered to be brownfield, the functional relationship which once pertained between the Ailsa Shipyard and 47 Harbour Road (The Knowes/the former shipyard manager‟s house) and the rest of Maidens were now only of historical interest. The current position was that the objection site was made up of 2 entirely different elements: 47 Harbour Road and its garden ground; and the adjacent area of open undeveloped ground. There was no reason to adjust the settlement boundary of Maidens to include the whole of the objection site.

Site 4 (Ardlochan Avenue)

4.10 The land at Ardlochan Avenue was included in the Draft Carrick Local Plan (1988). In SALP, it had been included within the settlement boundary and allocated under policy H4, which related to established sites which had been included in previous plans. It was necessary to retain site 4 for housing, including an element of affordable housing, in order to assist in maintaining and enhancing the overall vitality and viability of Maidens. The allocation was consistent with ASP policies ADS3, and G1 as well as with general principles A, C, G, H, I, and J of ASP policy G8. The site was well related in scale and location to the existing form of the village; with minor exception, it was surrounded on 3 sides by defensible, built development and further housing would consolidate and enhance the built up area of Maidens. Landscaping measures could be introduced by means of a masterplan, or a development brief, or at the planning application stage, in order to ensure the creation of defensible boundaries for the remainder of the site. The development of the site would not result in pressure for incremental erosion of the countryside.

4.11 The approved Housing Land Audit 2003 noted that site 4 had been included in the established land supply since 1990. It was considered to be effective with a capacity for 25 houses and it would come forward for development in 2007. PAN38 noted that the length of time that a site had been allocated for development was not a relevant factor in the consideration of whether a site was to be deemed effective. The procedure required to secure vehicular access to the site would include third parties, but that did not render the site ineffective. The site was free of constraints on development.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

SALP7 7.143 Maidens

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). Following our site inspection we can agree that the topography and difficulties of achieving vehicular access counts heavily against the easy development of sites 2 and 3. Related to that, even if the considerable costs of horizontal and vertical realignment and upgrading on the track leading ultimately to Port Murray House could be borne, we consider it highly likely that the works would cause irreparable damage to the fragile landscape in this part of the Scenic Area. An additional difficulty at site 3 is that it accommodated the former Ailsa shipyard, and we have no evidence that this industrial use has not resulted in contamination of some part of the site. The private access at 47 Harbour Road cannot be considered to give access to site 3 considered as a whole. In the absence of further information we cannot regard either site 2 or site 3 as effective. The above constraints do not apply at site 1, and we believe that this site can be regarded as effective.

5.3 At our inspection we noted that site 4, which lies above the nearby housing, would require works to achieve adequate vehicular access. Doubts were raised at the inquiry about whether this could be achieved in a manner which would make the development economically viable; and it was acknowledged that third parties would have to be involved. Although we accept that access may not be an insuperable problem, the site has not attracted any significant developer interest for at least the last 15 years, and it is in continuing productive use for agriculture. When we take all its deficiencies into account we cannot endorse site 4 as being effective and able to make a contribution to the 5 year land supply. Indeed, when we take a longer view we have such serious reservations that we consider that it should be removed from the established land supply.

5.4 We regard the following as the maximum capacities for the sites: - site 1: 46 houses; site 2: 9 houses; and site 4: 25 houses. We have no information on which to base a judgement on site 3. Taking into account the likely adoption date for SALP (2006) and the requirement to obtain the relevant consents, we believe that site 1 would be unlikely to be in a position to deliver any houses before the end of 2007.

5.5 All 4 objection sites lie in countryside on the periphery of the built up area. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the area to the south of Maidens is identified as falling within the Raised Beach Coast Landscape Character Area, and the area to the north as falling within the Coastal Valleys with Policies Landscape Character Area. SDD Circular 24/1985 does not apply in this case, but many of the principles it contains are relevant in assessing the objection sites for development, in particular, maintaining the identity and the landscape setting of towns, and preventing coalescence. As far as the 4 sites at Maidens before us are concerned, there is no coalescence issue.

5.6 In general terms, the physical boundaries of Maidens are defined by a variety of features of varying significance, including roads, fencelines, rear gardens, and rocky outcrops. Turning to the appropriateness of the settlement boundary of Maidens as found in SALP and as proposed, the development plan relevant to all the sites under consideration is ASP and the Ayr County Development Plan. We note in passing that all 4 of the sites were included within the settlement of Maidens in the Draft Carrick Local Plan (1988). The developer interest, notably at site 2 and later at site 3, forms part of the planning history of each of these sites. However, the draft plan was abandoned 6 years ago and we are satisfied that a full review of the settlement boundary has been undertaken within the strategic context set by ASP for the purposes of SALP. As things stand, with the exception of the Malin Court

SALP7 7.144 Maidens

Hotel and Residential Home complex (which lies outside it) and site 4 (which lies within it), the settlement boundary has been drawn tightly round the existing built up area.

5.7 As far as sites 2 and 3 are concerned, we saw at our site inspection that these were separated from the built up area by the steep rocky outcrop. We consider that, with the exception of the land within the curtilage of 47 Harbour Road, both may be seen as related to, but not a part of, the village of Maidens. We have given particular attention to the boundary in the vicinity of 31 Harbour Road, 43 Harbour Road and 47 Harbour Road. With regard to the last, as a general rule, we do not regard fencelines alone to be defensible physical boundaries. However, in this case, we agree with the SAC assessment that the objection site is made up of 2 readily recognisable components: 47 Harbour Road and the obviously well maintained adjacent garden ground; and the area of rough grass and open countryside beyond. This distinction is easily recognisable on the ground; and we find that in the circumstances of this particular site that the settlement boundary has been appropriately drawn.

5.8 At site 1, we recognise that the rear gardens of the houses on Baineshill Drive follow a topographical break. However, we consider that development at this site could be described properly as part of the built up area of Maidens. It would not be any less remote from the heart of Maidens than, say, site 4. For practical purposes, the Turnberry/Kintyre golf course to the south provides what amounts to a permanent barrier to further development in that general direction. There is no such barrier at site 4 where boundaries to the north east and south east are provided only by post and wire fences beyond which is open countryside and in agricultural use. As we have noted above, and elsewhere in this report, we do not regard fencelines alone to be defensible physical boundaries; and structural planting should reinforce an existing physical boundary rather than attempt to create a new one. We are not persuaded that these difficulties can be overcome satisfactorily at site 4.

5.9 Moving on to the impact on the landscape setting and related matters, we saw at our site inspection that housing at site 1 on the flat ground overlooking Maidens would be prominent on the skyline and thus do considerable damage to the sensitive townscape and landscape in this area. Although site 2 is less prominent, similar considerations apply there. Given its topography we consider that site preparation would be likely to involve works which would compromise the existing land form. Site 3 is predominantly open space, and the vast majority is hidden from the built up area of Maidens. We have already noted our reservations about the impact of improvements to the track leading to Port Murray House. Were that access to site 2 and site 3 to be improved to adoptable standards, we are in no doubt that there would be considerable development pressure. However, the capacity of the area to assimilate new housing without unacceptable environmental damage is limited by its location within an area recognised by SAC as highly sensitive, and by its proximity to the Turnberry Lighthouse to Port Murray Site of Special Scientific Interest. As far as site 4 is concerned, we find that the substantial planting and landscaping necessary to ensure the creation of defensible boundaries for those parts of the site which look out onto open countryside would be out of keeping with the appearance of the surrounding area particularly, but not solely, as seen by those travelling south on the A719. Drawing these matters together, we believe that housing schemes on any of the objection sites would be inconsistent with the thrust of PAN44 and SPP3.

5.10 ASP policy G8 of the ASP sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 2.1 above). When we consider the

SALP7 7.145 Maidens

objection sites against each of these we find that G, H and K do not apply; and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice in Maidens, and that additional households would help to support businesses and other facilities of benefit to, and valued by, the local community. As far as site 1 is concerned, we accept that the closure in whole, or in part, of the Malin Court Hotel and Residential Home, although unlikely in the near future, would be a significant blow to the viability of the businesses which comprise the already limited service base at Maidens. However, when taken into account with all the shortcomings of the sites, we are not persuaded that the development of any one of them, as proposed by the objectors, would maximise the opportunity for community benefit. Looking at B, with the exception of parts of site 3, none of the objection sites incorporates an element of brownfield land. Regarding C, no matters have been drawn to our attention to suggest that service infrastructure constraints, including water and drainage, or considerations of sustainable forms of development, are sufficient to present an insuperable barrier to allocating sites 1 or 4 for housing. We have insufficient information to make an informed judgement on sites 2 and 3. We are not persuaded that the capacity of the local primary school would represent an insurmountable obstacle to any one of the sites.

5.11 Turning to D, it appeared at our site inspections that only site 4 is in use for agriculture. Despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on this site. When we consider E and F together, we note that there is no railway station and any residential development at Maidens would increase the use of the private car. The bus services are limited and the scheduling is obviously far from ideal for many travellers. However, given that this is a small rural settlement, there is sufficient to persuade us that the sites are related adequately to public transport provision. We find that the development of any of the 4 objection sites for housing would not be incompatible with the intentions of NPPG17 or Consultation Draft SPP17. On J, it is not clear that all of the sites have satisfied this general principle.

5.12 When we review the above findings, we conclude that, considered in the round, the proposals for housing at each of the objection sites run contrary to ASP policy G8.

5.13 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. We note that Maidens is identified in CDASP as an investment corridor. However, the objection sites would not be readily accessible to the core towns within, and to employment opportunities outside, Ayrshire. In light of the conclusions set out above, we do not consider that any of the objection sites are appropriate for development.

5.14 On an additional matter, we note in passing that an inquiry into objections made to the terms of SALP is not an appropriate forum within which to promote an intention to provide an additional house somewhere on site 3. It is open to the objectors with an interest in that matter to submit a planning application and have the merits of a single house, the proposed access to that, and any other related matters considered on their planning merits in the usual way.

5.15 In conclusion, we find that all 4 sites before us at Maidens have deficiencies which preclude us from recommending that they be allocated for housing within SALP. We also find that their allocation for that use would be inconsistent with strategic guidance.

SALP7 7.146 Maidens

5.16 We have taken account of all the other matters raised, including the outstanding planning permission for 9 houses within the settlement boundary of Maidens at the former Seabank Nursery on Shanter Road and all of the existing and putative designations, but we find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that the policy H4 allocation in SALP be removed from site 4 (south east of Ardlochan Avenue/Ardlochan Grove), and that the settlement boundary of Maidens be amended as deemed appropriate by SAC; and

(ii) that no other changes be made to SALP in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.147 Maidens

7.22 MONKTON

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 127, 389, 426 and 451 Hallam Land Management CG Property (+ written submissions)

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Monkton is a relatively compact settlement, located to the north of Prestwick and to the south of the A78 and A79. Historically, with the introduction of a small scale weaving industry, Monkton emerged as a service centre and as a transport node. Today, the village is a predominantly residential settlement, with some echoes of its past still evident, which are reflected in a part of the village being included in a Conservation Area. Monkton was formerly at a busy cross roads, but in 1972 it was by passed by the A77, and its strategic importance has subsequently reduced. To the south of Monkton, there is Prestwick Airport, and their recent histories have been closely linked. To the west, there is the recently developed Prestwick Aerospace Park, which has transformed the western edge of Monkton. To the east, there is a number of industrial uses linked to the airport (including British Aerospace). To the north, there is countryside and fields. Since 1951, the population has steadily declined and, between 1991 and 2001, it fell from 861 people to 661 people (281 households), a decline of over 20%. The village provides a number of facilities, including a primary school, local shops, a post office, a church, and a recreation ground. Further facilities are available in Prestwick, including a railway station, and the centre of Ayr, which is some 6km to the south.

1.2 Objections were lodged by 10 parties to SALP covering much of the land around Monkton. They cover a range of proposals, including housing, business and mixed uses. Of these, 4 proposals relating to business, mixed uses and housing developments have been withdrawn, including one at the inquiry, which concerned objections relating to the Kilmarnock Road sites (part of 451). In addition, the housing element of one further proposal has been withdrawn. This chapter concerns the housing proposals remaining on 4 sites. The other objections are dealt with elsewhere in the report. The sites can be described, as follows:

Site 1 (Whiteside Farm) extends to around 8.5ha, and is just beyond the easternmost edge of Monkton. The site is of an irregular shape, and comprises 2 fields under grass. It forms part of a larger area (320ha) supporting a beef herd. To the west of the site, there are cottages, a caravan storage area, an electricity sub station and fields containing the ruins of Whiteside Windmill (a category A listed building and a Scheduled Ancient Monument). To the east, there is a vacant complex formerly occupied by HMS Gannet, a farm track and fields. To the south, there is Tarbolton Road and, beyond this, an industrial area associated with Prestwick Airport. To the north, there are fields, and Macrae‟s Monument, a grade A listed building. Beyond these, there is a caravan site and a Brewer‟s Fayre and hotel (which provides roadside services for traffic on the A77 and is situated to the south of the Dutch House

SALP7 7.148 Monkton

Roundabout). The site slopes up from Tarbolton Road towards Macrae‟s Monument. It is contained by fencelines and hedges, and constitutes grade 2 agricultural land.

Site 2 (Baird Road) extends to over 2ha, and is on the easternmost edge of Monkton. It is of an irregular shape, and is a grassed open area, part of which has been fenced off. To the west of the site, there is a recently built housing development. To the east, there is an electricity sub-station, cottages and a caravan storage area. To the south, there is Tarbolton Road and, beyond this, the industrial area at Prestwick Airport referred to at site 1 above. To the north, there is the Monkton Lodge Hotel and the fields containing the Whiteside Windmill ruins. The site slopes up from Tarbolton Road towards the north. It is contained to the north and east by fencelines and hedges.

Site 3 (Tarbolton Road) extends to around 0.5ha, and is on the southern edge of the village. It is small, flat, triangular in shape, and comprises vacant land. To the west of the site, there is the ruins of St Cuthberts Church (a Scheduled Ancient Monument), its associated graveyard, and the neighbouring 2 storey manse (a listed building) and its stables, all of which lie in the Monkton Conservation Area. To the east and south of the site, there is the industrial area associated with Prestwick Airport as referred to above. To the north of the site, there is Tarbolton Road and, beyond this, housing. The site is contained by a stone wall and fenceline. Access to the site is taken from Tarbolton Road.

Site 4 (Main Street) extends to around 3ha, and is on the western and northern edges of Monkton. The main part of the site is essentially rectangular in shape. The site is flat and comprises an area of rough grassland. To the west of the site, there is the Prestwick Aerospace Park. To the east, there is Main Street and, beyond this, housing. To the south, there is a recreation ground, Monkton Primary School, and further housing which faces Station Road. To the north, there is a cottage, countryside and fields. The site sits above the Aerospace Park on top of a slope, and is separated from this use by a recently planted landscape buffer. The boundaries of the site are contained by a stone wall, mature trees, and fencelines. The site constitutes grade 2 agricultural land. Access to the site is taken from Main Street.

1.3 In the adopted Ayr and Prestwick Local Plan, the sites all lie in the green belt and were not considered suitable for private housing development. Site 3 lies within the boundaries of Monkton. None of the sites were identified for housing in CDSALP (published in 1999), but site 2 was included within the settlement boundary as an area of open space (SALP policies ENV5 and ENV6), which supported a proposed (now built) housing allocation. In SALP (published in 2002), the position concerning the 4 sites remained the same, with sites 1 and 3 being designated as part of the Rural Protection Area and site 4 being included in the green belt. In SAC‟s initial response to the objections received to SALP (August 2003), they continued to resist the release of sites 1 and 3, but indicated that the northern section of site 4 should be allocated for housing, subject to prior satisfaction of access, other highway and other infrastructure constraints. However, this was not carried through into the changes made to SALP by SAC in March 2004, or the subsequent changes. The reasons given for this were that Monkton had already experienced substantial housing growth in recent years and that clear separation between the Aerospace Park and the residents of Monkton was appropriate. CDASP (published in June 2004) includes Monkton within the Core Investment Area. The village is adjacent to Prestwick, which is identified as a Service Centre.

SALP7 7.149 Monkton

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTION(S)

2.1 In essence, the objectors seek the removal of the countryside and open space designations covering the sites, their allocation for housing and, where appropriate, their inclusion within the settlement boundary of Monkton.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

Site 1 (Whiteside Farm)

3.1 ASP identified Ayr, Prestwick and Troon as some of the settlements which would be the focus of activity and recipients of major developments. SALP directed development to defined settlements, and one of these was Monkton. If further housing sites were required, the policy framework presumed in favour of site 1. In relation to ASP policy G8, the specific local community benefits that would arise from this proposal would be defined through the masterplanning process, which would follow the site‟s allocation for housing. In terms of maximising the existing service infrastructure, neither the possible requirement for a drainage impact assessment nor the issue of the primary school‟s capacity should prevent the allocation of the site. While the site was on prime quality agricultural land, its development would not affect the viability of the farm unit. In addition, the recently completed housing development to the west had also been on prime quality agricultural land. The use of the private car would be reduced through proximity to local sources of employment and through the availability of regular public transport to Ayr, Prestwick and Troon from the centre of Monkton. With the potential for increased local employment opportunities close to Monkton, there was a possibility of further improvements to public transport services. While the setting of Macrae‟s Monument had been eroded to a degree, it was accepted that protection was required and that the setting extended further than the existing fencing. In order to achieve appropriate protection, the objectors were prepared not to develop the northern part of the site. The area‟s landscape and rural character had already been irreversibly modified through the building of HMS Gannet and the eastward extension of Monkton. SALP policies intended the consolidation and development of the former under policies AIR2, IND1 and OPP1. While not all the general principles in policy G8 were satisfied, many were.

