LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FINALISED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN CONSULTATION – RURAL HOUSING MARKET AREA

Issue 131 Settlement - Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p32) Development plan Document 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statements (p12 and 13)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 662: Andrew Hayes

Provision of the development plan to Housing Land Allocations in Fettercairn – H1. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 662: Remove H1 from the plan in favour of Fasque (see issue 140 Other K&M Housing Land). The suburban spread is unimaginative and inappropriate due to Fettercairn’s significant and unique cohesive identity and character. This allocation would be of huge detriment to the area.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 662: Remove site H1.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Fettercairn lies within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is within the Rural Housing Market Area. Within the Rural Housing Market Area, the Structure Plan promotes a high level of growth (see issue 66). Fettercairn has been identified as a settlement which requires growth to support services. Fettercairn has the planning objectives of sustaining existing services and meeting local need for housing. There is substantial capacity within the school, which is forecast to be operating at only 39% capacity by 2016. However, the settlement is severely constrained by flood risk which has limited the level of allocations.

The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the site is contained in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 55) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site H1 Site H1 extends the Cairn Grove development at Fettercairn and allows planned expansion of the settlement. As mentioned above, there is a need to sustain the Primary School. It is recognised that Fettercairn has a special identity and character. A development brief is required for the site, and this will need to reflect the special character of the settlement and promote a high level of design. In any case, much of the more recent development has been to the north of the settlement and there will be less impact on the character of the settlement from development in this location.

Regarding the replacement of site H1 with development at Fasque, this is considered under issue 140. Development at Fasque can be considered under the rural development policy

Page 1

Conclusion The modification sought is not supported. The development strategy and land allocation in Fettercairn is appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. In addition to allocations within settlements the Rural Development policy promotes development which can facilitate development at Fasque.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 2 Issue 132 Settlement - Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Development plan Volume 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statements (p1 - 2)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

16 Auchenblae & District Community Association 148 Mr & Mrs James and Jenny Thomson 1061, 2133 Savills on behalf of Investment Company Ltd 1472, 1473, 1474 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Drumtochty Castle 2463 Mr J Eddie

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations in and around Auchenblae – which the issue relates: M1 & H1.

Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Development in Auchenblae 16: 80 houses is greatly out of proportion for the village and its facilities. 16, 148: 80 houses will be detrimental to the character of a traditional village. 16, 148: The infrastructure can barely cope with present needs, the primary is already extended by portacabins. The traffic impact would exacerbate an already serious problem, and there is also a problem with agricultural machinery accessing the village.

Site M1 1061, 2133: The respondent highlights their support for the site. 1472, 1473, 1474: The site is allocated to the east of the village, away from the historic core. This built form exacerbates the unbalanced nature of the settlement and increases the distance to the village centre and the primary school. 2463: The justification of the site to increase the primary school to 120 capacity. However, the school is already operating at capacity and out of portacabins. There is additional house building in the area putting pressure on the school. 2463: 75 houses is in excess of 25% growth of the settlement. 2463: Road congestion and road safety concerns would result from this development. However, if the golf course road was brought to adoptable standard this could be alleviated. 2463: The respondent highlights potential issues with drainage, as there is a property higher than this which already pumps sewage. It is questioned if a pumping system would be accepted or whether a new sewer be required.

Site H1 1061, 2133: There is support for the site. 1472, 1473, 1474: These respondents object to the site. It can offer a very limited number of housing units due to flooding restrictions and does not meet Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 77 to make 'efficient use of land'.

Site EH1 1061, 2133: Support the allocation of site EH1. 1472, 1473, 1474: Site EH1 will be clearly visible and impact on the landscape character of the area.

Alternative Site 1472, 1473, 1474: K72 should be allocated for housing for up to 20 units. It makes far more efficient use of land than H1 and can overcome shortfall in Rural Housing Market Area numbers. The site would have less impact on the road network, as it is closer to the village centre and recreational area, would help retain the historic form of the settlement, and has no visual impact on approach from the south (unlike development to the east of the settlement). There are no constraints on site K72, and no justification for the site continually being regarded as 'incapable of development'. The site could accommodate the recycling point and

Page 3 it would be more accessible to the residents in the historic core of the village.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 16, 148: Eighty houses cannot be accommodated in the settlement.

2463: The school, roads and drainage cannot cope with an additional 75 houses on site M1.

1472, 1473, 1474: The site at Drumtochty Park (MIR site K72) should be allocated for up to 20 houses.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Auchenblae lies within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is within the Rural Housing Market Area. Auchenblae has been identified as a settlement which requires growth to support services. Auchenblae has the planning objectives of meeting local needs for housing, and provision of employment land. The settlement is a local service centre, it has a primary school, a doctors’ surgery and a village shop.

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan. Most of the issues raised in relation to this settlement were addressed in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 7).

Development in Auchenblae The scale of development has caused concern to a number of respondents. The level of development proposed represents an approximate 30% increase in the size of the settlement, but this is to be delivered over the next 12 years, and possibly beyond if allocations are not taken up. There is concern voiced about the capacity of the Primary School, but the level of growth proposed enables up to two additional (permanent) classrooms and will not result in portakabins. Developer contributions will be required for an expansion of, or replacement of the health centre. Potential traffic impacts can be covered in the masterplanning of the site. The Roads Authority have not ruled out development due to the traffic impact at this stage. Likewise the landscape impact of the site can be covered in the masterplanning of the site.

Site M1 Support for the site is noted. The precedent has been set for development to the east of the settlement as almost all new development is in this location. There is only limited potential for development to the west of the settlement. Site M1 allows a masterplanned approach to development, and will deliver a recycling point. On approach to the village from the south, the recent development at Castlehill Gardens is visible, and development of M1 will not have a greater visual impact as it sits behind this development. Development of M1 will be more visible on approach from the north, but design of the site can ensure impact is kept to a minimum. There is no proposal at present to upgrade Golf Course Road, but this may be considered at the masterplanning or detailed planning stage. Regarding drainage issues, Scottish Water advise that there is insufficient capacity for new development at Waste Water Treatment Works, and that a growth project will be initiated once the development meets Scottish Water’s 5 point criteria. Regarding the increased distance to the school, it is argued that the site is not much further from the school than the current development.