3.2 The objection site was surrounded on 3 sides by built development. It was free of constraints. The site performed well against the effectiveness criteria, failing only the criterion relating to land use, which would be finally determined after the inquiry. It had a capacity of about 100 houses, and could be developed over a period of 2-3 years commencing in 2006. The settlement boundary should be drawn along the fenceline crossing the site, the western boundary of HMS Gannet, and Tarbolton Road. It should also follow the fenceline to the north of the area used for caravan storage. The objectors would prepare a masterplan and would be prepared to enter into an agreement (or accept a planning condition) to ensure that the northernmost part of the site would remain open not only to protect the setting of Macrae‟s Monument but to improve access to it. Current proposals to improve access to the monument via the track from Tarbolton Road were unacceptable because of possible conflict with farm activities. The site was well located in terms of the Core Investment Area identified in CDASP. Market based evidence (the rate of occupation of the recently completed housing development) indicated that Monkton was where people wished to live. The site was well placed to contribute to the implementation of the approved strategy for South Ayrshire and should be allocated for housing.

SALP7 7.150 Monkton

Site 2 (Baird Road)

3.3 Monkton was a self contained community. The objection site was adjacent to the land allocated for housing in SALP at Baird Road, and was within the settlement boundary in SALP. The policy ENV5 and policy ENV6 designations covering the site were unjustified. There was already an adequate level of existing recreational and open space provision in Monkton, with potential for improvement, and no good reason had been given in SALP for additional open space provision. The new housing did not require such a large area of open space.

3.4 The objection site should be allocated for housing. It gave an opportunity to meet wider SALP objectives, including the housing land requirement. The site would provide a serviced extension to Monkton in accordance with national guidance. The land use character of the area supported development. There were no topographical or environmental constraints, and there would be an opportunity to implement structure planting along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. There would be no adverse impacts on landscape character, and views of the windmill ruins could be protected through layout and design. The site should be allocated for housing under SALP policy H2B. It would be effective in the short term, had a capacity of around 20-25 houses, and a range of house types could be provided. It was important not to stifle choice in terms of location.

Site 3 (Tarbolton Road)

3.5 To the north and west, there was the settlement boundary of Monkton. To the south and east, the industrial uses were designated under SALP policies IND1 and AIR1. The site was vacant. The chain link fence along the southern and eastern boundaries confirmed that the site did not form an operational part of the adjacent industrial uses. The settlement boundary did not follow the stone wall referred to by SAC along the full length of Tarbolton Road. Instead, it followed a chain link fence to the rear of the adjacent church ruins. This boundary was supported by tree planting, and this treatment could be repeated at the objection site.

3.6 The allocation of the site for housing and its inclusion within the settlement boundary would not involve the loss of a significant area of industrial and business land, and it would lead to a more effective distinction between the wider industrial area and the settlement. The level of noise from the adjacent industrial use was low. The buildings nearest to Monkton were not used for manufacturing or assembly purposes, and they were separated from the site by parking and grassed areas. New housing, with noise mitigation measures put in place, had already been allowed nearby. At the objection site, the matter could be resolved through carrying out a Noise Impact Assessment as part of the planning application process. The site could be described as brownfield, and its allocation would not result in any implications for the green belt or the Rural Protection Area. The site was not large, but it could still make a modest and useful short term contribution to the housing land supply in an area of known demand. It was close to, and within easy walking distance, of the centre of Monkton, associated bus stops and the local primary school. There was a railway station at Prestwick Airport, which was less than 5 minutes drive away, and there was also an express bus service nearby.

SALP7 7.151 Monkton

Site 4 (Main Street)

3.7 The development of the objection site would help to increase the population in the village to previous levels. Monkton‟s population had declined significantly over the past 20 years, and there had been a lack of new housing opportunities over the last 10 years. This was critical given the new Aerospace Park which was expected to deliver around 1300 permanent jobs. The most appropriate location for new houses for employees would be Monkton as this would encourage sustainable travel to and from work. In addition, the population decline had to be addressed in order to protect local services and facilities, and the viability of the community. The development of the objection site would not endanger the further development of the Aerospace Park, whose boundary was already adjacent to the housing on Station Road. The objection site could have been included in the landscape buffer for the Aerospace Park, but this was considered unnecessary by SAC at the outline planning application stage. In any event, there was a policy framework supporting development at this location. There was likely to be a short term need for small scale effective housing sites until the constraints on the larger sites had been resolved. The objection site was effective, and delivery could be planned over a 2-3 year period. It had a capacity of about 40 houses. The site was within the 30mph speed limit and was next to a bus route. There would probably be 2 vehicular accesses, and a realignment of the boundary wall to achieve the required levels of visibility. A cycle and pedestrian route could be provided through the site to the primary school and Aerospace Park, and this would achieve adequate integration with the village.

3.8 The development of the Aerospace Park to the west meant that the assessments carried out under SAC‟s green belt survey were irrelevant. The site could not be regarded as having “merit” or as being “vulnerable”. It was clear that the area around Monkton was part of a continuous built up zone. The objection site did not have a clear role in preventing the coalescence of Monkton with the surrounding urban area because that had occurred already. Its development would also not noticeably expand the village. The presence of the Aerospace Park in the green belt was an anomaly. It could not be argued that the objection site (and Aerospace Park) should remain in the green belt in order to protect the land around Prestwick Airport because most of that land had now been designated as Rural Protection Area. If the Aerospace Park was removed from the green belt, then the objection site would cease to have a valuable green belt function. If the objection site was removed, the landscape buffer between the site and the Aerospace Park could function as a clear, defensible, long term boundary. The site was effectively an infill opportunity, as well as being a village extension. It would be well screened from Main Street, and it could seen that the landscape buffer was already providing significant screening of the site when viewed from the A78/A79. While there was a recognised general presumption against the development of prime agricultural land, exceptions had been made, and the development of the objection site would not affect the viability of the farm unit. The southern part of the site would be used as open space and a wildlife corridor. SAC had at one stage considered the objection site to be potentially suitable for housing. The development of the site would be consistent with national policy and advice.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC

4.1 Site 1 had been appropriately identified as lying outwith the settlement of Monkton. It was clearly a part of a wider area of agricultural land. It did not relate well to the village as it was relatively remote from services and facilities. The site provided a setting for Macrae‟s

SALP7 7.152 Monkton

Monument, which was isolated and had been renovated recently, and development would compromise views of this structure. There were now few opportunities to see the monument in its full setting. The northern part of the site, if developed, would be particularly prominent when viewed from both Monkton and the A77, and the houses could breach the skyline. Site 2 was identified not only for recreational purposes, but also to separate Monkton from the electricity sub-station and rural cottages to the east. In addition, it would allow clear views of the Whiteside Windmill ruins, which would otherwise be disrupted. The windmill was the only industrial Scheduled Ancient Monument in South Ayrshire. The exposed landscape character of the area to the north of the site would be compromised when viewed from Tarbolton Road. Development on this site would compromise the established settlement boundary to the rear of the hotel. If the area of open space was to be reduced in size, it would leave a small parcel of agricultural land which would be difficult to manage. The site enhanced the character of the residential area and safeguarded the setting of the Windmill. In making the open space allocation, SAC had followed the principles outlined in NPPG11.

4.2 Site 3 was an integral part of the wider industrial area at Monkton. Although it was vacant at present, there was no reason why it should not continue to be used in association with the industrial area. In addition, while the nearest buildings might not currently be in industrial use, that would not necessarily always be the case. SAC doubted whether a satisfactory residential environment could be created and maintained. They believed that the site had the potential to be used for industry. Incorporating it into Monkton would break a strong defensible boundary (the stone wall), which would detract from the setting and integrity of the church and manse. The site was separated from other residential uses and, if the wall was retained, it would separate the development from the settlement, and expose it to the industrial area. Tree planting would not help. The church and manse were integral parts of Monkton. Site 4 was within the statutory green belt, and this status had been confirmed through the green belt review undertaken through SALP. The site was important to the setting of Monkton and formed part of a wider area of countryside between Prestwick, Monkton and Troon. It also had a role in preventing the impression of coalescence (Monkton and Prestwick) and in controlling the growth of the urban area. The site was elevated, and development would have a serious landscape impact, particularly, as the site‟s eastern boundary comprised an attractive stone wall and a row of mature trees. In plan form, the development of the site could be seen as a rounding off of the village. The Aerospace Park had been cut into the hillside to reduce its visual impact. Development on site would be prominent in views from Station Road and the A78. If the site was to be allocated for housing, the provision of a pedestrian link though the site to the recreation ground at the southern end would be essential.

4.3 In relation to ASP policy G8, the sites proposed by the objectors would not maximise local community benefit; sites 1, 2 and 4 did not constitute vacant or derelict land; sites 1 and 4 comprised prime agricultural land; the sites would require extensive use of the private car, and site 1 did not lie on a bus route (although Monkton had a good level of bus services); sites 1 and 2 would not conserve built heritage locations, and sites 1, 2 and 4 did not respect the area‟s landscape character. The proposed allocation of these sites for housing would therefore not accord with ASP. In addition, the proposals would not accord with national guidance and advice, including SPP3, NPPG17, Consultation Draft SPP17, the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (site 1), NPPG5 (site 2), and NPPG18 (site 2).

SALP7 7.153 Monkton

4.4 The industrial areas by Monkton were primarily a consequence of the proximity of Prestwick Airport, and could not be regarded as a part of the settlement. Within this context, the settlement boundary shown in SALP was both appropriate and defensible from pressure for further incremental expansion, including along Tarbolton Road. A lot of thought had gone into the boundaries. It was accepted that Monkton could not be seen in isolation from other developments in the vicinity. However, there was no logic to the argument that the development of sites 1 and 4 could bring HMS Gannet and the Aerospace Park within the village because their character was that of military and airport related uses rather than a residential community with supporting services. The sites were not effective because housing was not the preferred land use. It was accepted that noise would not prevent the development of sites 1 and 2 for housing. However, there was some concern that site 3 could be adversely affected by noise in the future, and that the allocation of site 4 could have a constraining effect on the flexibility of the Aerospace Park. Developments of the scale proposed at sites 1, 2 and 4 would represent large increases in the size of Monkton, particularly site 1. Redevelopment and infill development opportunities could also arise in the settlement. SAC had demonstrated in clear terms that the sites were unsuitable for housing.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). With regard to the factor concerning land use, we acknowledge that, at the present time, housing is not the sole preferred land use for the sites but, as the matter is still under debate, we do not believe that it can be dismissed as an unrealistic option. While we do not have full information, sites 1, 2 and 4 do not appear to be constrained by other factors, with the possible exception of educational provision for a larger development. We accept the estimated capacity of site 1 (100 houses), site 2 (20-25 houses) and site 4 (40 houses). While the objectors believe that these sites could be developed in the short term (2006 onwards), taking into account the likely timescale for the adoption of SALP and the need to obtain planning permission, we consider that it would be unlikely that a start on site could be achieved before mid way through 2007. We do not have sufficient information on site 3 to form a view on its potential effectiveness, capacity or delivery.

5.3 Sites 1 and 4 lie in the countryside, site 2 is open space, and site 3 lies on the edge of an industrial area. While the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment identifies the general area as lying in the Ayrshire Lowlands and the Lowland Coast Landscape Character Areas, it appears that the Assessment as a whole only covers site 4, which is in the latter landscape character area at the boundary with the former. Sites 1, 2 and 4 are within the area covered by SAC‟s

SALP7 7.154 Monkton

green belt survey, and site 4 is in the proposed green belt. Notwithstanding our recommendation in chapter 3.3 that the inner boundaries of the green belt should be the A77, A78 and A79, in order to ensure consistency in the way we have dealt with greenfield sites in the area covered by the green belt survey, we have used the framework provided by SDD Circular 24/1985. In particular, we have applied those principles outlined in the Annexe which relate to maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, preventing coalescence, and providing countryside for recreation (chapter 2.1 above). Although we acknowledge that circumstances at sites 2 and 3 are different from the other sites, both are on the edge of Monkton, with the former being within the settlement and the latter a part of an industrial area (airport runway related) designated as Rural Protection Area, and we have found it helpful to consider them against the principles outlined where relevant.

5.4 In the case of Monkton, we do not consider that the development of any of the sites would result in a materially greater degree of coalescence with other settlements. We note that Monkton is already adjacent to the airport and that the airport is adjacent to Prestwick. In light of this, we are not persuaded by SAC‟s contention that the development of site 4 would result in a materially greater impression of visual coalescence between Monkton and Prestwick than exists at present. This is particularly so when account is taken of the location of site 4 on the northern side of Monkton.

5.5 The physical boundaries of Monkton are made up in the main of roads, development, and fencelines. In general terms, we do not regard fencelines as amounting, in themselves, to defensible boundaries. When the proposed open space at site 2 is combined with the existing development to the east, they provide an adequately defensible boundary to this edge of Monkton. The boundaries at site 3 (road and stone wall) and site 4 (road, stone wall and trees) are also defensible. At site 1, there is existing development of a different character which could form a reasonable settlement edge. However, we note that this affects only a part of the site, and that other parts of the proposed settlement boundary would have to be suitably treated. Site 2 would be similarly affected. At site 3, there would be a significant deterioration in the nature of the settlement boundary if it was to be moved from Tarbolton Road to a chain link fence. Such a boundary would be inappropriate even if it was supported by trees. Site 4 could provide an equally defensible settlement boundary to that existing through the recently planted landscape buffer which is required to separate Monkton from the Aerospace Park. While the northern boundary would require some further treatment to supplement the woodland that lies outwith the site, we note that this is a short boundary, which is contained to a degree by an existing cottage. Overall, with the exception of site 4, we are not satisfied that the full development of the sites or the areas highlighted as suitable for building would serve to maintain the existing identity of Monkton.

5.6 While neither site 1 nor site 4 is used for countryside recreation, they contribute passively to the countryside scene at this location for people living and working in and around Monkton, and those using the local roads in the vicinity. However, we are not satisfied that this, in itself, would justify rejecting a residential allocation in either case.

5.7 Turning to landscape setting, our reservations about the conclusions of SAC‟s green belt study are outlined in chapter 3.3, and we have therefore put little weight on the findings of the study as they relate to the “vulnerability”, “merit”, “contribution” and “sensitivity” of sites 1, 2 and 4. While to the north of the sites, there is some open countryside, there is a considerable level of development in the area, including Prestwick Airport and the related industrial uses, such as the Aerospace Park and the airport related industrial area to the east of

SALP7 7.155 Monkton

Monkton. Our site inspections showed that the 3 sites (sites 1, 2 and 4) are visible from a number of vantage points. We are satisfied that all 3 sites can be regarded as making a contribution to the landscape setting of Monkton.

5.8 While we acknowledge that the character of the area around Monkton is mixed, development of sites 1 and 2 would elongate the built up area of Monkton eastwards towards HMS Gannet. We can see no great advantage in this, as HMS Gannet clearly relates more to the airport based industrial uses to the south of Tarbolton Road rather than Monkton. The removal of these 2 green areas would also serve to merge the village with these industrial uses and HMS Gannet, and could give an impression of urban sprawl. Although keeping the northern part of site 1 free of housing would mean that development of it would probably not be visible from the A77, we are concerned that it is separated from the built up area of Monkton by cottages, other uses, and the area of open space, and that its allocation for housing would require a more significant change to the village‟s boundary (as the objectors outlined at the inquiry) than merely accommodating a new designation. At this stage, and in the absence of details which indicate otherwise, we are inclined to the view that the loss of either site 1 or site 2 would be likely to adversely affect the landscape setting of Monkton. We find site 4 to be relatively self contained. Notwithstanding its elevated position, we also consider that any development would be likely to be relatively well screened from many views, including those on the A79. From viewpoints where it could be visible, the housing would probably be seen in the context of the existing housing in the village or the much bigger building(s) on the Aerospace Park immediately to the west. Development of this site would be more consistent with the grain of the urban fabric of Monkton, and we note that there is already development on this side of Main Street. Drawing these matters together, we have concerns about whether an appropriate landscape framework, and a satisfactory landscape fit could be achieved through the development of sites 1 or 2, and we have some concern about the effects on landscape character. However, we believe that housing at site 4 could be satisfactorily accommodated within the landscape setting of Monkton, without having a significantly adverse effect on landscape character; and that it would not be inconsistent with the thrust of SPP3 and PAN44.

5.9 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles (A-K) which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that K does not appear to apply, and all relevant matters in I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, we recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice available in a small settlement, and that additional households would help support businesses and other facilities of benefit to, and valued by, the local community. Within this context, and taking into account the decline in population, we believe that there is some further scope for residential development at Monkton. This is reinforced to a degree by the rate of development on the recently completed housing site to the west of site 2. However, we would be concerned about the impact on the village of developing all 4 sites. We also note that at site 1, there is the possible additional benefit of improving public access to Macrae‟s Monument. On B, sites 1 and 4 are greenfield sites and neither would make efficient use of vacant and derelict brownfield land. Site 2 lies within the proposed settlement boundary and is dealt with under G. While site 3 is vacant and brownfield and this would count in favour of its allocation for housing, we are concerned about the substitution of a reasonable settlement boundary for an inappropriate one. We acknowledge that the settlement boundary deviates to the west of the site to incorporate the church ruins, graveyard and manse, but we believe that this is acceptable because they clearly form an integral part of the settlement.

SALP7 7.156 Monkton

5.10 Regarding C, the position concerning service infrastructure is not entirely clear, including educational provision for a larger development. Nonetheless, there was no indication that Monkton could not accommodate at least some additional housing. This remains the case even taking into account considerations of sustainable forms of development. Turning to D, while we acknowledge that sites 1 and 4 are classified as grade 2 quality agricultural land, both appear to be small parts of much larger farm units and neither seems to be in full productive use. Given this, and despite the strategic and local policy context, we do not believe that this general principle, which seeks to protect good quality agricultural land, would be sufficient on its own to undermine a housing allocation on either of the sites.

5.11 In relation to E and F, we recognise that any residential development at Monkton would inevitably increase the use of the private car. There is no indication that the local road network would be unable to cope with some further development, and the trunk road network is close by. While no details were provided it seems likely that adequate arrangements could be made for vehicular access to each site. We are satisfied that Monkton benefits from a reasonable level of bus service which links it to the main centres. Although there is no railway station at Monkton, Prestwick Station is not far away. Taking these matters together, we consider that sites 2, 3 and 4 are related adequately to public transport provision. We also believe that adequate provision could be made at these sites for pedestrian and cycle links to the village. In particular, at site 4, a good level of integration could be achieved by using the strip of ground forming the southern part of the site as a pedestrian and cycle link to both the village and to the Aerospace Park, and we accept SAC‟s view that any such link should be provided at the outset of any development. However, we note that site 1 is not on a bus route, and its very peripheral location makes it less easy to access bus services. Its location also makes this site more difficult to properly integrate with the village through the provision of pedestrian and cycle links. While we have some concerns therefore about whether the development of site 1 would meet the underlying intentions behind NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17, we are satisfied that the other proposals would broadly conform to national guidance.

5.12 Regarding G, site 2 would result in the loss of an area allocated for open space in SALP. We believe that this site not only has an open space role, but has some value in protecting the setting of this part of Monkton (along with site 1). While it is claimed that no good reason has been given in SALP for this additional open space provision in Monkton, we do not consider that this is sufficient justification to release the site for housing. SAC could have considered the possibility of drawing the settlement boundary tight to the built up area of Monkton and leaving the site as open space, but covered by a countryside designation. In relation to H, we consider that some development could be accommodated on sites 1 and 2 without having a materially adverse effect on the settings of Macrae‟s Monument and Whiteside Windmill. We do not consider that the views of these structures from Tarbolton Road to be so critical that they would prevent any development on site, and we accept that leaving the northern part of site 1 undeveloped would be sufficient to protect the setting of Macrae‟s Monument. At site 3, the stone wall alongside Tarbolton Road clearly relates to the ruins of St Cuthbert‟s Church and the manse, and we believe that any removal of this wall to facilitate a housing development would be detrimental to their setting. On J, it is not clear that all the sites have satisfied this general principle in full.

SALP7 7.157 Monkton

5.13 Although 7 purposes of the green belt are identified in ASP, they are to a large extent reflected in those identified in SDD Circular 24/1985 and in the principles covered by policy G8. The greenfield nature of sites 1 and 4, and their location, mean that they serve to control the growth of the built up area and complement the process of urban renewal. The sites, along with site 2, also serve to preserve the character of Monkton. To a degree, they also have a role in contributing to the protection of the land around Prestwick Airport. Notwithstanding the fact that these sites may fulfil some green belt purposes, we do not believe that the inner boundaries of the green belt, at this location, should be drawn too tightly as explained in chapter 3.3. We therefore do not believe that the land between Monkton and the A77, A78 and A79 should be covered by a green belt designation.

5.14 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. The objection sites would be close to, and reasonably accessible to the core towns, and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire. They would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that Prestwick, which is adjacent to Monkton, is identified as a Service Centre, where development opportunities should be anchored. However, in light of the above conclusions, we consider that only site 4 represents a reasonable development opportunity at this time. We note that a lot of the land around Monkton has been the subject of objections made to SALP for various development proposals. Although a number of these objections were withdrawn, they are indicative of the development pressure being exerted in this area. Given that the village and this area are in a “gateway” location, this pressure is likely to continue. While we believe that there is potentially scope to accommodate further development in this vicinity, and CDASP indicates the possibility of airport related development, it is important that both the character and setting of Monkton are retained. This could be achieved through a co-ordinated and properly planned approach to development in the area, based on working in partnership with all interested parties.

5.15 In conclusion, we do not consider that sites 1, 2 or 3 represent particularly suitable development opportunities for housing at this time. We are concerned about the location of site 1 (Whiteside Farm) and the ability to integrate it adequately into the village. While Monkton may be well served by open space, we believe that site 2 (Baird Road) has other related merits which justify the retention of an appropriate open space allocation in SALP. Site 3 (Tarbolton Road) is small, but we prefer the boundary proposed in SALP to the one proposed by the objectors. Overall, we consider that site 4 (northern part) (Main Street) is the only site appropriate for housing at this time. We consider it unlikely that its development for housing would affect the flexibility of airport related uses, including those that could be accommodated at the Aerospace Park, but we believe that this requires clarification. In addition, it needs to be confirmed that adequate vehicular access can be achieved. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of these matters, we consider that the allocation of this site for housing would be broadly consistent with the thrust of ASP, CDASP, and national guidance and advice.

5.16 We have taken account of all the other matters, including the fact that site 3 is on the edge of a large industrial area, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

SALP7 7.158 Monkton

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend: i) that site 4 (Main Street) be deleted from the green belt on the Proposals Map, and included in the settlement boundary for Monkton as a housing site, subject to clarification that: (1) a housing development would not affect the flexibility of the airport related uses, including those that could be accommodated at the Aerospace Park; (2) that adequate vehicular access can be achieved; and (3) that no insurmountable constraint is imposed by any relevant item in ASP policy G8, general principle J.

(ii) that policy H2B be amended by adding the following:

“Main Street - Monkton

The site comprises around 3ha of relatively flat agricultural land, which is located to the west of Main Street. It is expected that the development will contain in the region of 35-40 houses. Development will be restricted to the northern part of the site, where: (1) the stone wall and trees along the eastern boundary of the site should be retained; and (2) the existing planting to the west and north should be supplemented by further appropriate planting on site. The strip of land forming the southern part of the site should be properly laid out as a cycle and pedestrian link to the village and the Aerospace Park at the outset of the development;”

(iii) that site 2 (Baird Road) continues to be covered by an appropriate open space designation in SALP; and

(iv) that no other changes be made to SALP in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.159 Monkton

7.23 SYMINGTON

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 370, 374, 432, 490, 1003, 1005, 1007, 1008, 1013 M&M 1015, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, Dickie Homes 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1035, (Written submissions) 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1052, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1090, 1092 and 1100

Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Symington is located in gently rolling countryside some 6km east of Troon. For most of its history Symington was a small kirkton and service centre for the surrounding rural area. In the second half of the twentieth century it was developed out from its historic heart in a piecemeal fashion by the local authority, SSHA, and a number of private house builders. At our accompanied site inspection, we noted that the houses display a variety of architectural styles and a wide palette of construction materials. The conservation area covers the historic heart of the village and includes amongst its buildings: the parish church (which dates back to 1160 and was sympathetically restored in 1919) and its surrounds; the associated Hay-Boyd Memorial Hall, now the subject of restoration; numerous listed cottages on Main Street, and the Wheatsheaf Inn. The former primary school at Symington Road North is also a listed building, but it lies outside the Conservation Area. Although Symington supports a small parade of shops, these are at some distance from the other facilities which include the primary school, a public library and a medical clinic. Recreational facilities are to be found at Shaw Park which includes playing fields and a pavilion, a play park, a bowling green, and tennis courts. At our accompanied and unaccompanied site inspections, we noted that the various components of the settlement are not well linked together by the existing internal road pattern. We noted with particular concern the arrangements for pedestrians and vehicular traffic on Townend Road opposite Townend Cottage.

1.2 Outside the settlement boundary, to the north east of the Conservation Area, there is a group of houses recently developed in the vicinity of Townend Farm. For the sake of clarity, we have distinguished this development from what is variously proposed at Townend Brae, by referring to the former throughout as South Townend. This isolated development, which is suburban in character, is linked to the new roundabout at Dundonald Road by a private access road. Thereafter, pedestrians can reach the rest of Symington by way of Townend Terrace and Brewlands Crescent. At our site inspection we noted with some surprise the nature and extent of the landscaping on the western periphery of South Townend judged sufficient by the developer and SAC to provide a defensible boundary to this enclave of housing in the countryside.

SALP7 7.174 Tarbolton

1.3 We consider that the nature and extent of the current planning issues in Symington can be traced back to the mid-twentieth century. Since then, the settlement has doubled in size. The part of the settlement now covered by the Conservation Area developed organically over the centuries to form an attractive tapestry of inter-related buildings, spaces and routes. However, taking the settlement as whole, we found at our site inspections that it is now a mosaic of disjointed elements of which the former historic heart is only one. Each of the schemes built over the last 50 years or so is an interesting example of the layout and house types characteristic of the responsible developer and the period in which they were built. However, they are all suburban in ambience and appearance, and they sit uneasily one with another. Contrary to what is now recognised as good practice, there appears to have been no systematic attempt to reinforce the historic pattern of development of Symington or to promote house types which provide a realistic echo of the vernacular which is characteristic of this part of rural Ayrshire. When we add to these deficiencies, the eccentric location of the small parade of shops and the legacy of the by-pass proposed to skirt the northern edge of the settlement, we are driven to the conclusion that Symington was ill served by planned intervention in the twentieth century. Over the decade 1991 to 2001, the population of Symington fell from 1142 (428 households) to 1042 (434 households). However, the recent improvements to the A77 place Symington within commuting distance not only of Kilmarnock, Troon, Prestwick and Ayr but now also of a large part of the West Central Belt of Scotland.

1.4 The objections lodged relate to 6 sites which fall readily into 3 groups: Townend Terrace A and Townend Terrace B and Symington Mount form an element to the north, Townend Brae A and Townend Brae B form another to the west; and Symington Road North to the south east stands alone. We return to those groupings in our conclusions and recommendations. However, in order to ensure that each objection is taken fully into account, we deal with each of the 6 sites on an individual basis. We take: first, Townend Brae A (site 5) and Townend Brae B (site 4); second, Townend Terrace A (site 6) and Townend Terrace B (site 7) and Symington Mount (site 1); and third, Symington Road North (site 2). The numbering of the sites follows that used by SAC in their site clarification of 12 April 2005. An objection to the exclusion of land at Kerrix Road (site 3) from SALP was withdrawn. The sites may be described as follows.

Site 5 (Townend Brae A) and site 4 (Townend Brae B): Townend Brae A and Townend Brae B are 2 large fields, amounting to some 8.3ha, which undulate gently down from south east to north west. They are separated into roughly equal parcels by a hedgerow which runs north east to south west. At our site inspections, we noted that both fields were in use for the grazing of livestock. To the south east is a row of houses with frontages on Kerrix Road; to the north east is the built up area of Symington; to the north west, outside the settlement boundary, is the isolated development at South Townend and, to the west, there is open countryside. There is a row of mature trees along the southern site boundary with a small change in level to the paddock beyond. The access road to Townend South forms the northern boundary; and the other boundaries are formed by gappy hedges and fencing. Townend Brae B looks directly into the rear gardens of the houses on Main Street which form part of the Conservation Area.

Site 6 (Townend Terrace A) and site 7 (Townend Terrace B) and site 1 (Symington Mount): Townend Terrace A and Townend Terrace B and Symington Mount, taken together, form a continuous strip of land roughly rectangular in shape, which runs from Dundonald Road in the west to the attractive tree lined avenue which leads to Dankeith

SALP7 7.175 Tarbolton

House and which forms a strong eastern boundary to this part of Symington. Beyond the sites, the land slopes fairly steeply away to the north and north west towards the Rumbling Burn. To the south, further up the slope, the built up area of Symington straddles an elongated ridge where houses on Townend Terrace, Brewlands Drive, and Lomond View have breached the skyline creating an exposed northern edge to the settlement.

Symington Mount lies immediately north west of the modern houses at Lomond View. Townend Terrace A and Townend Terrace B lie adjacent to the land to the south allocated as policy H4 in SALP. Townend Terrace B is a small field, now apparently vacant and disused, with the remains of a hedge bisecting the site in an east/west direction. Townend Terrace A is a relatively flat parcel of land with few distinguishing features. It is bounded to the west by the hedge which runs along the line of Dundonald Road; to the south is a post and wire fence beyond which is the land covered by policy H4; to the north is a ragged hedgerow; and to the east a substantial overgrown hedgerow separates site 6 from site 7.

Site 2 (Symington Road North): The site at Symington Road North is roughly triangular in shape and comprises about 7ha of flat agricultural land. To the south lies industrial and residential property, and beyond this is the A77. There is open agricultural land to the north; and, to the west, there is the amenity and recreational open space provided by Shaw Park and a bowling green. The site is enclosed by ragged hedges and post and wire fences. At our site inspections, which took place in a period of dry weather, we saw no sign of flooding, that the ground was in grass, and that there is a substantial hedgerow which runs east to west across the site. We also noted the situation of the house known as Chalmadale and of 29 Symington Road, a modern house set in its own extensive garden grounds, both of which are accessed

1.5 In the 1990 East Kyle Local Plan parts of the group composed of site 6 and site 7 and site 1 were allocated for housing and contained within the settlement boundary of Symington. None of the other sites were allocated for housing and all lay outside the settlement boundary. In CDSALP none of the objection sites was allocated for housing and all lay outside the settlement boundary of Symington. This position was maintained in SALP. In response to objections received, SAC agreed to changes in March 2004, and site 2, site 5 and site 6 were allocated for housing and the settlement boundary was redrawn to contain them. These proposals attracted numerous further objections, the vast majority from residents of Symington. Three of these were specific to the allocation at site 2 and came from addresses nearby. While some objections to the proposed allocation of residential land in Symington are opposed to any further releases in the vicinity of the settlement boundary, the majority had various concerns about the allocations now proposed at site 5 and site 6. The owners of site 1 and site 4 objected to their exclusion from policy H2B. In CDASP (published in June 2004), Symington is included in the Core Investment Area. It is also identified as a local community with small scale development opportunities.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF OBJECTION

2.1 In essence some objectors seek the removal of sites 1 and/or site 4 from the countryside and their inclusion within a redrawn settlement boundary of Symington; other objectors oppose the allocation within SALP of one or more of sites 2, 5, and 6 for housing.

SALP7 7.176 Tarbolton

3. SUMMARY OF CASES FOR THE OBJECTORS

Non allocation of site 1 (Symington Mount)

3.1 It was stated, in written submissions, for the objectors (390), who own the land, that there was insufficient land allocated in Symington and its vicinity to meet the need for housing particularly for business and professional people requiring ready access to Prestwick, Kilmarnock and beyond. The intention was to construct around 14 large houses thereby increasing the choice available and providing a higher quality product than typically could be managed by the volume house builders known to be developing elsewhere in South Ayrshire. Large sites required the production of a masterplan and, adopting that approach, there was no guarantee that the houses planned for in Symington could be built out in the short term. Site 1 was available for almost immediate development; and housing there would be a natural extension to the existing built up area. It would be an infill between the policy H4 allocation in SALP and the avenue of trees to the north east which provided a defensible eastern boundary to the settlement. There was sufficient road capacity, a pumped sewerage connection could be provided, and social and community facilities were available. New homes would help to sustain village life and the local economy. Symington had good public transport connections; and site 1 could be appropriately landscaped and well integrated with the village with no adverse impacts.

Non allocation of site 4 (Townend Brae B) and site 7 (Townend Terrace B)

3.2 M&M stated that their indicative masterplan was the basis of their position at the inquiry. It envisaged that the recently completed housing at South Townend would be the first element of a series of phased developments to be completed in sequence. Site 6 and the land to its south would come next and it was suggested that the scheme could be related to affordable housing built at Site 7. This would be followed by development of site 5, and the plan would be finished off by development of site 4. These residential developments, taken together, would create a better balanced community within the context of the single masterplan prepared by M&M.

3.3 Site 4 should be considered along with site 5 (which was not allocated for housing in SALP) for planning purposes. The sites were surrounded on 3½ sides by development; and housing built on both sites would amount to infill. There was no discernible landscape or other distinction between them. Trees and buildings screened the site, and the only views into them were from minor roads. The SAC position in regard to site 4 seemed to focus on glimpsed views from Kerrix Road to the site, but these could be readily screened by planting. As the indicative masterplan made clear, a landscape buffer would protect the Conservation Area, and properties fronting the northern boundary would improve the setting of the modern bungalows.

3.4 Site 4 would be built out as an extension of Main Street with bungalows and 1½ storey houses which would reflect the current streetscape and traditional urban form of the village. This would relate well to the proposal for the adjacent site 5 where detached villas with areas of landscaping and open space would predominate; and the area on the northern and western borders would be suitably landscaped to protect the amenity of adjacent properties. Based on the experience at South Townend, the sites would take about 4 years to build out although this rate could be increased. The development of sites 4 and 5 together

SALP7 7.177 Tarbolton

would allow for an integrated approach to housing layout, more direct links into the core of Symington, and the definition of a logical, defensible, and easily identifiable boundary.