Site H1 Support for the site is noted. Site H1 can only deliver 5 units, but it represents an extension of site EH1 (A in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan) and can utilise the same infrastructure. The site is sufficient in size to accommodate the development while avoiding the area at flood risk. In any case a flood risk assessment will be required prior to the development of the site.

Page 4

Site EH1 Support for the site is noted. An application for 15 houses on the site (APP/2008/0319) has been delegated for approval by the Area Committee, but awaits a Section 75 Agreement. Concerns regarding the visual and landscape impact are noted, but the site sits below Castlehill Gardens, and significant landscaping is proposed for the site.

Alternative Sites As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Site K72 was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s consideration was to exclude it. The site, which is located to the west of the settlement, sits behind the main street and above the public park. A site was allocated in the draft Aberdeenshire Local Plan and subsequently removed. A previous planning application has also been refused on the site as it did not comply with policy Hou\4 (housing in the countryside). The site, although having no visual impact from the south, has a visual impact from the north. The site has been protected in the Settlement Statement in order to preserve the setting of the settlement. In order to access the site, traffic would still need to use the main street and so the claim the site has less traffic impact is not supported. The site is said to be more accessible to the historic core, however the site is not significantly closer to the ‘centre’ than those sites allocated.

Following consultation on the Main Issues Report, members of the community highlighted their preference for development to the east of the settlement.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Auchenblae are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 5 Issue 133 Settlement - Section 6 The Proposals Map, (p23) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) reference: Volume 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p27-28) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

193 Mr & Mrs Gary and Catriona Gauld 194 Mr Kenneth Fairweather 195 Mr Anthony Ratcliffe 234 Mrs Isabel Ritchie 532 The Scottish Wildlife Trust 696 Morag Holtes 700 Hilda Murray 724 Heather Souttar 725, 2910 Mr L Crane 726 Mr Andrew Ballantyne 727 Mrs L Crane 728 R Duncan 729 I Duncan 730 Michelle Gibb 731 Daniel Gibb 732 Kenneth Gibb 733 Nicola Gibb 734 Jill Simpson 735 Gareth Simpson 736 Gavin Simpson 737 Mitchell Simpson 738 J Jones 739 A Ramsay 740 A J Ratcliffe 741 Cameron Walker 742 John Clark 743 Gail Clark 744, 745, 746 J Pearce 747 F Mathers 748 J Mathers 749 O Ramsay 750 L Crane 751 Craig El 752 G Gibb 753 Andy & Andrea Duncan 754 Alan MacDonald 755 Malcolm MacDonald 756 I Thow 757 M Thow 758, 2994 Chris Pollok 759 Paul Greig 760 Melissa Robb 761 C Gauld 762 Colin Frew 763 Mrs M Frew 764 D Harrison 765 Mrs E Mitchell 766 Margaret Merchant 767 Hugh Merchant 768 C Newman 769 Janie Jones 770 Allan Jones

Page 6 771, 1260 Natalie Goodlad 772 Kerry Outhwaite 773 Daniel Lovegrove 774 John Goodlad 775 Fiona Whiteley 776 John Whiteley 777 Ann Whiteley 778 J Mason 779 R M Forbes 780 Ruth Tilden 781 K Dawson 782 P Cooper 783 Fiona Johnston 784 R Johnston 785 Mr S McGuigan 786 M Anderson 787 G Bruce 788 Sylvia Hay 789 Susan Ellis 790 Douglas Hay 791 Hilary Brown 792 Donald MacLean 793 T Brown 794 Harrison Brown 795 Miss H Duckett 796, 819 Ms Susan Duncan 797 Gary Gauld 798 Mary Holtes 799 H Holtes 800 N Burns 801 Alexander Paul 802 Joy Burns 803 E Mitchell 804 S Cassidy 805 P Main 806 J Main 807 M Ledingham 808 Gisele Demay 809 Maria Day 810 A Lorimer 811 Peter Boyd 812 Rachel Singer 813 Jack Heeley 814 Hayley Marden 815, 2901, 2092 Mrs Sylvia Cartwright 816 Moira Boyd 817 James Lorimer 818 Charlotte Robb 821 Julie Clench 822 Gordon Wood 823 Mr & Mrs R Forbes 824 Mrs P Starling 825 Margaret Romeling 871 Lady Philippa Holliday 873 Mr Alistair Dunbar 874 Mrs Shona Dunbar 875 Pamela Wilson 876 Mr David Stewart 877 Francis Anderson 878 Janette Anderson 879 Mr George McDonald

Page 7 880 Mr Aaron Souttar 881 Mr Garry McFarlane 882 Bettine Stephen 883, 1084 Mr Murdoch Anderson 884 Michelle Anderson 885 Mr Dan Gillies 886 Gwen Gillies 887 Isabel Gibb 888 Susan McWilliam 889 Mr James McWilliam 890 Mr Alan MacDonald 891 Mr Colin Young 892 Mr Frederick Holliday 893 Mr George Merchant 894 Mrs Elaine Merchant 895 Mr Sandy Pittendreich 896 Mr Jack Soutar 897 Mrs Heather Soutar 898 Mrs Elaine Pittendreich 899 Mr Andrew Moir 934 Mr James Patrick Main 937 Mr Maitland I Wilson 938 Mr Walter Tosh 939 Mrs Jane Main 940, 2715 Mr Andrew Le-Tekro 941 Mrs Annemaree Le-Tekro 942 Mr Paul Johnson 943 Mrs Delia Johnson 994 Mearns Community Council 1001 Mrs Morag Innes 1002 Mr Stanley Innes 1015 Mr Bill Parr 1052 P Barnett 1058 A Bridges 1064 J Ane 1068 Mr & Mrs Scott Grozier 1071 G McDade 1073 S Story 1074 B Eliott 1076 H Kennedy 1078 G Motion 1080 A Motion 1082 Mrs Michelle Anderson 1085 Mike Smith 1091 J Bird 1093 Sheila McGuigan 1094 Hazel Anderson 1098 A Taylor 1124 The Charlton Smith Partnership on behalf of Mr & Mrs J McWilliam 1128 A L 1133 R Clark 1135 A Reid 1137 K Rennie 1139 J Crawford 1143 Mr Dougie Thomson 1153 S Crawford 1156 G Watson 1158 M Watson 1162 A Muir 1165 K McShaw 1169 J Patton