3.5 Transport related reasons supported the development of site 4 and site 5 together. These included: integration with pedestrian and cycle routes particularly to the nearby school and medical centre; accessibility to, and increased patronage of, bus services thereby underpinning the services to existing residents of Symington and the surrounding areas. Development of both sites would improve footway/cycleway access on a more direct route to the facilities and buses for residents at South Townend. Enhancements to the access to the A77 would further improve safety for all residents of Symington.

3.6 It was not disputed by SAC that site 4 and site 5, taken together, complied with 9 of the 11 criteria of ASP policy G8; and SAC had confirmed that site 5 complied with that policy. It was not logical to argue that part of Townend Brae (i.e. site 5) complied and part (i.e. site 4) did not. It was held to be self-evident that the entire site met identical criteria and that the whole complied with policy G8. There was no dispute that site 4 was effective.

3.7 It was indicated that it was important to assess the Symington proposals against the appropriate policy background. SALP had identified Symington as a suitable location for 210 houses. It was emphasised that the Symington contribution of 210 houses was a requirement of SALP and met the requirements of ASP. Of the 210, there were 190 now allocated to land owned by M&M (leaving a residual of 20). There was a valid consent for 55 houses on land to the south of site 6, and SAC accepted that site 6 was suitable for a further 40 houses. Although that made 95 in total, M&M intended to build only 51 houses there. SAC had identified site 5 as suitable for 95 houses. It was inappropriate to allocate land for 45 houses when SAC anticipated and required 95. If this were done then the 210 houses from Symington would be reduced to 116 or broadly one half of the 210 required. Symington had been identified as suitable in all respects (infrastructure, transportation etc.) for 210 houses. It was entirely inappropriate to allocate only about one half of that figure; and that factor was in favour of developing site 4 along with site 5 as proposed by M&M.

Allocation of site 5, site 6 and site 2 for residential development

3.8 A petition signed by 44 people resident at local addresses expressed opposition to proposed housing development and to a new village boundary at Symington. The number of houses now proposed was considered to be too great to be readily accommodated within the settlement without damage to the social cohesion of the established community. The sites would not provide a logical conclusion to Symington. Concerns were expressed about the capacity of the narrow roads and footpaths within Symington, and the road network in its immediate vicinity, to accommodate without hazard to pedestrians and those in motor vehicles the increase in traffic which would be generated by developments now proposed. Particular mention was made of problems currently experienced at the junction of Kerrix Road and Main Street, in the vicinity of Townend Cottage, and on the stretch of road leading to the Langholm Farm Shop. One objector raised the matter of planning gain and provided a menu for consideration which included upgrading of Shaw Park and its tennis courts, the pavilion, the Scout hut, the church hall, and the library, together with new build of a small sports hall and additional play areas for children.

3.9 The design, the density and the layout of the houses at South Townend were variously commented upon as being visually unattractive, resembling a local authority housing scheme;

SALP7 7.178 Tarbolton

and all were compared unfavourably with new developments elsewhere in Symington. The regime for maintenance of the landscaping and surrounds was inadequate; and there was concern that residential development at site 5 (and site 4) would be similar. The SUDS facility was considered to be sub-standard in its performance, unsightly, and a hazard for children; and a group of home owners at South Townend were concerned that traffic bound for site 5 might pass through South Townend to the hazard of residents, including children, and to the general detriment of local amenity.

3.10 Concern was expressed by those opposed to housing on site 6 about the further extension of the built up area of Symington into open countryside from which the development would be readily visible. The settlement boundary as now proposed at this stretch was considered to be neither logical nor defensible.

3.11 There were 3 objections from those particularly concerned about housing on site 2 (1003, 1008, 1090). The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the residential properties nearby; the outlook onto agricultural land would be destroyed; and the traffic generated would be noisy. Local experience suggested that neither the road network nor the sewage system could accommodate adequately the requirements of 20 houses. There were alternative sites for affordable and general needs housing elsewhere in Symington.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE FOR SAC

4.1 The current allocation of land for houses in SALP was appropriate to meet housing requirements in Symington in terms of both numbers and choice. The problem of access to the A77 would soon be resolved, and removal of this constraint would permit the settlement to be improved and consolidated by specific releases of land. Symington had a relatively well integrated footpath network leading to shops, the school and medical centre and other services; public bus services were readily accessible and their increased patronage would underpin their viability to the benefit of existing residents. There was a cycle route along the A77 Trunk Road; and there were no insurmountable constraints in terms of road capacity.

4.2 When assessed against the criteria set out in ASP policy G8 the objection sites had the following in common: B - none of the sites could be described as vacant or brownfield; C - services were available in the immediate vicinity; and there were no insurmountable infrastructure constraints; D - the sites were not prime agricultural land, and none of them represented a locally important agricultural resource; E - Symington had a range of services and facilities within walking distance of the site; F - although employment opportunities were limited, Symington was adjacent to the A77 and there were bus services to the major towns, including Glasgow; G - the sites were not identified as recreational open space; H - there were no other natural or built heritage designations affecting the sites; J - there were no known significant risks from flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion, or ground instability; K) there would be no significant specific impact on land, water, or air quality other than that associated by road traffic generated by the site. Although the sites were noted as having the above characteristics in common, there were differences between them which may be summarised as follows.

SALP7 7.179 Tarbolton

Non allocation of site 7 (Townend Terrace B) and site 1 (Symington Mount)

4.3 Site 7 was in SAC ownership, it was not proposed for release and, therefore, it could not be considered as effective for residential development. However, site 1 was located at the end of a long spur road, and it was poorly integrated with the rest of the built up area compared with other releases. When assessed against the criteria set out in policy G8, Symington Mount was not suitable for development. Although the site could not be described as derelict, it did not appear to be in use for agriculture (B); and the existing development at Lomond View to the south terminated at a former field boundary which had been reinforced by planting. Housing at site 1 would breach that recently established settlement boundary and would be an unwelcome incursion into the countryside to the north (I).

Allocation of site 6 (Townend Terrace A)

4.4 SAC stated that the character of Symington would be adversely affected if development were to reach only as far as the northern extent of the parcel of land to the south of site 6 which had extant planning permission. Allowing residential development further down the hillside to the limit now proposed by M&M would lessen that impact and permit the creation of a defensible northern boundary to Symington. A planning application had been submitted by M&M and that, including the details of house types and building densities, was under consideration by SAC

4.5 Assessed against SPP3 and policy G8, the site was suitable for development. Housing would provide a suitable setting for the settlement as viewed from the north. The area immediately to the south (within the policy H4 allocation) had an extant planning consent. It was located on the ridgeline of the hill and if development were restricted to that, it would create a bluff edge to the settlement with little opportunity to provide mitigation through landscaping. The addition of site 6 would enable development to continue down the slope, to a line which could provide a softer landscaped edge and a strong boundary for the settlement all to the benefit of the community (A). Although the site was not recreational open space and its development would not adversely affect the amenity of the settlement, it was a part of the wider countryside which was an attractive amenity in its own right. The sympathetic development of the site would improve the overall setting of the settlement when considered against the prospect of the completion of the development which already had the benefit of planning permission on land to the south. The existing properties on Townend Terrace would be affected by development on the policy H4 site and further development to the north would not increase any adverse impact that might have on them. Development at the existing policy H4 site would be detrimental to the landscape character and setting of Symington and its extension into site 6 would be preferable to development of the policy H4 site alone (G and I).

4.6 In support of SAC, M&M provided the following additional evidence. The land immediately to the south had a valid consent for 55 houses; and it was included in the established land supply as such. The origins of the planning permission could be traced back to the village expansion proposed in the 1960s and, after that, to the proposal for a by-pass for Symington. Now that the by pass was no longer an option, a preferable settlement boundary could be formed further to the north. In the March 2004 changes, site 6 had been identified by SAC as suitable for 40 houses. Accordingly, the land in the ownership of M&M (site 6 and the land to the south) was considered suitable by SAC for 95 houses.

SALP7 7.180 Tarbolton

Notwithstanding that, M&M had now submitted a detailed planning application for only 51, each of 4 and 5 bedroom houses and of a type and scale sympathetic to the vicinity and attractive to the market. The adjacent site 7 was suitable for affordable housing, and it would be possible to access that via site 6 if that were considered appropriate.

4.7 As far as landscaping was concerned, the proposed housing would not weaken the contrast between the hills, lowland pastures and the coast; and the development would not affect the skyline. The houses would not be an isolated grouping in the open landscape, and they would assist in consolidating the existing settlement pattern. Assessment of the visual impact from within the settlement and from roads and other vantage points confirmed that the proposed scale of development would respect the landscape setting of Symington. The proposed boundary to the north would be long term and defensible having regard to land form and the nature of the landscaping proposed; and the existing development to the south would benefit from the additional planting.

4.8 There was no dispute that the site was effective. Based on the experience of the 42 units built between 2002 and 2004 at South Townend, site 6 would take less than two years to build out.

Allocation of site 5 (Townend Brae A)

4.9 Assessed against the criteria set out in policy G8, site 5 was suitable for development. Housing on the site would combine the isolated development of 42 houses at South Townend with the rest of Symington. It would link the 2 elements visually, functionally, and physically by means of the proposed footpath onto Main Street. The details of house types and building densities were more suitable for a design brief, or to the assessment of a full planning application. Contrary to the fears of objectors resident at South Townend, vehicles engaged in construction at site 5 would not penetrate the existing housing scheme (A). Although the site is not recreational open space it does form part of the wider countryside. However, the access road to South Townend had compromised that amenity in the vicinity of site 5 (G). The development of the site would not affect the setting of the listed buildings on Main Street or of Townend Cottage, all of which were within the Conservation Area (H). Development at the objection site would not only clarify the relationship between the isolated group of houses at South Townend and the rest of the built up area of Symington but would also provide a logical new boundary.

Non allocation of site 4 (Townend Brae B)

4.10 It was stated that most of the development at Symington had taken place north of the Conservation Area and the land at site 4 was the last location where there was still a border between the historic village and the open agricultural land to the south west. The buffer indicated by M&M between the listed properties on Main Street and their proposed housing was inadequate for the purpose. It would leave that ground surrounded by development, and transform it from countryside to urban open space. The southward extension of development would have an obvious impact on the rural setting of Symington. The proposals for the paddock at the south eastern end of the site would leave it as an uncharacteristic parcel of greenfield surrounded by housing with no remaining relationship with the countryside beyond. It was further submitted that the pedestrian routes suggested by M&M were not within their control and, accordingly, the functional benefits to the settlement as a whole might never emerge. The field to the west of site 4 was already the subject of development

SALP7 7.181 Tarbolton

pressure and M&M‟s proposals would not provide a defensible boundary capable of adequate resistance once the important link between the historic heart of Symington and the adjacent countryside had been lost.

4.11 Assessed against the criteria set out in ASP policy G8, site 4 was not suitable for development. There would be no specific benefit for Symington in developing the site for housing. The land was in agricultural use and there was no reason why this could not continue (A). The eastern boundary of the site was adjacent to the Conservation Area. Many of the buildings were listed, including those at 33-35 Main Street and 45-51 Main Street. Site 4 formed an attractive setting for the Conservation Area and development of the site would be to the detriment of the wider area (H). The site related well to the wider countryside, and would provide a logical new boundary. If the sites now proposed for release were to be developed for housing, site 4 would be a finger of countryside extending into what was still properly be characterised as a rural village (I).

Allocation of site 2 (Symington Road North)

4.12 SAC indicated that development of site 2 for housing would be a logical extension to the built up area of Symington; it would respect the existing character of the village; and it would provide a satisfactory new settlement boundary. It would not amount to infill. The site was in an accessible location relatively well integrated into the existing footpath network and the cycle route alongside the A77. The potential impact on neighbouring properties, including the dwelling houses on Symington Road North, did not render unacceptable the principle of development at the site. While current concerns about access to the A77 from Symington were understandable, major improvements were programmed with road safety in mind.

4.13 Assessed against the criteria set out in ASP policy G8, the site was suitable for development. With the exception of some 70m along the northern boundary, the site was surrounded by development or other uses associated with the adjacent village. Agriculture at the site was problematic; and additional recreational open space was not required at this location. Business or residential uses would maximise the contribution of the site to Symington. (A and B). Development on the site would not affect the setting of the former primary school on Symington Road North, which was a listed building. There were no other natural or built heritage designations affecting the site (H). The site was well contained by existing development; and its development would respect the landscape character of Symington (I).

4.14 In support of SAC, John Dickie Homes Ltd provided the following additional evidence. The company was a locally based house builder specialising in the sensitive development of high amenity sites by building quality family housing at relatively low density. The settlement boundary of Symington should be redrawn to include the objection site and also the nearby properties which faced out onto the A77. The development of this small, self-contained area of ground would be infill; and it would not give rise to speculation about additional development in the countryside. Farming a parcel of the size of site 2 was operationally difficult not least because it was physically isolated from the rest of Helentongate Farm, which was located on the other side of the A77.

4.15 The site was readily accessible by car from the A77 without adding to the volume of traffic running through the built up area of Symington. The company had an option to

SALP7 7.182 Tarbolton

purchase the site which was well suited to the development of around 18 houses, they would be readily marketable, and the site was effective. There were no insuperable difficulties in the provision of infrastructure or any other relevant matter. The indicative layout provided for the benefit of the inquiry demonstrated that in terms of landscaping, house design and related matters, the site could made an attractive addition to the housing supply in Symington. There would be no unacceptable adverse impact either on the character of Symington as a whole or on the adjacent dwelling house at 29 Symington Road North. Vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from the former Symington Road North which used to connect with the A77, but is now a cul-de-sac. An additional pedestrian access would link the housing with the recreational facilities at Shaw Park and those beyond. A scheme of landscaping would create a well defined edge to the settlement. It was envisaged that 6 houses could be completed within 6 months of the adoption of SALP, and a further 12 within 12 months thereafter.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). Site 2 is in the ownership of SAC. They have decided that it should not be released for housing and that is sufficient to exclude it from the housing land supply. On the basis of the evidence provided for us at the inquiry, we have no reason to suppose that any of the other objection sites should not be assessed as effective. As far as site capacity is concerned, we note in passing that the densities applied as a rule of thumb by SAC to establish the number of houses which can be accommodated on the objection sites on the periphery of this rural settlement are considerably greater than we might have expected. In the circumstances as they have been explained to us, we consider that the lower densities proposed by the prospective developers are more appropriate and are to be preferred. We accept that the capacities of the objection sites are of the following order: site 1: 14; site 6: 55; site 5: 45; site 4: 45, and site 2: 18. We have no detail on site 7. For site 1 and site 6 and site 2, it would be reasonable to expect that they would be built out within 3 years of the adoption of SALP; and for sites 5 and 4 the scheme could be underway within the likely SALP period.

5.3 All of the sites lie in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the sites are identified as being within the Lowland Hills Landscape Character Area. In SALP, the sites are designated Rural Protection Area and fall outwith the area covered by SAC‟s green belt survey. While SDD Circular 24/1985 does not therefore apply in this case, many of the principles it contains are relevant, in particular, maintaining the identity and landscape

SALP7 7.183 Tarbolton

setting of towns, and preventing coalescence. In this case, there are no issues of coalescence with other settlements.

5.4 In SALP, the boundaries to the settlement of Symington are made up of roads, fencelines, hedgerows and woodland. Other than in exceptional circumstances, we do not regard fencelines as amounting, in themselves, to defensible physical boundaries. As things stand, we do not consider that any of the sites, with the single exception of site 2, can be described as having defensible boundaries such that development to their limits would retain the existing identity of Symington. Lines drawn across fields must be even less acceptable than established fencelines, and we consider that any proposed structural planting should reinforce an existing physical boundary rather than seek to create a new one. In this context, there is nothing persuasive to suggest how this deficiency might be tackled at site 1 or site 7. At our site inspection, we noted with concern the flimsy boundary treatment undertaken at South Townend. With that example in mind, we are not persuaded that what is now proposed by M&M for site 6, and for site 5, and for site 4, would be adequate for the task.

5.5 Turning to landscape setting, in the Lowland Hills Landscape Character Area isolated development is to be discouraged and consolidation of existing settlement patterns is to be encouraged. The hills and skylines in this character area are seen as particularly sensitive and all development should avoid adversely affecting them. With this in mind, we consider that the group formed by site 1 (Symington Mount), site 7 (Townend Terrace B) and site 6 (Townend Terrace A) can be distinguished from sites 5 (Townend Brae A) and site 4 (Townend Brae B) and these 2 groups can be separated from site 2 (Symington Road North).

5.6 The first group of sites (sites 1, 7 and 6) form a block of land which spills down from the crest of the ridge, which marks the current limit of the built up area of Symington. From our site inspections, we were able to confirm that the sites are visible from numerous vantage points on the nearby minor road network. While the recent history of each is different, there are 3 common factors which affect all of the sites. First, all of them, to a greater or lesser extent, would have been affected by the proposed by pass now abandoned. Second, it would appear from the orientation and arrangements on Townend Terrace, Brewlands Drive and Lomond View that their extension into the land to the north was regarded as a possibility. These 2 factors are broadly supportive of some extension of the settlement to the north. However, the third common factor is of overwhelming importance: any development onto these 3 sites or, indeed, onto the policy H4 site to which no objection has been made, would intrude into the open countryside to the significant detriment of this part of the landscape setting of Symington. We reject the notion that a further extension of housing into this part of the countryside beyond the policy H4 site would enhance the landscape setting of Symington. We are satisfied that, even with boundary treatment, there would be significant damage to the landscape setting if residential development went ahead on any one of these sites. For that reason we conclude that none of the objection sites 1, 7 or 6 should be allocated for housing in SALP.