Page 8 1171 I Kettles 1178 RS Snelz 1181 D Black 1183 K McMillan 1186 A Mundie 1189 D Penni 1192 I Hay 1193 Pam Goodall 1194 Garry Brown 1195 Shirley Hughes 1196 Rory Mitchell 1199 Thomas Thomson 1200 Alanna Mundie 1203 Kenny McMillan 1204 Harry Whitley 1206 Dave McKay 1208 G McLean 1218 Donnie Ferguson 1220 Karen Brown 1222 Iain Thomson 1223 Karen Wilkinson 1224 Angela Percival 1225 J Bridges 1226 Gary Gibb 1227 B McMillan 1228 G Ogilvie 1229 Alison Ogilvie 1230 D Clark 1231 L Gray 1232 Justeen Peacock 1235 Gordon Summers on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1236 William McKelvey on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1237 Helen Kelman on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1238 Scott Gray on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1239 Lloyd Scott on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1240 Elle Porter on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1241 Ivan Smith on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1242 K Tutchenor on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1243 Robert Christie on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1244 R Byrne on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1245 Jane Pearce on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1246 S McShane on behalf of Luthermuir Annual Motor Bike Rally 1259 David Ted 1261 Emma Wood 1262 G P McVicar 1263 S Ferguson 1264 D Page 1265 J Smith 1267 J C Hamilton 1270 Donald Cheape 1271 John Storey 1272 Jim Robertson 1273 Andy Fowler 1274 Helen Fowler 1275 Douglas Falconer 1276 Kenny Pratt 1277 S O'Klan 1294 Ian Garthley 1296 G Gairns 1300 L Irwin 1305 A Fraser

Page 9 1308 Nigel Shields 1311 Duncan Lang 1315 Andy Garnochan 1325 D & D Ruxton 1332 Andrew Ballantyne 1339 Ross McWilliam 1344 Alison Richardson 1347 Elizabeth Kerr 1353 Stephen McGillvray 1363 Brian McUln 1367 P Dobson 1370 C Mitchell 1372 B Mitchell 1374 B Bryan 1376 K Bryan 1812 Mr Robert James Hudson 1949 Mr Euan Cargill 1965 Kerry Hudson 1966 Mr Robert Hudson 2136 Mr & Mrs Paul and Delia Johnson 2306, 2323, 2386 J.G. & W. Duncan 2310, 2373 Mr Mark Ogg 2538 Mr Terry Brown 2617 Mr Iain Wilson 2618 Mrs Kirsty McLean 2619 Mr David Jones 2763 Mr & Mrs Kenneth Gibb 2892 Trisha Pirie 2911 Ms Lorna Hutchison 2912 Ms Rhonda Cheyne 2913 Ms Rhona McArthur 2914 Miss H Lamb 2915 Miss Kim Elder 2916 Ms Ellie Crane 2917 Ms Lara Crane 2918 Ms Andrea Crane 2919 Ms Kate Crane 2920 Mr Stephen Crane 2921 Mr Kevin Whitecross 2922 Mr Cameron Drummond 2935, 2945 Michele Russell 2936, 2944 Abby Russell 2937, 2946 Isobel Mudie 2938, 2942 Craig Russell 2939 Sebastian Cavanagh 2940 Matthew Cavanagh 2941 Michael Cavanagh 2943 Amanda Cavanagh 2947 Euan Cargill 2948 Irene Taylor 2949 Rhona Anderson 2950 Alexander Murray 2951 Irene Horn 2952 Mike Hennessy 2953 Anne Hennessy 2954 Karen Anderson 2955 Elizabeth Carnie on behalf of Powerwasher Services, Northwatersridge 2956 Moira Parker 2957 Charles Wallace 2958 Jim Parker 2959 Steve Gant

Page 10 2960 Paul Mainland 2961 Glyn Goven 2962 Rita Wilson 2963 Simon Brown 2964 Peter Anderson 2965 Alex Thomson 2966 Isobel Thomson 2967 Ian Kidd 2968 Ann Valentine 2969 Mabel Young 2970 Robert Young 2971 Lorraine Park 2972 Allan Young 2973 Kathleen McKinney 2974 Helen Ritchie 2975 Adrian Robinson 2976 Gavin Duncan 2977 Lorna Simpson 2978 Janet Fowlie 2979 Susan Rushforth 2980 Alexa Hewit 2981 Brenda Cameron 2982 Neil Cameron 2983 Clare Sevenoaks 2984 M J Sevenoaks 2985 Brian Paton 2986 D Valentine 2987 W Duncan 2988 Keith Christie 2989 Cindy Christie 2990 Nina Raethorn 2991 Alison Hope 2992 Barbara Pittendreigh 2993 J Pittendreigh 2995 C Boyle 2996 John Sevenoaks 2997 Simon Beglin 2998 Sandy Mathers 2999 Jane Leslie 3000 F Milne 3001 A Mowatt 3002 M Rettie 3003 Iain Taylor 3004 David Anderson 3006 Brian Folan 3007 J McGuigan 3008 J Mitchell 3009 B Reith 3010 B Greig 3011 Beata Stanek 3012 A Farquhar 3013 Mitchell Crichton 3014 F Sevenoaks 3016 Peter Messer 3017 C Messer 3018 Stephen Noble 3019 Jennifer Noble 3020 Iain Wilson 3021 Albert Gordon 3022 Jack Whitecross 3023 J Raithel

Page 11 3024 Betty Duncan 3025 A Spalding

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations in and around Luthermuir – which the issue relates: M1 Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Development in Luthermuir 193: The respondent would prefer no building in Luthermuir. 234: Luthermuir does not need any development: there are 800 houses proposed for Laurencekirk. 750: A substantial group of villagers are in favour of no development in the village. 2901, 2902: Luthermuir would become a suburbanised housing estate with an additional 50 houses and industrial development. 2617: Site M1 conflicts with the strategy to support small scale development. It is a medium sized development which does not meet criteria of economic development and is not likely to be in-keeping with the character of the village.

2310: Due to the good access to the dual carriageway, the development of 50 houses in Luthermuir is supported.

Site M1 2323, 2386: The respondent requests the removal of site M1.

Support for site M1 724, 871, 873-899, 934, 937-943, 1001, 1002, 1325, 1332, 1339, 1344, 1347, 1353, 2136: A number of respondents support the site for housing. There are various reasons provided including: the site will bring enormous benefits including school roll, recycling facilities, affordable housing, shops, flood prevention. It is also suggested that the site would centralise the village around the school football field, park and village hall. 724, 1812, 1965, 1966, 2310, 2373: There is support for site M1 and the proposed gift of the woodland to the community. 1015, 1082, 1084, 1094: These respondents highlight their support for site M1. 1082: The respondent would like to see the playpark upgraded. 1124: There is a willingness to develop M1 with green credentials to enhance access and parking for the park. The masterplan and information on a recent public meeting are enclosed.

Impact on Wildlife 194, 234, 1001, 2306, 2619: Site M1 is unsuitable. There is no chance for local wildlife to thrive except in the woodland and the site supports a variety of wildlife. 195, 532, 696, 725-749, 751-819, 821-825, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1093, 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171, 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-1265, 1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 1949, 2618, 2715, 2763, 2892, 2901, 2902, 2911-2922, 2939-3004, 3006-3014, 3016-3025: Site M1 is in an area of mixed woodland, and there is nowhere for local wildlife to thrive except in this wooded area. The wood supports a diverse concentration of wildlife (listed in response) including red squirrel and bats. 532: The site provides connectivity for wildlife. Scottish Wildlife Trust strongly recommends the wooded area is left undisturbed. 700: The development of M1 would contravene several planning policies including ‘protecting biodiversity and geodiversity’ as the site is habitat for a range of wildlife including red squirrels. 725-744, 747-749, 751-818, 821-825, 2911-2922, 2939-3004, 3006-3014, 3016-3025: The proposed development would destroy Caldhame Plantation and threaten the wildlife therein. The Council would be in jeopardy of breaching the Nature Conservation () Act 2004

Page 12 should site M1 be developed. 725 -744, 747-749, 751-818, 821-825, 2901, 2902, 2911-2922, 2939-3004, 3006-3014, 3016- 3025: Development of site M1 would be in breach of Policy 11, and its associated SG Natural Environment 2.

Impact on Woodland 532, 2618, 2091, 2902: Site M1 at Cauldhame plantation is ancient woodland (long established of plantation origin). 700, 2619: Development of M1 would contravene several planning policies including protecting trees and woodland as the area is an established area of woodland. 725-744, 747-749, 751-818, 821-825, 2911-2922, 2939-3004, 3006-3014, 3016-3025: The woodland is an area of mixed woodland in a wholly agricultural landscape. The woodland is a rich naturally regenerated ex-plantation sustaining biodiversity. 1124: The respondent outlines that at present the woodland could be drained, cropped and replanted.

Recreational Impact 195, 696, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171, 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-1265, 1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308,1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 1949, 2618, 2619: The woodland is used for recreation and leisure activities. 234: Site M1 should be left as a natural green area: future generations are going to be left with few areas of 'wildness'. Green spaces are required for health and well-being. 750: Cauldhame Woodland (M1) is a lung to the village and would be a major loss to the health and well-being of the village. 1093: The wood is a valued asset to the community and is used regularly for recreation and leisure activities. 2306: The woodland is the only area of recreational ground in the village. 2617: Site M1 is not suitable, there would be removal of woodland amenity. 1124: The landowner is offering the remaining woodland (P3) to the community.

Drainage Impact 193: If development goes ahead in M1, drainage and flooding would need to be sorted. 194, 195, 696, 725, 732-737, 739, 741-744, 745, 746, 747, 479, 751-759, 761, 764, 768-782, 786-799, 808, 810, 814, 817, 818, 819, 821-825, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1093, 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171, 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-1265, 1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 2618, 2619, 2715, 2763, 2911-2922, 2939-3004, 3006-3014, 3016-3025: Site M1 is unsuitable as the site is waterlogged for most of the year. 195, 696, 750, 819, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1093, 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171, 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 2618, 2619 2715, 2763: There are concerns of flooding into neighbouring gardens. 700: Development of M1 would contravene several planning polices including ‘flooding and erosion’, as the site is waterlogged most of the year and development would create problems with dispersal of rainwater and could cause flood risk in the area. 2935, 2936, 2937, 2938: There was severe flooding previously when the site was deforested. There is heavy clay soil in the area. Since indigenous trees have returned to the site, there have been no real flooding issues.

Access 195: The Park Committee were advised that access off School Road is not suitable for regular traffic. 195, 696, 819, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1093, 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171,

Page 13 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-1265, 1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 2619, 2715, 2763: If the access adjacent to the primary school is used, there are concerns about the danger posed to children. 750: There are concerns that increasing the size of the village too quickly could result in growth of traffic at access points and junctions around the village. 994: There is concern about access issues along School Road: it is narrow and there will be increased traffic movements. There is a lack of alternative access points to M1. 1949: There is concern about the access located next to the primary school as this will create a bottleneck of traffic. The turning onto the B974 is virtually blind. 2306: The access to M1 has difficultly with site lines, which is likely to delay the site. 2617: Site M1 is not suitable: there are access issues.

Protected Land 195, 696, 819, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1093 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171, 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-1265, 1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 2619, 2715, 2763: It is unclear why P1 is protected and M1 is not. P1 is a void field with no access. 725 -744, 747-749, 751-818, 821- 825, 2911-2922, 2939-3004, 3006-3014, 3016-3025: The site should not be developed, but protected. 1949: The respondent queries why only half the woodland is protected, as the woodland is not very big: so why is only half worthy of protection. 2618: Concern that P3 will suffer the same fate as M1 and be proposed for development.