5.7 Turning to the second group of sites (sites 4 and 5), we agree with M&M that the sites share similar landscape characteristics which encourage their consideration as a single unit. Unfortunately, the setting of the rural village of Symington has already been compromised by the private access road which leads to the isolated development at Townend South; and continuation of that process by further development at site 5 on the scale and in the style envisaged would further violate the position by the introduction of a suburban intrusion which would fracture irrevocably the landscape setting in this vicinity. Turning to site 4, we

SALP7 7.184 Tarbolton

consider that housing there would likewise be to the detriment of the landscape setting of Symington. It would diminish beyond repair the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and, within that, the setting of the listed buildings on Main Street whose rear gardens look into the site. We have noted with interest that elsewhere in SALP the Conservation Area at Crosshill extends out into the adjacent field thereby providing additional protection. While the history of Symington is different from that of Crosshill, we consider that a similar extension of the Conservation Area into site 4 is well worthy of consideration. Further, if the review of the greenbelt which we have recommended elsewhere in this report were to extend that designation to the vicinity of Symington, and given that sites 4 and 5 share the same landscape characteristics, we see the merit in taking the greenbelt as far as the western boundary of Symington as now identified in SALP. It would include both of the fields at Townbrae; and the isolated development at Townend South could be washed over in the manner advocated by SAC for Crosbie Road, Troon.

5.8 Site 2 is not readily visible by those travelling north along the A77 and development on the scale proposed would not have any significant effect on the landscape setting of Symington. Drawing all these matters together, we believe that only housing at site 2, as outlined by James Dickie Ltd, could be accommodated within the landscape setting of Symington without having an adverse effect on the area‟s landscape character; and that residential development there would not be inconsistent with the thrust of SPP3 and PAN44.

5.9 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that G and K do not apply; and all relevant matters relating to H and I have been dealt with above. In relation to A, the objections to SALP, the proposed Changes, and the subsequent objections to these, are all concerned with extensions to the existing settlement boundary. SPP3 points out that “the landscape settings of existing towns and villages must be respected, and building types should respect local architectural styles.” It explains that “attention should be given not only to the visual impact within a village or town, but also to its appearance from outside, for example from major roads, public transport routes or other vantage points.” It goes on to state that “care should be taken, particularly in smaller towns and villages, to ensure that the scale of new development is appropriate”, and that “consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of a succession of developments over time.” We recognise that new houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice in this predominantly rural settlement. An increase in the resident population over and above those who would be housed on the policy H4 site would provide a welcome increase in the revenue potentially available to local businesses and facilities without undue disruption to the existing provision of essential services. However, we have already indicated our concerns about the impact of residential development on the landscape setting of Symington and its appearance from the outside from various vantage points in long and short views. We also have reservations about the house types proposed by the objectors for some of the sites in what is still properly described as a rural village.

5.10 The addition of 210 houses as advocated by M&M would almost double the number of households. We cannot agree that development at site 1, site 7, or site 6, or site 4 or site 5, or indeed the policy H4 site, would improve the “balance” of Symington or round off the settlement in an appropriate fashion. It seems to us that the inevitable outcome of developing any of these sites would be quite the opposite. The developments would be eccentric to what is emerging as the heart of Symington in the vicinity of the primary school, the public library, the medical centre; and they would be even further from the recreational and other facilities

SALP7 7.185 Tarbolton

focussed on Shaw Park. If the objective is a more “balanced” community then land release can justified to the south east at site 2.

5.11 M&M argued at the inquiry that there is a requirement to allocate 210 houses at Symington; and that it was an entirely suitable location for that purpose with adequate infrastructure and suitable transportation links. Their position at the inquiry was underpinned by a masterplan approach. The masterplan envisaged by M&M is made up of a series of developments to be completed in sequence with site 6 (perhaps related to affordable housing at site 7) followed by site 5 and finished off by site 4. We recognise the logic behind this approach and also that the reasoning behind it is intimately related to the recently completed housing at Townend South. However, that isolated development lies well outside the settlement boundary, and we are driven to the conclusion that an enclave of 42 houses in countryside, which is only tenuously linked by its private access road to the built up area, cannot be a sound basis on which to build the allocation of future housing sites in Symington. We are in no doubt that benefits can emerge from a masterplan approach. However, the starting point for M&M is their land holdings in the area. While this is perfectly understandable we cannot agree that this is the only way forward or the one which should be preferred by SAC as planning authority. Drawing these matters together, we conclude that development at any of the objection sites, with the exception of site 2 would not maximise the opportunity for community benefit at Symington.

5.12 Taking B and D together, while none of the objection sites can be considered to be brownfield land, and we saw from our site inspections that some were in productive agricultural use, none of them were identified for us as being of prime quality or locally important. Turning to C, we see no reason why development at any of the objection sites should not be able to maximise the use of existing service infrastructure or achieve sustainable forms of development.

5.13 When we consider E and F, we recognise that any residential development at Symington will increase the use of the private car, and that improved access to the A77 will remove a constraint on development at Symington. However, we have experienced for ourselves, as pedestrians and as drivers, the road conditions within the settlement and on the network of minor roads nearby and we can understand the concerns of those who reckon that any further increase in road traffic in Symington and its vicinity would be undesirable. The internal circulation pattern of the settlement is the result of historical accident rather than the application of the skills of the professional road engineer and there is no escape from the inevitable rise in road traffic on Main Street likely to be generated from an addition of more houses built to the north and west. Our considerable concerns about road safety and the obvious hazard to pedestrians, including the old and young, in the vicinity of Townend Cottage remain unanswered. These difficulties do not apply with equal weight to the limited development proposed for site 2, which can be accessed from the A77. Although there is no railway station in Symington and the existing bus routings and interchanges are not ideal for all potential travellers, there is sufficient in the way of services to persuade us that, within the context of a rural settlement, all of the sites under consideration are related adequately to public transport provision. In the circumstances, we conclude that the development of site 2 for housing would be compatible with the intentions of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17. On J, it is not clear that all of the sites have satisfied this general principle.

5.14 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. Symington is adequately accessible to the core towns and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire,

SALP7 7.186 Tarbolton

predominantly by car. It would also be located in the Core Investment Area. We note that in CDASP Symington is identified as a local community with small scale development opportunities. While such communities are considered to be suitable for some limited further expansion, they are also seen as being affected by a range of constraints, mostly related to their historic importance or landscape setting. Putting this alongside the conclusions set out above, reinforces us in our view that no more than site 2 should be allocated for housing in SALP at Symington.

5.15 In conclusion, development at any of the objection sites, with the exception of site 2 (Symington Road North), would run contrary to ASP, CDASP, and national guidance and advice.

5.16 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that site 2 (Symington Road North) be allocated for housing under policies H2B and H4, as indicated in the Proposed Schedule of Changes to SALP; and

(ii) that site 6 (Townend Terrace A) and site 5 (Townend Brae A) be not incorporated into SALP as housing sites under policies H2B and H4, and that the settlement boundary of Symington in that vicinity be redrawn to run along the northern extension to Main Street and thus exclude the development at Townend South; and

(iii) that no other alterations be made to SALP, as changed, in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.187 Tarbolton

7.24 TARBOLTON

Representation nos: Objectors appearing at Inquiry: 30, 32, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 539 HHLtd 1001, 1101, 1012, 1030, 1037 and 1089 Mr Dalling Councillor Davis (+Written submissions) Objecting to: Policy H2B Proposals Map

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The long established settlement of Tarbolton is located on rising ground above the Water of Fail some 11km north east of Ayr. The core of the original settlement was in the vicinity of what is now Westport, Sandgate, Burn Street and Garden Street with a considerable extension south along either side of Montgomerie Street. By the mid nineteenth century, the population was around 700, and the historic street pattern was well established. The proposed Tarbolton Conservation Area contains prominent buildings dating from that period and before. These include the Plough Inn, the imposing Parish Church, and the 2 storey thatched cottage which accommodated the Bachelors Club. The various later developments sit uneasily with this historic core and betray a piecemeal approach to the provision of public and private sector housing in the twentieth century.

1.2 Viewed from a distance Tarbolton has the appearance of a small town set in a pleasant rural landscape. However, closer inspection reveals a settlement suffering from the decay of much of its physical fabric. Tarbolton now accommodates a population of around 1800 residents (733 households at the 2001 Census) who are served by a post office, a grocery store, a library, a primary school and associated playing fields. To the east, just outside the settlement boundary on Hood‟s Hill, is a motte and bailey which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. To the north is the site of Tarbolton Loch, the original home of the long established Tarbolton Curling Club, and an extensive landfill site, now the location of the Burns Trout Fishery.

1.3 In recent years, SAC has sought to promote the regeneration of Tarbolton through its Coalfields Regeneration Strategy. This comprises a range of initiatives designed to address the social, economic and physical renewal of the 3 settlements of Annbank, Mossblown, and Tarbolton. Despite what has already been accomplished, it is clear that its ultimate objectives are still some way off. We are in no doubt that Tarbolton remains a suitable case for regeneration.

1.4 Tarbolton has come under pressure from numerous sources: a decline in population over the last decade; a lack of employment opportunities consequent on a dramatic reduction in employment notably, but not exclusively, in the traditional industries of mining and quarrying; the loss of its traditional role as a service centre for the surrounding rural area due to the concentration of private and public facilities in fewer larger locations elsewhere in South Ayrshire; problems of traffic circulation with consequential difficulties for pedestrian and road traffic safety; and, not least, a history of insensitive development, and failure to

SALP7 7.188 Tarbolton

maintain some parts of the physical fabric. While the land use planning system cannot deal directly with all of the economic, social and physical challenges to be faced in Tarbolton, it has a part to play in the solution of all of them.

1.5 The objection sites can be described as follows:

Site 1 (Croft Street/Garden Street) amounts to about 3.98ha, and is roughly rectangular in shape. It lies to the north and north east of existing housing at Garden Street and Croft Street. The site slopes steeply from south to north. At our accompanied site visit, we noted that it is poorly drained towards the southern boundary. However, this appeared to be the result of surface run off following heavy rain rather than flooding from the Water of Fail which, at this part of its course, is in a relatively deep channel. To the west, there is terraced housing of modern construction some of whose gable ends face the site, and to the north of them is a piece of land allocated for housing under policy H4. To the north, the site boundary is formed by the access to a small unscreened and unsightly sewage pumping station contained by a chain link fence which extends eastwards towards the Water of Fail. To the east, the boundary is formed by a ragged hedgerow beyond which are some mature trees strung along the banks of the Water of Fail and open countryside. The southern boundary runs along a strip of woodland which screens the rear gardens of houses with frontages on Garden Street. Beyond the northern boundary is an area of marshy ground much of which has recently been the subject of infill and restoration works, and these now provide a context for the Burns Trout Fishery.

Site 2 (Ayr Road) amounts to about 4.80ha and is pentagonal in shape. It is a piece of flat land which lies to the south west of the built up area of Tarbolton. To the west, and in part to the north, the site looks out over open agricultural land; to the north east is the primary school and a group of residential properties; to the east is a commercial garage which is identified in SALP as an opportunity site but at the time of our accompanied site inspection was vacant and unsightly; and the southern boundary is formed by a hedgerow which runs along the B744 (Ayr Road).

Site 3 (Mansefield Road) amounts to about 3.01ha and is roughly rectangular in shape. It lies to the south west of the built up area of Tarbolton, and it slopes down from north to south. To the north, on the crest of the rise, are the rear gardens of the existing modern dwellings at Mansefield Road; to the west, and in marked contrast to the properties on Mansefield Road, are substantial stone built mansion houses set in their own mature garden grounds; the southern boundary of the site runs along the narrow C115 road which leads to its junction with the B744 and B730 road. It is lined with a row of beech and sycamore trees, which, although attractive, do not have the benefit of a Tree Preservation Order; to the east, the site looks out over pleasant, open, rolling countryside.

Site 4 (Westport/Croft Street) amounts to about 4.68ha and is roughly triangular in shape. It lies adjacent to the north east of the built up area of Tarbolton. In general, the site slopes down from north west to south east, and its boundaries are defined by ragged hedgerows. To the north and west, the site looks out over open countryside; to the south, there is a line of modern bungalow type houses, all in their own well maintained garden grounds with frontages on Westport; and to the east is a row of houses of mixed provenance with frontages on Croft Road.

SALP7 7.189 Tarbolton

Site 5 (Burns Street) amounts to about 0.95ha and is roughly rectangular in shape. It slopes gently down from south to north. The rear of residential properties and commercial properties with frontages on Garden Street, Burns Street, Sandgate, and Smithfield Crescent look into the site from the north, west, south and south east respectively. There are no roads which provide immediate access to the site. A motte and bailey, which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument is located 50m to the north of the site.

1.6 SALP policy STRAT1 identifies Tarbolton as one of a number of settlements to which development is to be guided in order to sustain and improve their viability and environment, and to reduce pressure for development in the open countryside. There is land allocated at Croft Street under policy H4 which can accommodate around 40 houses. However, there is no further allocation of greenfield land for housing at Tarbolton under policy H2B. This position attracted objections from local residents who identified the above 5 sites which, they stated, should be allocated for residential development in the interests of stemming de-population, revitalising the community, and encouraging new and existing enterprises to locate in Tarbolton. In response to these objections, SAC, in the Schedule of Proposed Changes, allocated site 1 for residential development under policy H2B. This allocation attracted additional objections from a number of local residents opposed, for various reasons, to the allocation of land in Tarbolton for housing and at site 1 in particular.

2. POLICIES SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS

2.1 In essence, some objectors seek the removal of the housing allocation on site 1, and others seek the release of additional housing land at Tarbolton.

3. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

3.1 The objectors to the allocation of land at site 1 (Croft Street/Garden Street) for residential development all chose to make their case by way of written submissions. Taken together their position may be summarised as follows.

3.2 The population of Tarbolton was declining, and there was no evidence of local demand for a further 100 houses. There was concern about the capacity of the settlement to accommodate, without undue disruption, the increase in population envisaged by SAC. The recent experience had not been favourable. Increased noise, drug related incidents and littering were associated with the residences of some recent in-migrants now housed in 2 housing sites dedicated to affordable housing. These persons were not considered by long standing citizens to be assets to a local community intent on the regeneration of their town of Tarbolton.

3.3 Looking to the future, a number of problems were foreseen. Refuse collection was already inadequate; medical facilities were over stretched; and the local Church of Scotland Minister would find it difficult to minister to Tarbolton and Annbank as a link charge if the number of his parishioners were to significantly increase. The primary school was operating close to capacity, and a growth in the numbers of secondary pupils would involve unnecessary expense in transporting them to and from Ayr. There were insufficient facilities for young people, and there was only an irregular police presence to deter those who choose to engage in such anti-social behaviour as loitering and underage drinking.

SALP7 7.190 Tarbolton

3.4 The experience of the objectors was that, on occasion, basic infrastructure including electricity, sewerage and water had proven inadequate and there was no mains gas supply. There were concerns about road and pedestrian safety. The roads in the vicinity of the Tarbolton area carried a variety of traffic, including farm vehicles, and they required upgrading. The network was not capable of absorbing the increase in traffic likely to be generated by the potential residents at site 1, who would commute elsewhere to work. Reference was made to 4 junctions within Tarbolton which were regarded as particularly dangerous. The proposed pedestrian route from site 1 along Garden Street was not paved and, consequently, would present a hazard to those who would choose to use that route, including young children.

3.5 Turning to site 1 itself, it was pointed out that, for houses nearby, its development would involve loss of views, a rural outlook, privacy and other particular aspects of general amenity. There was concern that the value of these properties might fall without any form of compensation being made available to their owners. The homes on the site would be close to, and many would have a view of, the local sewage pumping station and the nearby landfill site. The development could have a deleterious environmental impact on the Burns Trout Fishery and the nearby Tarbolton Moss.

4. SUMMARY OF CASE FOR SAC AND OTHERS

4.1 The SAC position was that an additional allocation at Tarbolton under SALP policy H2B would contribute to the effective housing land supply in South Ayrshire. However, it was not required in order to address the shortfall of housing land within South Ayrshire. SAC had promoted the regeneration of the communities of Annbank, Mossblown, and Tarbolton through their Coalfields Regeneration Strategy, which comprised a range of initiatives to address social, economic and physical renewal. Tarbolton was a rural settlement which, despite being only a short distance from the main road network in this part of South Ayrshire, was relatively isolated. There was no rail link, and further residential development would provide support for the existing bus services which were limited in their frequency and destinations. Within that context, it was recognised that there would be localised benefits for Tarbolton if a limited number of additional houses were to be built on a scale in keeping with its existing character.

4.2 There were no brownfield sites available within the settlement boundary for new housing on the scale envisaged. Accordingly, the search for suitable land had been extended to include each of the 5 sites referred to in the letters of objection to SALP. It was recognised at the outset that, in all probability, only one of these could be justified for release to facilitate the regeneration of the settlement. All of them were located outwith the settlement boundary as delineated in SALP; all of them were greenfield sites in countryside within the Rural Protection Area; all of them were in agricultural use, but none of them was classified as prime agricultural land; and none of them was identified as recreational or amenity open space in SALP.

4.3 SAC pointed out that the principle of housing at site 1 (Croft Street/Garden Street) had been previously accepted. However, the land had been removed from the East Kyle Local Plan because, at the date of its adoption almost 15 years before, it could not make a contribution to housing needs in the plan period. However, circumstances had changed; and

SALP7 7.191 Tarbolton

there was merit now in identifying some additional land for housing in Tarbolton. SAC considered that residential development at the site would be a logical extension to the existing built up area of Tarbolton; the site did not extend beyond the north and eastern extremities of the existing settlement boundary. Residential development would not have a significant detrimental impact either on the landscape character or on the setting of Tarbolton. Any deleterious impacts resulting from the proposed development could be mitigated by a sympathetic layout and design; and, in that context, it was recognised that careful treatment would be required at the elevated southern part of the site. The site had a capacity of around 100 dwellings programmed for completion in the period 2006-2010 at a rate of 25 per annum. There was a preference for a shared vehicular access taken through the existing housing site at Croft Street with an additional direct pedestrian access onto Garden Street.

4.4 HHLtd provided evidence in support of the allocation of the Croft Street/Garden Street site for residential development. In Tarbolton, demand for the type of housing which was intended for the site outstripped supply. In order to meet the local demand for market housing and the need for affordable housing, there was room for more than one of the objection sites to be released for immediate development. HHLtd had control of the site at Croft Street/Garden Street, and it would be cost effective to develop. The typical customer would be local, and the target market would include first time buyers, those moving from rented accommodation, and previous home owners moving from former local authority housing. HHLtd were willing to include an appropriate proportion of affordable housing on the site; and the current intention was that any identified requirement be supported by Communities Scotland via a local housing association. Alternatively low cost homes for outright purchase or shared ownership could be developed. HHLtd could work to the SAC development brief previously prepared, and they could complete the build out within 2 years of receiving detailed planning permission.

4.5 HHLtd provided an indicative site layout which showed, amongst other things, the relationship of the site to its surroundings, the extent of structural planting along the northern boundary to include the area of relatively poor drainage, the location of a proposed sustainable urban drainage system in that vicinity, and the line of the existing pedestrian access from the site to Garden Street. A series of technical papers was also made available which, amongst other things, confirmed SAC‟s evidence that the site would be effective within the SALP period. HHLtd had options to purchase the site; there were no insuperable problems in the provision of water, sewerage or other infrastructure; there were no topographical constraints and, in particular, although there was some evidence of ponding after heavy rains, the site was not susceptible to flooding from the Water of Fail; deficit funding was not an issue; nor was marketability; and the site was admirably suited to housing development. The pedestrian link between the site and Garden Street would allow access to village services and public transport.

4.6 HHLtd had conducted a landscape and visual appraisal of the site. That demonstrated that the site was visually prominent as viewed from the north by those at the Burns Trout Fishery and those travelling south on the A719 and the B730. The results of the appraisal had been incorporated into the masterplan, and this demonstrated that the site could be developed in a manner which integrated the proposed housing with the existing village form and the surrounding landscape, and provided adequate screening of the sewage works. Landscaping and planting on the northern and eastern boundaries would provide readily recognisable boundaries. Within 5 years, the proposed planting to the north would have emerged as a small woodland effectively screening the sewage works. It was acknowledged that the

SALP7 7.192 Tarbolton

eastern boundary would be less defensible, but dense planting there would be out of place and would not fit well with the landscape setting. As viewed from the north and east, grey roofed dwellings positioned on the upper portion of the site would merge with existing housing to the east and south, and round off this edge of the settlement.

4.7 At the inquiry, it was confirmed that HHLtd saw no insuperable difficulty in building out the objection site and the adjacent policy H4 site as a single integrated development. It was acknowledged that vehicular access could only be taken from the northerly section of the site which is the part most distant from the facilities in the town centre. On the other hand the residents would have relatively easy access to the bus services running along Croft Street. It was confirmed also that the sewage pumping station was sealed, it did not emit offensive odours, and the potential for catastrophic failure was negligible.

4.8 SAC stated that the following matters were raised by objectors were not relevant to the planning assessment: loss of views from existing properties; that the development would overlook a sewage pumping station/landfill site; increase in litter; the commercial aspirations of the developer; and the likely behaviour of some potential residents. SAC responses to the specific grounds of objection raised in the representations, and relevant to the planning assessment, not otherwise dealt with above, might be summarised as follows. A development of 100 houses would increase the size of the settlement by about 13% and, even when that was taken with the 45 or so which might be built on the adjacent H4 site, this was not excessive growth in a settlement the size of Tarbolton during the life of SALP; a Noise Impact Assessment would be required if it were thought necessary; educational facilities had sufficient capacity to accommodate the likely increase in numbers; and other matters of detail could be addressed more appropriately in another forum.

4.9 SAC did not consider that housing at site 2 (Ayr Road) would be a suitable extension to the current built up area. Development would have a detrimental impact on the entrance to, and the setting of, Tarbolton particularly as viewed by those travelling northwards on the B744. The proposed boundaries did not relate well to the existing form of the settlement, and there were no suitable alternatives. The only readily available access would be from the B744, and this would be a serious impediment to the integration of a new housing development with the facilities, including public transport, available to other residents of Tarbolton. The site lay adjacent to the only land available for business/industrial use. Although it was acknowledged that the land had been allocated for industry without noticeable success, SAC considered that new housing at the site would be an unwelcome constraint on its continued promotion for much needed economic development in Tarbolton.

4.10 SAC stated that, in the vicinity of site 3 (Mansefield Road), Tarbolton had a distinctive and well established form which was worthy of retention. Development of the site would alter significantly the long distance views into the settlement to the detriment of its visual character as viewed from the west by those travelling on the C115. Pedestrian links to the rest of the village might be provided via Mansefield Road. However, vehicular access would be restricted to the narrow C115, and this would be unsatisfactory for a development of the size envisaged.

4.11 The principle of housing at site 4 (Westport/Croft Street) had been previously accepted. As with site 1, it had also been removed from the adopted East Kyle Local Plan and for the same reasons. The site could be accessed only from its northern and western extremities. Both of these were on the outskirts of Tarbolton; and none of the boundaries

SALP7 7.193 Tarbolton

fronted onto a public road. If housing were to be built at this site, residents would be discouraged from using local services, and would prefer the private car to public transport. It was not certain that site 4 would contribute to the effective land supply during the SALP period when problems relating to its accessibility, ownership and marketability were taken into account.

4.12 Site 5 (Burns Street) was the closest of the 5 under consideration to the centre of Tarbolton and the facilities located there. It was acknowledged that residential development at Burns Street would not necessarily have a detrimental impact on the setting of the motte and bailey. However, the site was currently used for agricultural purposes, and it was an attractive feature of the local townscape. It could not contribute to the effective land supply because of the difficulties of access, and the undulating topography.

4.13 SAC stated that in assessing the suitability of the 5 sites for new housing they had found that each of the sites had some merit. However, when regard had been given to the provisions of national planning policy and guidance, notably as set out in SPP3, PAN 38 and NPPG17, and to the policies of ASP significant differences had emerged. Within the context of these policies, site 1 was suitable for development and was considered capable of making a contribution to the effective land supply within the SALP period. The remaining 4 sites, for the various reasons summarised above, were not acceptable for release for residential development and, accordingly, should remain as countryside within the Rural Protection Area.

4.14 Mr Dalling supported by Councillor Davies, the local elected member, appeared at the hearing at the request of the Tarbolton Tenants and Residents Association. There was no Community Council in Tarbolton, and there was a feeling amongst the residents that they had not been fully consulted about the content of SALP. Based on local knowledge the Association had formed the view that all of the objection sites should be included in SALP with the exception of the southern half of site 1 which, they stated, was the subject of flooding. They still considered that site 1 was the least satisfactory of the 5, but they did not now object to its inclusion in SALP.

4.15 The representatives were at pains to place the allocation of housing land at Tarbolton into what they considered to be its proper perspective. It was explained that Tarbolton had an aging and declining population, and the school roll had fallen below 200. Some SAC owned houses were now in poor condition. Particular reference was made to those of non-traditional construction, which included examples of the innovative but ultimately discredited, Blackburn, Lindsay, Scotcon, and Weir house types. In the opinion of the Association, all of these should probably be demolished when they fell vacant. Most of the affordable homes recently constructed for Carrick Housing were taken up by incomers to Tarbolton rather than existing residents with consequent disruption to the social balance of the community. There was a shortage of suitable housing for those looking for rented accommodation, for first time buyers, and for those seeking to move up the housing ladder into larger properties. The aim should be to release sufficient land for 200 to 300 new houses rather than the total of 150 or so which SAC now proposed. This rate of growth would create a better balanced community, with a population more able to support a diversity of shops along with a sufficient roll to justify the recent investment in the refurbishment of the school. Reviewing the proposals for Tarbolton as a whole, the Association concluded that there was a lack of vision coupled with a regrettable absence of an integrated plan that took into account the various activities of SAC coupled with the views, requirements and aspirations of those living in Tarbolton.

SALP7 7.194 Tarbolton

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 It is established in chapter 3.1 that there is a need for further land to be allocated for housing in SALP, including greenfield land, to ensure at least a 5 year supply from the likely date of adoption. It is also established that inadequate regard has been had to the allocation of sites in the medium term. While sufficient sites require to be identified to meet the shortfall in housing land, we recognise that in certain locations additional allocations may be desirable for other reasons, for example, as a contribution to a particular need for affordable housing or to help stimulate regeneration. An allocation of housing land can only make a contribution to the 5 year land supply if it is effective. If it is reasonable to suppose that it will become effective in the period beyond that, it may make a contribution in the medium term.

5.2 There are 7 factors which have to be taken into account in determining whether a site is effective (chapter 2.1 above). We have little or none of the information required to take an informed view on the effectiveness of sites 2, 3, 4 and 5. On the basis of the evidence before us we are satisfied that site 1 (Croft Street/Garden Street) would be effective. In particular we are satisfied that the southern portion of the site, while susceptible to ponding following prolonged heavy rain, is not liable to flooding from the Water of Fail. We are satisfied that the need for safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicular access to the site does not present an insurmountable constraint on the construction of housing. We have no information on the capacity, delivery, programming and phasing for sites 2, 3, 4 and 5. While we consider the estimated capacity of site 1 at 100 houses to be relatively high, we acknowledge that this part of the settlement is densely built. Taking into account the likely timescale for the adoption of SALP and the need to obtain planning permission, we believe that it would be unlikely that there would be any output from the site until the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008. We prefer SAC‟s estimated annual build out rate of 25 houses per annum to HHLtd‟s estimate of 50 houses per annum which we consider to be rather ambitious.

5.3 All of the sites lie in the countryside. In the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment, the sites are identified as falling within the Ayrshire Lowlands Landscape Character Area. SDD Circular 24/1985 does not apply in this case, but many of the principles it contains are relevant, in particular, maintaining the identity and landscape setting of towns, and preventing coalescence. There are no issues of coalescence.

5.4 With the exception of the policy H4 site at Croft Street, and some land to the south with a frontage on the B744, the settlement boundary is tightly drawn round the existing built up area of Tarbolton. These easily recognisable physical boundaries are, for the most part readily defensible. As things stand, we consider that, of the 5 sites before us, site 3 (Mansefield Road), and site 5 (Burns Street) have defensible physical boundaries. We agree with SAC that the built up area in the vicinity of the former has a distinctive and well established form which is worthy of retention. As far as site 1 (Croft Street/Garden Street), site 2 (Ayr Road), and site 4 (Westport/Croft Street), are concerned the sites all look out into open countryside and we do not regard fencelines as amounting, in themselves to boundaries which are defensible even in the medium term. Structural planting should reinforce an existing physical boundary rather than seek to create a new one.

5.5 We have paid particular attention to the landscape setting of Tarbolton. From our site inspections, we were able to confirm that each of the sites, with the exception of Burns

SALP7 7.195 Tarbolton

Street and to a lesser extent Mansefield Road, are readily visible from a number of viewpoints on the approach roads to Tarbolton. Site 1 and site 4 are easily seen from the A719 by those travelling south. We consider that residential development on either of these sites would have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape character of the vicinity and the setting of the Tarbolton. Houses on site 1 would also be prominent as viewed from the north including by those travelling south west on the B730, and by those enjoying the amenity of the Burns Trout Fishery. Nevertheless, we can agree with SAC that housing on site 1 could be integrated into the existing built up area of Tarbolton as a northerly finger of development adjacent in part with the policy H4 site, especially if it was developed in tandem with that. We agree that sensitive treatment would be required at the elevated southern part of site 1, and note the suggestion from HHLtd that grey roofed dwellings there would merge with the existing housing to the east and south. We can see how landscaping and planting could provide readily recognisable northern and eastern boundaries and provide welcome screening of the unsightly sewage works. Nevertheless, we have considerable reservations about the defensibility of the eastern boundary where, as HHLtd fairly acknowledged, a scheme of dense structural planting would be out of place with the surrounding open countryside.

5.6 Drawing these matters together, we believe that housing at site 1 could be accommodated within the site, but that it would lead to some inevitable damage to the landscape setting of Tarbolton. A release of land there could only be acceptable if there were other reasons of sufficient weight to justify a release of housing land.

5.7 ASP policy G8 sets out 11 general principles which should guide the release of new development land within SALP (chapter 4.1 above). When we consider the objection sites against each of these we find that G, and K do not apply; and all relevant matters in H, I and J have been dealt with above.

5.8 In relation to A, SPP3 points out that some rural areas in Ayrshire have suffered environmental damage from past industries, and well designed new housing development can help in their rehabilitation and renewal. SPP2 highlights that planning authorities should provide for new housing within villages where it has a part to play in economic regeneration and sustaining local communities. New houses of suitable type and tenure would increase the stock and range of choice in this predominantly rural settlement. An increase of some 13% in the resident population over and above those who will be housed on the adjacent policy H4 site would provide a welcome increase in the revenue potentially available to local businesses and support for other local facilities without undue disruption to the existing provision of essential services, including schooling. An increase in population of around 20% over the SALP period is about the limit that the settlement can accommodate without unacceptable disruption to the existing scale, character and structure. In our view, that would not amount to a large scale development either in relative or absolute terms. We are in no doubt that the release of additional land for housing at Tarbolton would make a contribution to the regeneration of the settlement. PAN 52 explains that sites released to promote regeneration should not be seen in isolation, and that they should form part of an integrated approach related to the needs and opportunities in the town as a whole. What is needed is an integrated approach to addressing the problems of Tarbolton in which land use planning can play a full and exemplary part. We find that the release of site 1 would be a step in the right direction.

5.9 Looking at B, all of the sites under consideration are greenfield and none can be properly described as vacant or as brownfield land. Regarding C, we are satisfied that site 1

SALP7 7.196 Tarbolton

can be serviced satisfactorily with water and drainage; and no other matters have been drawn to our attention to suggest that service infrastructure or considerations of sustainable forms of development present insurmountable obstacles to residential development. We have insufficient information to make an informed judgement on the other sites. Turning to D, while we note in passing the contribution, current and potential, of site 5 to the amenity and ambience of Tarbolton, none of the sites have been drawn to our attention as prime quality agricultural land or locally important good quality agricultural land.

5.10 When we consider E and F, we recognise that any residential development at Tarbolton would increase the use of the private car. We have experienced for ourselves as pedestrians and drivers, the conditions within the settlement and on the network of major and minor roads nearby. We can understand the concerns of those who reckon that any further increase in road traffic would be undesirable, notably if it increased the number of movements at junctions in Tarbolton. However, we consider that an increase in population over the SALP period would not so add to existing traffic flows, or to problems of congestion, in this vicinity that the development should not be permitted. We acknowledge that there is no railway station in Tarbolton and the existing bus routings and interchanges are not ideal for all potential travellers. However, given that this is a rural settlement, there is sufficient in the way of services to persuade us that all of the sites under consideration are related adequately to public transport provision. We find that the development of any of these sites for housing would not be incompatible with the intentions of NPPG17 and Consultation Draft SPP17.

5.11 CDASP sets out criteria for new housing releases. Tarbolton is adequately accessible to the core towns and to employment opportunities outside Ayrshire, predominantly by car. We note that Tarbolton is identified in CDASP as a local community with significant development opportunities. While in the longer term we recognise the potential for further development at Tarbolton, in light of our conclusions set out above, we consider that only those sites proposed in SALP for housing should come forward at this time.

5.12 In conclusion, notwithstanding our reservations about the impact of residential development on the setting of Tarbolton, we accept that benefits to the settlement could flow from the release of land for housing. The benefits that such a release could bring as part of a comprehensive regeneration strategy are acknowledged in ASP, CDASP, and national guidance and advice. On balance, we are satisfied that the release as proposed by SAC in SALP would be appropriate. We do not consider that further releases of housing land would be justified at this stage.

5.13 We have taken account of all the other matters, but find none that outweigh the considerations on which our conclusions are based.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Accordingly, we recommend:

(i) that no alteration be made to SALP, as changed, in respect of these objections.