Alternatives 195, 696, 891, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1093, 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171, 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-, 1265, 1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 1949, 2715, 2763: There are many alternative sites to M1 on open farmland. 532, 2619: An alternative site to M1 should be found.

Other Issues 994: The supporting infrastructure of roads, water and sewage will require significant upgrading for site M1. 1949: The plans should be reviewed independently as there is a relative of the landowner on the planning committee. 2901, 2902: A member of the community council is a close relative of one of the developers and it is queried whether this interest was declared. 2618, 2619: There is concern about the lack of consultation on site M1: it was previously identified as a protected site. 2910: The respondent has canvassed the views on the community, 80% of the community are against development on Cauldhame Plantation.

Alternative Sites K31 and K33 194, 696, 700, 725-818, 821-825, 2306, 2323, 2386, 2617: Many respondents highlight that sites K31 and K33 are more suited to development and should be included in the plan. Some responses provide justification such as that there are roads which pass each side of the site, and that the site has no insurmountable problems as at M1. 234, 2136: Sites K31 and K33 should be retained for agricultural use. Development on sites K31 and K33 would result in the loss of cultivated ground. 2306: The respondent would wish to offer the land at K31 and K33 as an alternative to M1.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Page 14 193: Request that no building takes place in Luthermuir.

194, 234, 532, 700, 751, 1093, 2323, 2386, 2617, 2892, 2935, 2936, 2937, 2938: Site M1 is unsuitable for development.

195, 696, 819, 1052, 1058, 1064, 1068, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1091, 1093, 1098, 1128, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1143, 1153, 1156, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1169, 1171, 1178, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1189, 1192-1196, 1199, 1200, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1218, 1220, 1222-1232, 1235-1246, 1259-1265, 1267, 1270-1277, 1294, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1315, 1363, 1367, 1370, 1372, 1374, 1376, 1949, 2619, 2715, 2763: The respondents outline a number of concerns about site M1 (object to M1).

724, 871, 873-899, 934, 937-943, 1001, 1002, 1015, 1082, 1084, 1094, 1325, 1332, 1339, 1334, 1347, 1353, 1812, 1964, 1965, 1966, 2136, 2310, 2373: Support for site M1.

725-744, 747-749, 751-818, 821-825, 2618, 2911-2922, 2939-3004, 3006-3014, 3016-3025: Object to site M1 and suggest sites K31 and K33 should be allocated.

194, 700, 725-818, 821-825, 2306, 2323, 2617: Request that the development is reallocated to K31 and K33 (the respondents raise concerns with M1).

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Luthermuir is located in the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is within the Rural Housing Market Area. Development in Luthermuir contributes to meeting the key planning objectives for the settlement: sustaining services and meeting local need for housing. The primary school is forecast to be operating at only 49% capacity in 2016.

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 86) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the choice of allocations in the Proposed Plan.

A number of petitions have been submitted in relation to Luthermuir.

Development in Luthermuir Development is required in the settlement primarily to sustain the primary school, but also to meet local need for housing. The settlement has about 145 houses at present, and so the development represents an approximate 34% increase in the number of households. However, this development is to be delivered over a long period, 12 years, and possibly beyond if the allocations are not taken up. By allocating a mixed use site within the settlement there is an opportunity to facilitate some retail and/or employment uses. The development will not suburbanise the settlement: the masterplanning process will ensure design is in keeping with the character of the settlement.

Laurencekirk is within a strategic growth area and so cannot substitute for allocations required to be made in smaller villages, outwith these areas.

Site M1 Site M1 was identified as a constrained site in the Main Issues Report due to the site being identified on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. However, the Council took a view which placed greater weight on the perceived community benefit of making the allocation.

Support for site M1 Support for the site is noted. Development on M1 will result in the village centralised around the park and the village hall. A site for recycling facilities will be made available through the development.

Page 15 Impact on Wildlife It is noted that the woodland supports a wide range of wildlife. There have been no specific surveys undertaken to date to prove any of the suggested wildlife is present on the site. Prior to development, wildlife surveys would need to be carried out. If there are protected species present on the site, development could contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. There would be stringent conditions placed on development resulting from the presence of protected species, this would severely restrict where development could take place. Regarding the loss of connectivity, about half of the woodland is protected and will be retained which will ensure that connectivity remains.

Impact on Woodland The site is identified in the Ancient Woodland Inventory as ‘2b Long-Established woodland of plantation origin’. There is a strong presumption in favour of retaining ancient woodland in the ‘Scottish Government’s policy on Control of Woodland Removal’. There would need to be a significant public benefit and compensatory planting in order for the woodland removal to meet government policy. The Council are of the view that the public benefit which would result from the development is greater than the value of the woodland. The development would need to meet ‘SG Safeguarding 3: protection and conservation of trees and woodlands’ and would be considered against this supplementary guidance should a planning application be submitted. The supplementary guidance allows for mitigation measures to be applied and compensatory planting provided.

It is noted that the woodland could be cropped, but a felling licence is likely to be required if the entire woodland were to be felled. However, a felling licence is not required where there is planning consent on the site.

Recreational Impact It is recognised that the Cauldhame Woodland provides an area for recreation for the community, which is why approximately half of the woodland is to be protected for recreation (site P3). It is likely that compensatory planting would be required in any case.

Drainage Impact A number of responses highlighted flooding and drainage as an issue for the site but the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have not identified any such risk. The requirement for a sustainable urban drainage system would deal with issues relating to surface water.

Access The Roads Authority has acknowledged that there are difficulties with access from School Road as additional land would be required to meet visibility splays. There are alternative points of access adjacent to the primary school or onto the B974. Access issues can be dealt with at the masterplanning stage.

The Roads Authority has raised no issue with the scale of development proposed and the impact on local roads. Pedestrian and cycle links will need to be improved.