SALP7 7.197 Tarbolton

Appendices

SALP1(A) A1(A).1 Appendix 1(A)

APPENDIX 1(A):

Appearances at Public Local Inquiry (relating to housing matters only)

For SAC

Mr D Armstrong Advocate, instructed by Mr G Korn Solicitor, who led

Mr I M Johnson BSc(Hons), MSc, MRTPI, Local Planning Manager, SAC Ms C Cox BA(Hons), MSc, MRTPI, Planning Policy and Research Group Leader Mr A Browne BSc(Hons), DipLED, MRTPI, Senior Planner, SAC Mr R Cairns CEng, MICE, Civil Engineer, SAC Ms F Campbell BA(Hons), Planner, SAC Ms G Nisbet MA(Hons), MRTPI, Planner, SAC Ms F Sharp BSc(Hons), MRTPI, Planner, SAC Mr D Strang Principal Officer (Resource Planning), Education Department, SAC

Mr I Johnson MSc, DipT&CP(Dist.), MRTPI, Structure Plan and Transportation Team Manager

Mr A Duff BSc(Hons), CEng, MICE, MIHT, Director, Jacobs Babtie Group Mr W Smith BA(Hons), MSc, MRTPI, Technical Director, Jacobs Babtie Group Mr G Dodds BEng(Hons), Principal Engineer, Jacobs Babtie Group Mr M Lancaster BA(Hons), MLI, Principal Landscape Architect, Jacobs Babtie Group

For W & R Baird

Mr J Warren DipTP, MSc, MRTPI, Director, Warren Consultants Mr Baird Objector

For British Bakeries Ltd

Mr T McInally McInally Associates Ltd Mr S Gordon McInally Associates Ltd Mr D Slater British Bakeries Mr D Allison British Bakeries

SALP1(A) A1(A).2 Appendix 1(A)

Mr R Duncan Dougall Baillie Associates Mr I Davidson Colliers CRE

For Cala Homes

Mr Mitchell Director, Cala Homes Mr R Oliver DipTP, MRTPI, Director, PPCA Ltd Ms J Read BSc, DipLD, MLI, Director, PPCA Ltd

For CG Property

Mr R Jackson BSc(Hons), MRTPI, Associate Director, GL Hearn

For James Craig Ltd and AWG Residential Ltd

Mr K Carruthers Solicitor, Semple Fraser

Ms C Carr MSc, MITL, MIHT, Regional Director, Colin Buchanan and Partners Mr I Stanger BSc(Hons), MSc, MRTPI, Senior Planning Consultant, James Barr Mr J Welch BA(Hons), MLI, Director, EDAW

For Mr R Cuthbertson

Mr A Smith DipTP, MRTPI, Director, Muir Smith Evans Mr J O‟Donnel, Zoom Developments

For John Dickie Homes

Mr E Lawrence BSc, DipTP, MRTPI, Partner, Lawrence McPherson Associates Mr M Hannah BA(Hons), PgD, MRTPI, Director, John Dickie Homes

For Elphinstone Land Ltd

Mr D Tough MRTPI, FRICS, Partner, Ryden Property Consultants Mr C Black BA(Hons), MRTPI, Divisional Director, Elphinstone Land Ltd Mr R Ferguson MRTPI, MLI, Partner, Ian White Associates

For Hallam Land Management

Mr A Robinson DipTP, MRTPI, Principal, Robinson Associates

SALP1(A) A1(A).3 Appendix 1(A)

For Harkiss Homes

Mr J Handley BSc(Hons), MRTPI, Associate, Jenkins and Marr Mr J Harkiss Harkiss Homes

For HHLtd

Mr I Ferguson QC, who led

Mr I Hope Managing Director, Hope Homes Mr J Paton BA(Hons), MSC, MRTPI, Associate, McInally Associates Ltd Ms A Nevett BSc, DipLD, MLI, MaPS, Anne Nevett Landscape Architects Mr K Clarke BSc, C.Eng, MICE, MIHT, Divisional Director, JMP Consulting Mr W Broad W Atkins

For Loans Community Council

Mr I McLennan

For Malin Housing Association & Metropolis Developments Ltd

Mr G Mappin BSc(Hons), MRTPI, Principal, Mappin Planning and Development

For M&M

Mr G Steele QC, instructed by Mr E MacLeod Solicitor, Shepherd + Wedderburn, who led

Mr A Mickel BA, MPhil, Director, M&M Mr A Aitken BSc(Hons), MRTPI, Associate Director, Colliers CRE Ms J Read BSc (Hons), DipLD, MLI, Director, PPCA Ltd Mr A Lightowler BSc(Hons), MCILT, MIHT, Managing Consultant, Atkins Mr A Sneddon BEng, MCILT, Associate, Steer Davies Gleave Transport Consultants Mr N Rudd BSc, MIB, MLI, Nigel Rudd Ecology

For Mr W McLean (WCFM Ltd)

Mr J Warren DipTP, MSc, MRTPI, Director, Warren Consultants Mr Smith Land owner

SALP1(A) A1(A).4 Appendix 1(A)

For SEAC

Mr C Smylie Solicitor, Maclay, Murray & Spens, who led

Mr R Salter BSc, DipTP, MBA, MRTPI, Operational Director, RPS Planning, Transport and Environment Mr A Cameron BA, DipLA, RIBA, ARIAS, MLI, FRSA, Urban Design Director, RPS Planning Transport and Environment Mr A Carrie BSc(Hons), CEng, MIHT, Director, Dougall Baillie Associates Mr W Burrell HNC(CEng), MICE, AMICES, AFPWI, Associate Technical Director, Scott Wilson Mr M Al-Azzawi BEng(Hons), MSc, PEng, MITE, MCIT, MILT, MIHT, Principal Transport Planner, Scott Wilson

For SMH

Mr R Martin QC, instructed by Mr M Shaw Solicitor, Biggart Baillie, who led

Mr Bissett BEng(Hons), CMILT, MIHT Associate, WSP Group plc Mr E Lawrence BSc, DipTP, MRTPI, Partner, Lawrence McPherson Associates Mr J Stevens CEng, BSc, MIStructE. Technical Director, WSP Group plc Dr J Riddell BSc(Hons), PhD, CEng, MICE, MIWEM, Independent Consultant Mr M Turnbull Dip Arch(Edin), MLA(Penn), MBCS, RIBA, FRIAS, FLI, Principal of Mark Turnbull Landscape Architect and Chairman of Envision

For Wellbeck Estates Company Ltd

Mr R Priestly, Solicitor, Anderson Strathern, who led

Mr A McCafferty BA(Hons), FRICS, MRTPI, Associate, GVA Grimley

Other appearances

Mrs N McFarlane Local resident, representing Mr A McFarlane, Ms H McFarlane and Ms M Dunbar (all objectors) (NET) Councillor W McIntosh Ward No 3, Troon East, SAC (NET) Mr H Osborne Objector (NET) Mr J Sawers Objector (NET) Mr Young Objector (Northpark) Mrs Wilson Supporter (Northpark) Mr Steele Supporter (Northpark) Mr J Dalling Objector (Tarbolton Tenants and Residents Association) Councillor H Davies Objector (Tarbolton Tenants and Residents Association)

SALP1(A) A1(A).5 Appendix 1(A)

APPENDIX 2(A):

List of Documents

FOR SAC

ANNBANK

ANN1 Planning application no. 02/00409/OUT ANN2 Planning application no. 03/01736/OUT ANN3 Photographs for site 1 and location plan

BENTINCK CRESCENT AND OTTOLINE DRIVE

TROON2 Copy SAC Draft Report “Proposals for New Conservation Areas and Alterations to Existing Conservation Areas in South Ayrshire” (Troon extract), 1997. TROON2A Troon and Southwoods Conservation Report TROON3 Aerial photograph of Bentinck Crescent TROON3B Aerial photograph Ottoline Drive TROON4 Report to Planning Committee, dated 16 November 2004 OTT1 Letter from Forestry Commission, dated 15 November 2004 OTT2 E-mail from John Macbeth, Forestry Commission, dated 18 March 2005

COYLTON

COYL1 Appeal decision letter P/PPA/370/2 COYL2 Coylton Masterplan (August 1998) COYL3 Strathclyde Structure Plan Update 1990 (Extract) COYL4 Carbieston Avenue/Lorne Terrace Photographs COLY5 Extract from SALP on Coylton/ Joppa COYL6 Planning permission P/93/454 COYL7 Planning Permission 98/01051/FUL COYL8 Planning Permission P/93/590. COYL9 Key Demographic Information on Coylton COYL10 Coylton Breakdown: Joppa/Hillhead COYL11 Map of Coylton Scenic Area COYL12 Additional Coylton Information COYL13 Housing developments at Coylton

SALP2(A) A2(A).5 Appendix 2(A)

CROSSHILL

CROSS1 Letter from Kilpatrick & Walker, dated 14 May 2004 CROSS2 Photographs and location plan CROSS3 Details of planning application 97/01038/OUT (Milton Street/Bruce Square) CROSS4 Preliminary Information on Primary and Secondary Educational Facilities

DOONHOLM ROAD

DOON1 Extract from Planning Application 02/01856/DBC DOON2 Extracts from SE Public Local Inquiry Report (ZFV1/40) DOON3a Copy of full report of the SE Public Local Inquiry DOON3b Confirmation of SAC (Doonholm Road to Murdoch‟s Loan Link Road, Ayr) Compulsory Purchase Order 2003 DOON4 Site photographs DOON5 SofSS‟s decision letter on the Strathclyde Structure Plan Second Review and Alteration

EAST SANQUHAR FARM

ESF1 Series of Maps for Heathfield area AIR1 Future of Air Transport: Scotland Consultation Document (extract) AIR2 Glasgow (Prestwick) International Airport: A Strategic Development Framework for the Airport and its Environs (March 1999.) AIR3 Planning Application S/97/0383/OUT

FISHERTON & DUNURE

FISH1 Copy of 1972 National Trust for Scotland Conservation Agreement FISH2 Letter of objection (May 2004) from the National Trust for Scotland FISH3 Letter from SAC to the National Trust for Scotland (December 2004) FISH4 Letter from SAC to Mr Morton (December 2004) FISH5 Letter from Mr Morton to SAC (December 2004) FISH6 Letter from the National Trust for Scotland to SAC (January 2005) FISH7 Letter from HHLtd to SAC (January 2005) FISH8 Letter from SAC to HHLtd (January 2005) FISH9 Letter from SAC to HHLtd (May 2004) FISH10 Letter from McInally Associates to SAC (October 2004) FISH11 Letter from SAC to the Programme Officer FISH 12 Planning Application 04/01703/OUT FISH13 Rural Bus Service

GREENAN

GREENAN1 Consultation Responses and objections for Planning Application 01/00020/OUT (Greenan) GREENAN2 Consultation Responses for CDSALP on Greenan GREENAN3 Portfolio of Site Photographs GREENAN4 Transport Statement (Oscar Faber, July 2000) GREENAN5 Transport Assessment GREENAN6 (i) Letter from SAC to Oscar Faber, dated 26 March 2002

SALP2(A) A2(A).6 Appendix 2(A)

(ii) Letter from Faber Maunsell, dated 5 April 2002 GREENAN7 Transport Issues Technical Paper (Faber Maunsell, October 2003) GREENAN8 Faber Maunsell (Plan No: 22623/p/301003 & Technical Note (October 2003) GREENAN9 (i) Extract from Agreed 2003 Housing Land Audit (ii) Extract from Records of 1995 – 2004 Housing Land Audits GREENAN10 (i) Map showing Wildlife Sites and Corridors (ii) Map showing Ornithological Site, Site of Special Scientific Interest and Cycle Route (iii) Map showing Grades of Agricultural Land (iv) Indicative Map of Development Pressure and Planning Applications from 1990 (v) Map showing Planning Applications and Ayrshire Housing GREENAN11 Schedule of Ornithological Sites GREENAN12 OS Map showing Ornithological Sites GREENAN13 SAC Landscape Assessment of Strategic Housing Sites, dated 24 May 2001 GREENAN14 Email D Strang/C Cox, dated 15 October 2004 GREENAN15 ASP Travel to work GREENAN16 Letter from Shepherd & Wedderburn to SAC, dated 20 October 2004 GREENAN17 Planning Application for Retail Unit at Longhill Farm GREENAN18 Rolls and Capacity of Schools GREENAN19 SAC Committee Reports for Golf Course, Retail Unit, and Greenan House

GREEN BELT (PART 1 OF REPORT)

GB1 Extract from 1990 Strathclyde Structure Plan GB2 Extract from SofSS‟s modifications to the 1990 Strathclyde Structure Plan GB3 1990 Prestwick Airport Green Belt Review GB4 Extract from Falkirk Rural Local Plan GB5(i) Map showing “sensitive”/“high sensitive” fields in green belt GB5(ii) Map showing “non-sensitive” fields in green belt GB6(i) SNH response to CDSALP GB6(ii) SNH response to SALP GB7 1998 Consultation Draft ASP

HOLMSTON

HOLM1 Planning Application 03/01036/OUT for residential development HOLM2 Planning Application 02/00756/OUT for mixed use development HOLM3 Planning Application 02/00379/FUL for mixed use development HOLM4 Site photographs and location plan

MAIDENS

MAID1 Planning Appeal: Port Morrow East, Maidens (P/PPA/370/65) MAID1A Statement of observations by SAC (P/PPA/370/65) MAID2 Refusal of Planning Permission Port Morrow East (97/01228/OUT) MAID3 Report by Director of Strategic Services (97/01228/OUT) MAID4 Planning Application (97/01228/OUT) MAID5 Photographs MAID6 SAC Landscape Officer‟s Comments on Planning Application 97/01228/OUT

SALP2(A) A2(A).7 Appendix 2(A)

MAID7 Planning Permission 03/01433/FU MAID7A Internal File Note (03/01433/FUL) MAID8 Map of Provisional Wildlife Site 37b & Site of Special Scientific Interest 37 MAID9A Planning Application 03/00338/OUT and Refusal Notice MAID9B Planning Application 04/00216/OUT and Refusal Notice MAID10 Planning Application P/220/87 MAID11A Planning Application P/90/1136 MAID11B Planning Application P/94/0207

MONKTON

MONK1 Planning application no. 00/00628/FUL MONK2 Planning application no. 00/01074/FUL AIR1 Future of Air Transport: Scotland Consultation Document (extract) AIR2 Glasgow (Prestwick) International Airport: A Strategic Development Framework for the Airport and its Environs (March 1999) AIR3 Planning Application S/97/0383/OUT AIR4 Draft Circular: Public Safety Zones: 1999 AIR5 Letter from Glasgow Prestwick Airport on Inner Horizontal Surface AIR6 Letter from SAC Environmental Health Service

MOSSBLOWN

MOSS1 Planning application no. 02/00238/OUT MOSS2 Planning application no. P/88/0135 MOSS3 Planning application no. 98/00705/OUT MOSS4 Planning application no. 99/00727/COU

NET

NET1 Kyle and Carrick District Local Plan, The Housing Strategy, March 1996 NET2 Joint Transport Statement by SMH and SAC NET3 Forecasting school rolls, NET NET4 Pressured Areas Proposal, March 2004

NORTHPARK

NPK1 Portfolio of Site Photographs NPK2 Royal Burgh of Ayr Town Map 1955 (extract) NPK3 Map of Alloway Conservation Area NPK4 Summary extract: Details of Proposed SAC disposals, including Northpark, for Residential Development and other possible uses (Spring 2001) NPK5 Full details of Planning Application 99/0016/FUL, including Consultation Responses and Letters of Representation

SEA

SEA1 Consultation Draft Strathclyde Structure Plan 1994 (extract) SEA2 Portfolio of site photographs SEA3 Transport Assessment Scoping Study : July 2003

SALP2(A) A2(A).8 Appendix 2(A)

SEA4 Minutes of Meetings: i) 4 December 2002 ii) 6 May 2003 iii) 21 August 2003 iv) 5 January 2004 v) 20 January 2004 vi) 15 March 2004 vii) 6 May 2004 SEA5 Copies of correspondence, as follows: i) JMP letter, 23 July 2003 ii) Dougall Baillie Associates (DBA) letter, 28 July 2003 iii) Babtie Group letter, 29 July 2003 iv) Babtie Group letter, 29 October 2003 v) JMP letter, 11 November 2003 vi) Dougall Baillie Associates letter, 11 November 2003 vii) Babtie Group letter, 2 December 2003 viii) Dougall Baillie Associates letter, 2 December 2003 ix) JMP letter, 19 December 2003 x) RPS letter and enclosures, 30 January 2004 xi) Babtie Group letter, 16 January 2004 xii) Strathclyde Passenger Transport letter, 17 February 2004 xiii) Notes on Strathclyde Passenger Transport Consultation Response letter, 17 February 2004 xiv) Dougall Baillie Associates letter and submissions, 25 March 2004 xv) RPS letter, 25 March 2004 xvi) RPS letter, 26 March 2004 xvii) SE Trunk Roads Network Management Division letter, 31 March 2004 xviii) RPS letter, 7 April 2004 xix) Babtie Group letter, 13 May 2004 xx) Dougall Baillie Associates letter, 25 May 2004 xxi)-xxvii) No documents xxviii) SPT Observations on Ayr Hospital Proposal letter SEA6 No document SEA7 Copy of letter from SAC to SE, dated 22 December 2004 SEA8 Copy of Letter from SE to SAC, dated 10 January 2005. SEA9 SAC‟s Transport Position Statement Update SEA10 Joint Position Statement on Integrated Public Transport Matters submitted by SAC and SEAC SEA11 Rail Appraisal Agreed Position Statement submitted by SAC and SEAC

SEAFORTH ROAD

BAKES1 Outline Planning Application 04/00306/OUT

SYMINGTON

SYM1 Planning Application P/625/76 and Reporter‟s decision letter SYM2 Planning Application 04/00950/FUL

SALP2(A) A2(A).9 Appendix 2(A)

TARBOLTON

TARB1 Educational Information

FOR BRITISH BAKERIES LTD

BB1 Letter and Enclosures showing Marketing Campaign undertaken BB2 Photographs of Site BB3 Traffic Statement BB4 Correspondence from SAC about Seaforth Road BB5 Additional letter received from SAC BB6 Representation made to SALP (December 2002)