Protected Land Cauldhame Woodland is not “protected” in the current Aberdeenshire Local Plan. The weight of public opinion has influenced the decision to protect the remainder of the woodland (site P3) to provide for amenity and recreation and the setting of the settlement. Site P1 is protected to provide a focal point for the village, and protect the setting of the village. The southern part of the woodland (M1) is set behind a row of modern houses and has less impact on the setting of the settlement.

Alternatives The availability of alternative sites on open land is acknowledged. Alternative sites (K31 and K33) were considered at the Main Issues Report and were dismissed in favour of site M1 which is closer to the school and consolidates the settlement.

Other Issues It is acknowledged that the waste water treatment plant will need to be upgraded. Scottish Water has advised that there is sufficient capacity in the reservoir. There is no need identified

Page 16 to upgrade local roads, but improved pedestrian and cycle links would be required.

Regarding the suggestion that an independent review would be required due to relatives on the Planning Committee: the interest was declared at the time. Community Councillors are not part of the decision making process and any question of relationship between members is a local issue.

The Main Issues Report included site K26 (M1) as an alternative, albeit as an undesirable site. There was no significant consultation undertaken on this site in the Proposed Plan, as this represents the set view of the Council. Neighbour notification was carried out to alert direct neighbours to the proposal.

There has been a significant response to proposed development in Luthermuir, and it is noted that the majority of the community have engaged in the debate.

Alternative Sites Sites K31 and K33 These sites were fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s consideration was to exclude them.

There are no constraints to the development of K31 and K33, and is acknowledged that they are capable of development. Sites K31 and K33 were originally preferred for development in the Main Issues Report but the Area Committee had concerns about these sites due to the distance from the primary school. Site M1 is considered more appropriate as it will consolidate the village.

Development would result in the loss of prime agricultural land, but most land in the area is classified as prime, and prime land can be released where part of the settlement strategy (Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 97).

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Luthermuir are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 17 Issue 134 Settlement - Section 6, The Proposals Map (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32-33) reference: Document 3 Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p29-30) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

841 Mrs Beryl Colville 999 Mearns Community Council 1104 Christopher Rushbridge 1568, 1574, 1577 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Cushnie Farming Company 2588 Mr John Stewart 2895 Sheena Kerr 2924, 2925 Patrick Brasch

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations in and around Marykirk – which the issue relates: M1. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site M1 Increase the allocation on M1 1568, 1574, 1577: Site M1 should be increased to 40 houses, and should reflect the bid as originally put forward (K80). As site ch2 was deleted, the allocation on M1 can be increased to 40 units. There is a deficiency in numbers in the Rural housing market area.

Constraints 2895: Development on site M1 is not acceptable. There is no infrastructure to sustain the development. There are no facilities such as a shop, and public transport is limited. There is no demand for housing in the village, and there are many houses are for sale.

2895, 2924, 2925: There is inadequate water supply and sewage.

2895, 2924, 2925: Flooding is a problem within the village.

2895, 2924, 2925: The access onto the A90 is dangerous, and increased traffic using this junction would add more pressure to this junction. Also, there are significant delays experienced trying to cross this junction (2924, 2925). The access onto the A937 is poor.

2924, 2925: The school will be at capacity once the current housing development is complete. is over capacity.

2924, 2925: There is no employment in the village. However, the respondent adds concerns that employment units would increase traffic.

Site EH1 Infrastructure 841, 1104: Site EH1 is not suitable for development as the school is unable to handle the increased capacity, and access is dangerous.

841, 1104, 2588, 2895: There is no capacity in the sewage treatment works for development on EH1.

841, 1104, 999, 2588, 2895: The surface water drainage system is inadequate and would not be able to cope with outfall from EH1 and would add exacerbate the flooding problem.

999, 2588, 2895: Site EH1 is unsuitable for development, Kirktonhill Road is unable to take any increase in traffic. Pupils travelling to the school would be put at risk by further traffic on Kirktonhill Road. Also, the junction with the main road has limited visibility (2588).

Page 18 Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 1568, 1574, 1577: Site M1 should be extended to include all of the bid site K80 and the number of units allocated increased to 40.

2895, 2924, 2925: Site M1 should be removed.

841, 999, 1104, 2588, 2895: Remove allocation EH1.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Marykirk lies within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is in the Rural Housing Market Area. Marykirk has been identified as a settlement which requires growth to support services. Marykirk has the planning objectives of meeting local needs for housing, and sustaining services. The primary school is forecast to be operating at 73% capacity in 2016.

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan. Many of the issues raised in relation to this settlement were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 89).

Site M1 Increase the allocation on M1 There is no shortfall in Rural Housing Market Area housing numbers. The Rural Development policy is anticipated to meet the shortfall in the Rural Housing Market Area and additional numbers do not require to be found (see Issue 25 New Housing Land Allocations). Site Ch2 was constrained and is not part of the effective supply: therefore additional units are not required on this site to maintain the effective supply. The developer proposed a site larger than that allocated, and it was reduced in area to reflect an increased housing density so as to promote a sustainable settlement pattern. If a sufficient land supply is not maintained for any reason, early release could be considered under SG Housing 2: Housing Land Allocations.

Constraints It is acknowledged that there are limited facilities in the settlement, but the school does have significant capacity as the school roll indicates it is operating around 68% capacity (rising to 73% in 2016). The site is allocated as a mixed use site with the requirement for employment and local retail uses to be incorporated into the site. It is envisaged that this would reduce travel as people could live and work in the settlement, although it is acknowledged that this is not always the case. Opportunity has been provided for a local shop to meet the needs of the community.

It is the role of the Structure Plan to consider the demand for housing, the conclusions from which are now incorporated in the strategy adopted for the rural area (see issue 66).

Scottish Water have advised that there is insufficient capacity in the Waste Water Treatment Works. However, a growth project will be initiated once a development meets Scottish Water’s 5 point criteria. Scottish Water advise that there is capacity within the Water Treatment works, but that local mains reinforcement may be required.

Regarding flooding, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have raised no issues related to flooding with this site. Drainage issues would be considered at the detailed planning stage when a planning application is submitted.