FOR AWG RESIDENTIAL AND JAMES CRAIG LTD

AWG1 Objection Site Plans AWG2 Objection Letters to SALP and proposed changes AWG3 Representations to review of ASP AWG4 Reports to meetings of ASP&TC (8 December 2003 and 26 March 2004) AWG5 Outline planning application – Holmston (July 2003) AWG6 Relevant application correspondence to and from SAC AWG7 Various correspondence related to Transport Assessment AWG8 Transport Assessment AWG9 Supplementary Transport Assessment (pm peak times), June 2004 AWG10 Traffic Noise Impact Assessment, April 2004 AWG11 Preliminary Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Land, January 2004 AWG12 Preliminary Discussion of Existing Site Services, April 2004 AWG13 Illustrative landscape document, July 2004 (Updated) AWG14 SAC‟s Committee report on Planning Application for Dobbie‟s Garden Centre January 2002 AWG15 Extract from The Herald, 2 August 2004 AWG16 Trunk Roads Consultation Response

FOR W & R BAIRD

W&RB1 Bus timetables W&RB2 Letter from SAC, dated 5 September 2003 W&RB3 Letter from Kilpatrick & Walker, dated 19 October 2001 W&RB4 Macauley Land Use Classification Map W&RB5 Letter from SAC, dated 24 October 2004 W&RB6 Plan showing extent of reduced site for housing

FOR CALA HOMES LTD

CAL1 Sales Particulars of Objection Site (1997) CAL2 Planning Application (5 January 1999)

SALP2(A) A2(A).10 Appendix 2(A)

CAL3 Objections made to Planning Application CAL4 Letter from SAC to Cala Homes, dated 25 February 1999 CAL5 Letter from Cala Homes to SAC, dated 3 March 1999 CAL6 Letter from Cala Homes to SAC, dated 30 June 1999 CAL7 Exchanges of correspondence between SAC and Cala Homes (1999 to 2001) CAL8 Revised Planning Application and Drawing PLO REV 7 CAL9 Objections to Revised Application CAL10 Letter from SAC to Cala Homes, dated 18 July 2001 CAL11 Letter from SAC to Cala Homes, dated 24 July 2001 CAL12 Report by Director of Development, Safety and Regulation (November 2001) CAL12a Minute of the Community Protections and Support Services Committee, dated 21 November 2001 CAL13 News Archive extract (November 2001) CAL14 Red Squirrel Report CAL15 Revised Tree Report CAL16 Tree Survey CAL17 Letter from SAC to Cala Homes CAL18 Photographs and location plan CAL19 OS based Plan showing Site in context of Local Open Spaces CAL20 OS based Plan showing site in context of the South Ayr and Alloway Urban Boundary CAL21 Letter from Cala Homes to SAC, dated 16 July 2004 CAL22 OS Map of 1857 CAL23 OS Map of 1860 CAL24 OS Map of 1897

FOR CG PROPERTY

CGP1 Extent of land in CG Property‟s Control CGP2 Site Location CGP3 Aerospace Park and Landscape Buffer CGP4 Agricultural Viability Report CGP5 Minute of meeting between SAC and Halcrow (August 2004) CGP6 Visual Impact Assessment

FOR MR R CUTHBERTSON

ES1 Location Plan ES2 Development Framework Plan ES3 Macaulay Institute Map of Land Capability for Agriculture ES4 Miscellaneous Bus Timetables ES5 Report on “The Economic Role of New Housing” 2001 (Extract) ES6 Civil Aviation Authority: Licensing of Aerodromes (Extract)

FOR JOHN DICKIE HOMES

JDH1 Letters of Objection

SALP2(A) A2(A).11 Appendix 2(A)

JDH2 Correspondence between John Dickie Homes and SAC JDH3 Illustrative Development Proposals, including, photographs and layouts JDH4 Technical Background Papers by SAC and HforS on housing land supply JDH5 Information on Education

FOR ELPHINSTONE LAND LTD

ELL1 Plan of site B ELL2 SALP Representation ELL3 Initial response from SAC ELL4 Planning appeal decision P/PPA/370/83 ELL5 Extract from the Scotsman, dated 21 July 2004 ELL6 Planning application for Doonholm Road/Murdoch‟s Loan road link ELL7 Environmental Statement for Doonholm Road/Murdoch‟s Loan road link ELL8 Landscape context, appraisal and development framework ELL9 Site Investigation (Executive Summary) ELL10 Appraisal of mineral conditions, superficial deposits, environmental aspects and existing services

FOR HALLAM LAND MANAGEMENT

HLM1 Extract from the Barker Report – Review of Housing Supply (March 2004) HLM2 Context Plan HLM3 Macrae‟s Monument: Statutory List

FOR HARKISS HOMES

JM01 Coylton Draft Master Plan (1995)

FOR HHLTD

COYLTON

HHC1 Hope Homes' Coylton Master Plan HHC2 Landscape Visual Analysis HHC3 Extracts from 1995 Strathclyde Structure Plan HHC4 Coylton Draft Master Plan (1995) HHC5 Coylton Master Plan (1998) HHC6 Manse Road, Corsehill, Coylton Outline SUDS Design Report HHC7 Proposed development at Coylton/Hillhead: Drainage Impact Assessment HHC8 Manse Road, Coylton: Transportation Statement HHC9 Carbieston Avenue, Coylton: Transportation Statement HHC10 Statement on Walking, Cycling and Public Transport HHC11 Correspondence from SAC Planning Department HHC12 Correspondence to and from SAC Roads Departments HHC13 Photographs of Traffic Problems in Coylton

SALP2(A) A2(A).12 Appendix 2(A)

HHC14 Residential Building Land: South Ayrshire HHC15 WS Atkins letter regarding Consultation with Scottish Water and SEPA HHC16 Plan for Coylton showing available Housing Land HHC17 Specification for Housing at Drongan (Development Brochure) HHC18 Customer Profile for Housing at Drongan HHC19 Ground Conditions Report HHC20 Mineral Reports HHC21 Letter regarding Potable Water from Scottish Water HHC22 Rolls and Capacities of Schools HHC23 HHLtd: Coylton Master Plan Revised HHC24 Landscape Cross Sections, Carbieston Avenue HHC25 HHLtd: Delivery of Masterplan proposals HHC26 Coylton Primary School Travel Plan: September 2004 HHC27 Minutes of HHLtd/JMP meeting with SAC Roads Depaertment HHC28 Letter from Chairman of Coylton Primary School Board HHC29 View Point/Section Location Plan HHC30 Tree Growth Data HHC31 Public Transport Information HHC32 Transport Statement: Residential Development at Carbieston, Coylton HHC33 Atkins Summary Statement: Coylton Drainage & Water Report HHC34 Photographs of Sites and Map

FISHERTON & DUNURE

HHF1 Hope Homes Indicative Layout Plan HHF2 Landscape and Visual Analysis HHF3 Letter from Ayrshire Housing Association, dated 5 November 2004 HHF4 Opinion of Counsel regarding Title Burden HHF5 Drainage Report for Site HHF6 Fisherton Transport Statement HHF7 Plan relating to Access to Arran View, Dunure HHF8 Correspondence from SAC regarding Fisherton HHF9 Residential Building Land South Ayrshire – Report by Allied Surveyors HHF10 Available Housing Land in Dunure and Fisherton HHF11 Ground Conditions and Minerals report HHF12 Information on School Rolls and Capacities (SAC) HHF13 E-mail from Ayrshire Housing Association HHF14 Application to Lands Tribunal HHF15 Minute of Meeting with SEPA HHF16 Letter from Head of Planning, SAC HHF17 Memorial for the Opinion of Counsel regarding Title Burden HHF18 Drainage and Water Statement HHF19 Drainage and Effluent Summary Statement HHF20 Revised outline SUDS Report

TARBOLTON

HHT1 HHLtd Indicative Layout Plan HHT2 Landscape & Visual Analysis HHT3 Croft Street, Tarbolton, Outline SUDS Design Report

SALP2(A) A2(A).13 Appendix 2(A)

HHT4 Croft Street, Tarbolton: Drainage Impact Assessment HHT5 Tarbolton Supplementary Report – Sustainable Transport HHT6 Correspondence from SAC on Croft Street/ Garden Street HHT7 Specification for housing at Drongan (Development Brochure) HHT8 Customer Profile for Housing at Drongan HHT9 Ground Condition Reports HHT10 Minerals report HHT11 Letter about Potable Water HHT12 Residential Building Land South Ayrshire – Report by Allied Surveyors HHT13 Information regarding School Rolls and Capacities

FOR LYNCH DEVELOPMENTS LTD

LD1 Bus timetables

FOR MALIN HOUSING ASSOCIATION & METROPOLIS DEVELOPMENTS LTD

MHA1 Indicative Site Layout

FOR W McLEAN (WCFM Ltd)

JW01 Map of area JW02 Bus timetables JW03 Indicative site layout JW04 Map relating to agricultural land classification

FOR M&M

GREENAN

M&MG1 Masterplan for Greenan M&MG2 Revised Indicative Masterplan M&MG3 Landscape Capacity Study for Greenan M&MG4 Structure Plan Diagram M&MG5 Live Work and Play Document M&MG6 Report on Economic Impact of Development at Greenan M&MG7 Considerate Constructors Scheme M&MG8 Transportation Statement (July 2000) M&MG9 Transportation Assessment (May 2001) M&MG10 Updated Transportation Statement (July 2003) M&MG11 Transportation Issues – Technical Paper (October 2003) M&MG11A Planning Permission and Plan for Doonholm Rise M&MG11B Development Marketing Brochure for Doonholm Rise M&MG12 Ecological Report M&MG13 Correspondence on Ecological Issues M&MG14 Report on Proposed Golf Course Development

SALP2(A) A2(A).14 Appendix 2(A)

M&MG15 Correspondence relating to agricultural land M&MG16 Planning Permission 01/01003/FUL, dated 11 June 2002 M&MG17 Report to Planning Committee on 01/01003/FUL, dated 11 June 2002 M&MG18 Planning Permission 01/01463/FUL, dated 25 November 2003 M&MG19 Report to Planning Committee on 01/01463/FUL, dated 11 February 2003 M&MG20 Planning Permission 03/00324/FUL, dated 8 May 2003 M&MG21 Planning Permission 03/00878/FUL, dated 30 September 2003 M&MG22 Planning Permission 03/00868/FUL, dated 2 December 2003 M&MG23 Report to Planning Committee on 03/00868/FUL, dated 2 December 2003 M&MG24 Outline Planning Permission P/96/0185, dated 19 August 1998 M&MG25 Reserved Matters Application for Golf Course M&MG26 Application for Residential Development at Greenan M&MG27 Appeal to SMs and SAC Appeals Questionnaire M&MG28 Letter from Ayrshire Housing Association, dated 3 November 2003 M&MG29 Letters from George Wimpey Ltd, dated 16 July 2004 M&MG30 Doonfoot Area Commuter Destinations Pie Chart M&MG31 Minute of Meeting, dated 21 October 2003, and e-mail M&MG32 Extract from Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance M&MG33 Aerial photograph of Greenan site and Proposed Golf Course M&MG34 Reserved Matters Approval for Golf Course and Tourist Village M&MG35 Outline Planning Permission for Retail Unit at Dunure Road M&MG36 Letter from Shepherd & Wedderburn to SAC, dated 14 October 2004 M&MG37 Sale Details for Greenan House M&MG38 Education Issues at Greenan

SEA

M&MSEA1 Industrial Land Supply Analysis M&MSEA2 Landscape and Visual Issues M&MSEA3 Feasibility Study in New Rail Station at SEA M&MSEA4 Strathclyde Public Transport Strategy 2000 (Part 1: Strategic Framework) M&MSEA5 Strategic Rail Authority Strategic Plan (2003) M&MSEA6 Strategic Rail Authority New Stations: Guide for Promoters, September 2004

SYMINGTON

M&MS1 Landscape & Visual Assessment M&MS2 Supplementary Information on Landscape and Visual Assessment M&MS3 Accessibility Statement M&MS4 Planning Permission B/6642 M&MS5 Planning Permission B/7415 M&MS6 Planning Permission B/7496 M&MS7 Planning Permission C/5612 M&MS8 Planning Permission C/6179 M&MS9 Planning Permission P/176 M&MS10 Planning Permission A/8157 M&MS11 Planning Permission C/5153 M&MS12 Planning Permission D/1942 M&MS13 Planning Permission P/PPA/SQ/377 (Planning Appeal Reference) M&MS14 Planning Permission 98/00961

SALP2(A) A2(A).15 Appendix 2(A)

M&MS15 Planning Permission 01/00843 M&MS16 Planning Application for 51 houses at Townend

FOR MR McNINCH

McN1 Scottish Agricultural College submission

FOR SEAC

MP01 Master Plan Report MP02 SEA Environmental Review MP03 Design Statement MP04 SEA Plans and Maps – (i) Master Plan Report (ii) Design Statement (iii) Environmental Review

D1 Representations to SALP (Planning Committee Report - 8 August 2003) D2 Letter from Babtie to Dougall Baillie Associates, dated 16 January 2004 D3 Letter from JMP to Dougall Baillie Associates, dated 19 December 2003 D4 Letter together with Statement of Response from SAC to RPS, dated 19 January 2004 D5 Statement of Commitment and accompanying letter, dated 30 January 2004 D6 Actions for Agreement on Integrated Transport Proposals and accompanying letter, dated 30 January 2004 D7 Letter from SAC enclosing SPT's response, dated 17 February 2004 D8 Letter and attachments from RPS to SAC, dated 25 March 2004 D9 Interim Report on Rail Feasibility Study, March 2004 D10 Public Transport Strategy (Draft, March 04) D11 Letter from Dougall Baillie Associates to SAC, dated 25 March. D12 Committee Report, 30 March 2004 D13 Letter from SE to SAC, dated 31 March 2004 D14 Letter from RPS to SE, dated 7 May 2004 Dl5 Fax from SE to SAC, dated 12 May 2004 D16 Letter from SE to SAC, dated 6 December 2002 D17 Letter from RPS to SAC, dated 26 May 2004 D18 Committee Report, dated 8 June 2004 D19 Letter from RPS to SAC, dated 15 June 2004 D20 Letter from Babtie to McLean Hazel, dated 27 May 2004 D21 Updated Statement of Commitment (June 2004) D22 Letter from SE to SAC, dated 21 June 2004 D23 Letter from Babtie to RPS, dated 24 June 2004 D24 Letter from RPS to Babtie, dated 25 June 2004 D25 Note of Meeting at JMP Consultants, 15 March 2004 D26 Letter from DBA to Babtie, dated 14 July 2004 D27 Annual Demand Estimates Ayr Station D28 SEA Rail Station Differentiation of Demands and Revenue between Options D29 Cost Benefit Analysis

SALP2(A) A2(A).16 Appendix 2(A)

D30i Letter from Stagecoach, dated 11th May 2004 D30ii Letter from Stagecoach, dated 25th May 2004 D31 Statement of Commitment June 2004 D32 No document D33 No document D34 SPT: New Station Appraisal Methodology D35 SEA Rail Halt Outline Feasibility Study and Outline Business Case January 2005 (Revised) D36 Time tables for bus and rail service option D37 Transport Assessment (Revised)

TA01 Transport Assessment TA02 Public Transport Strategy

RO1 SEA Outline STAG Part 1 Appraisal Final Report RO2 SEA Rail Halt Outline Feasibility Study RO3 SEA Rail Halt Outline Business Case Final Report

CA01 Comparative Assessment of Strategic Housing Land Options CA02 Comparative Assessment of SEA. NET and Greenan (using ASP policy G8)

P01 SEAC Representations to SALP, dated 5 December 2002 P02 SEAC objections to proposed changes of April 2004, dated 13 May 2004 P03 SEAC objections to proposed changes, dated 28 May 2004

FOR SMH

SMH1 Objection Letter to SALP SMH2 The Masterplan Report SMH3 Transport Assessment SMH4 Letter from Biggart Baillie to Reporters, dated 7 September 2004 SMH5 Train timetable SMH6 List of Developer Contributions

FOR MR J SMILLIE

JS1 CDSALP Representation JS2 Details of planning application for Mauchline Road JS3 SALP Representation JS4 Letter from Jenkins & Marr to SAC, dated 24 July 2002

FOR WELLBECK ESTATES COMPANY LTD

BENTINCK CRESCENT

BC1 Ordnance survey extract showing the site BC2 Extracts from National Policy Guidance

SALP2(A) A2(A).17 Appendix 2(A)

BC3 Indicative Layout Option BC4 Photographs of the objection site and context BC5 Heads of a development brief for the site BC6 E-mail about Private Schooling in the Ayrshire & Glasgow Areas, dated 10 March 2005 BC7 Spreadsheet of Bus Services on Ottoline Drive and Bentinck Crescent BC8 Map showing Bus Stop Locations in Troon

OTTOLINE DRIVE

OTT1 Ordnance Survey extract showing the site OTT2 Extracts from National Policy Guidance OTT3 Planning Permission and appeal decision (Ottoline Drive/Wilson Avenue) OTT4 Extract from 1936 Feuing Plan OTT5 2 Indicative Layout Options OTT6 Heads of a Development Brief for the site OTT7 Arboricultural Report OTT8 Further information on Felling of Trees (11 March 2005) OTT9 E-mail about Private Schooling in the Ayrshire & Glasgow Areas, dated 10 March 2005 OTT10 Spreadsheet of Bus Services on Ottoline Drive and Bentinck Crescent OTT11 Map showing Bus Stop Locations in Troon

SALP2(A) A2(A).18 Appendix 2(A)

SALP i Abbreviations