In relation to access, the Roads Authority have provided comments and suggest that visibility could be an issue, and they also highlight that connectivity and improved pedestrian links will be required. It is recognised that the A90 junction at Laurencekirk does have safety issues. It would be difficult to demonstrate a direct causal link between development at Marykirk and impact on the A90 junction. However, the Scottish Government in their response in relation to

Page 19 Laurencekirk have requested that this is upgraded to a grade-separated junction (see issue 48).

Site EH1 Infrastructure Site EH1 was identified in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan as site ch1 for 19 houses (housing previously constrained). The site was considered at the Aberdeenshire Local Plan Inquiry (see extract of Report on Objections). The site is the subject is of a live planning application for 23 affordable units (APP/2009/0598) and there is no opportunity to remove the site. Issues of access, drainage, and school capacity will be considered in detail in the planning applications. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency in response to the Supplementary Guidance have requested that wording is added to highlight the need for a flood risk assessment. However, they do not object to the site. Issues relating to flooding will be considered as part of the planning application.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Marykirk are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended, but the following change has been made to the Supplementary Guidance Settlement Statements to identify the need for a flood risk assessment prior to the development of EH1.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 20 Issue 135 Settlement - Woods Section 6, The Proposals Map (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32-33) reference: Document 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p7-9) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

176 Angus Council 1559, 1562, 1567 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Pension Fund (SAP) 1645, 1652, 1654 Archial Planning on behalf of Carnegie Base Services

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations at which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site M1 General Comments 1645, 1652, 1654: The site is a brownfield opportunity, which has been in use for the past 65 years. Scottish Planning Policy and the Structure Plan provide a clear national policy directing development towards brownfield sites. The whole site should be allocated.

1559, 1562, 1567: The allocation at M1 may not be appropriate as the site is located on the southern edge of Aberdeenshire, increasing commuting distances. Aberdeenshire may lose out to Angus in employment and expenditure if this site is developed, and an allocation should be made at instead, which is on a direct route and is closer to .

Infrastructure Provision and Deliverability 176: Angus Council raise concern that no timing is identified for the delivery of junction improvements. It is requested that there is firm commitment of junction improvements prior to planning approval.

1559, 1562, 1567: Substantial infrastructure delivery, including upgrade of the A90 junction and upgrade of Waste water treatment works is required.

1645, 1654: The site should not be constrained to the current M1 site in housing numbers and phasing. The site has planning consent for a major mixed use development. The allocation of 300 units constrains the extent to which additional facilities can be funded. The current allocation is much smaller than previously identified in Aberdeenshire Local Plan, and is also smaller than the approved consent which has no express limit on the number of dwelling houses which can be constructed. The 300 units and 100 hectares of employment land in the Proposed Plan take no account of the approved permission and legal agreement. The lower allocation places an obstacle to securing necessary infrastructure improvements.

1645, 1654: Development of the site would bring significant benefit to the residents of Edzell Woods, as it would bring back services and facilities (which were formerly provided by the airbase). The development offers the opportunity to upgrade the Waste Water Treatment Plant. There are no technical constraints to the development of the base.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 1559, 1562, 1567: Some of the development allocated to site M1 should be reallocated to Fordoun.

1645, 1652, 1654: Site M1 should not be confined to the site as proposed, but both the boundary and the housing numbers and phasing should be increased to cover the entire brownfield area and reflect the planning consent. The scale and range of development should

Page 21 be determined through a masterplanning process.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Edzell Woods lies within the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is in the Rural Housing Market Area. Edzell Woods is a former Base, which was decommissioned about 15 years ago. Development in Edzell Woods contributes to objectives of meeting local need for housing, re-using a previously developed site, providing strategic employment opportunities and resolving issues with foul drainage. There are very few services and facilities in the settlement. The existing sewage facilities are run by the community and are in need of upgrade to bring them to an adoptable standard.

Edzell Woods was identified as a redevelopment opportunity in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan. A planning application was submitted in 1999 (KM/APP/1999/005) for a mixed use development, and was granted consent in 2010 following the authorisation of a section 75 legal agreement. This outline consent is for the development of 14.8 hectares of residential land and 149 hectares of employment land on the site.

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Many of the issues raised in relation to this settlement were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in the ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 42).

Site M1 General Comments It is recognised that the site is a large brownfield opportunity, and Scottish Planning Policy promotes development on previously developed land (paragraph 38). However, it is also noted that much of the site is in agricultural use, and so the actual level of previously developed land is uncertain. The Structure Plan has not identified this site as an area for strategic growth. A significant allocation (over and above the allocation of 350 houses) in this location could prejudice the strategic allocation in the south of to Laurencekirk strategic growth area.

Comments about the location in relation to its proximity to Angus are noted. The boundary between areas is a political boundary only. It is recognised that the settlements in South Mearns do make use of services and facilities in Angus.

Development should not be reallocated to Fordoun, there is no capacity in the primary school (see Issue 47). The allocation of site M1 is appropriate and provides the significant benefit of upgrading the waste water treatment works in Edzell Woods.

Infrastructure Provision and Deliverability It is identified in the supplementary guidance that an upgrade will be required to the A90 junction with the level of development proposed at Edzell Woods. Sewage upgrade is also identified as infrastructure required for the development. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency will need to consider any first time provision for waste water. Scottish Water will initiate a growth project once the development meets their 5 point criteria.

Issues of junction improvements and sewage works will be dealt with at the detailed planning stage. Consultation with Angus Council will also take place at that stage.

The developer has aspirations for a larger scale development than is allocated (or there is consent for). The site is within the local growth and diversification area, and a strategic allocation is not supported by the structure plan in this location. The deliverability of the allocation at Laurencekirk within the strategic growth area would be prejudiced by a large scale allocation in this location. Laurencekirk is preferable for large scale growth as it would utilise the rail station and the new academy (see issue 46).

Page 22 Additional facilities can be funded through 300 houses, and the provision of the sewage upgrade can be initiated once the development meets Scottish Water’s 5 point growth criteria. However, any first time provision will need to be considered by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

The outline consent covers the entire air base site, which is larger than the site allocated in the Proposed Plan. However, the outline consent permits only up to 10% of the site to be developed. The consent will need to be implemented within a limited time frame (3 years), whilst the Plan allows for the development which is realistically likely to come forward before 2023. If the developer has aspirations for future growth then this could be shown indicatively in the masterplan.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Edzell Woods are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 23 Issue 136 Settlement - Section 6, The Proposals Map (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32-33) reference: Document 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p45-47) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

948 Mr Ronald Beveridge 1205 Frances Whyte 1912 Ryden LLP on behalf of Miss Mary Singleton 1955, 2047 WYG Planning & Design on behalf of GL Residential Ltd 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations at St Cyrus which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site M1 Support for the Allocation 1912: The respondent supports the allocation of M1. However, it is suggested that M1 is extended to include the full area proposed as part of K108. This will allow the opportunity to comprehensively masterplan the western gateway to the settlement. The site is within walking distance to local facilities.

Infrastructure 948: The school is full and cannot accept such a major development. There is also no footpath to the school. 1205: Issues such as safe routes to school, traffic management and open space should be considered and addressed now and not at the masterplanning stage. 1205: Additional business land does not require to be allocated in St Cyrus as there are existing or under utilised sites nearby and on the outskirts of Montrose.

Flooding 948: The village is liable to flooding which should be addressed in any development. 1205: The respondent highlights that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have previously identified the need for a flood risk assessment and this should be done prior to the site being allocated. 1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency raises no significant flooding concerns for the site.

Other Issues 1205: Site K108 is high quality agricultural land and should not be built on: future food generation depends on this land. 1205: The respondent is concerned about the impact on the value of their property, and the inconvenience, danger and loss of amenity which may affect them. The development will block the view towards the church from the south. The respondent does not consider the masterplan process will be sufficient to engage the community. 1205: Schedule 4 Affordable Housing Requirements shows that St Cyrus is not a pressurised area and the waiting list is relatively low. It is therefore questioned why the level of housing proposed is required. 1205: The site is not a sustainable location as it will require the use of a car to go shopping, to work and to take children to their interests. Development at St Cyrus will have an impact on services in Montrose, as this is only 5 miles away.

Alternative Site 948: Land to the east of Lochside Road towards Lalathan would be more logical than site M1 as this would join the village together.

Page 24

Site EH1 1955, 2047: Site EH1 should be allocated for 30 houses. As part of the pre-application process, the Area planning officer advised that "It may be appropriate to erect a higher number of dwellings than specified in the local plan." It has been suggested that providing the proposal complies with the Councils layout, access, design standards then the number of units should not be an issue. The report of the pre-application enquiry is attached.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 948: Suggest land at Lalathan is allocated instead of site M1.

1205: The respondent objects to the allocation of site M1.

1912: Support M1 but request the full site as proposed as K108 is included, or identified as future housing land.

1955, 2047: The allocation of EH1 should be increased to 30 houses.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview St Cyrus is located in the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is within the Rural Housing Market Area. In St Cyrus development has the objective of meeting local housing need, sustaining services and providing opportunity for new services, and providing opportunity for employment. The primary school is forecast to be operating at only 64% capacity in 2016.

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 123) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the choice of allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site M1 Support for the Allocation Support for the site is noted. The site boundary reflects the density of housing required. The full area of the proposed site K108 has not been included in order to prevent the extension of the settlement too far from its historic core. If the developer has aspirations for future growth then this could be shown indicatively in the masterplan. A lower density of housing than the 30 houses per hectare promoted throughout the Plan can be developed on the site, on the expectation that additional development of the site will be allocated in the next phase, but there is a risk in this approach for the developer.

Infrastructure St Cyrus Primary School is presently operating at 71% capacity and is forecast to drop to 64% by 2016, with space for 61 pupils.

Issues of safe routes to school and traffic management cannot be considered in detail at this stage. The plan sets the principle for development and only when a planning application is submitted will these issues be considered in detail. The Roads Authority has not raised any substantial issues with the site, only that the pedestrian/cycle link along the A92 would need to be improved. The masterplan will be subject to community consultation.

Regarding business land, the structure plan promotes mixed use developments (paragraph 4.30). There is opportunity for reducing the need to travel by creating employment opportunities adjacent to housing. St Cyrus has very little employment land at present, and it is important to provide the opportunity for employment uses.

Flooding The site is not within an identified flood risk area. The Scottish Environment Protection

Page 25 Agency has advised that there is no flooding issue with the site. There are likely to be technical solutions in dealing with surface water on the site through sustainable urban drainage systems.

Other Issues The Macaulay Land Capability Maps classify the site as capability 3.1, which is prime land. However, the majority of land in the general area is prime land, and there are no alternative sites of poorer quality. Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 97) states that development on prime land can be permitted where it is an essential component of the settlement strategy.

Impact on views and property values is not considered a material planning consideration. The impact on amenity of neighbouring properties can be considered through the layout siting and design policy. It is accepted that during construction there may be some inconvenience to neighbouring properties but conditions can be imposed to keep this to a minimum. Engagement on the masterplan will provide a further opportunity for engagement in relation to the detail of the site. Important views can be communicated to the developer for inclusion in the masterplan to ensure they are retained.

It is acknowledged that affordable housing requirements are not significant in St Cyrus. The need for affordable housing is not the only basis for making allocations. A need has been identified in St Cyrus for housing to sustain services and meet local need. A mix of house types will still be required on the site to ensure a sustainable, mixed community.

It is proposed that the site incorporates mixed use development to reduce travelling. It is acknowledged that residents from St Cyrus make use of services in Montrose but it is not considered that there will be a significant impact on services in Montrose from an additional 125 houses phased over the next 12 years.

Alternative Site The land to the east of Lochside Road towards Lalathan was included in the Main Issues Report as an alternative (site K14). The site was fully debated at the Main Issues Report stage and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. It is recognised that the site can be developed, and would to some extent consolidate the village. However, site M1 is more appropriate as it can easily allow employment uses to be integrated.

Site EH1 Site EH1 (fh1 in Aberdeenshire Local Plan) is allocated for 15 units. The site has been granted planning permission in principle for a residential development (APP/2010/0869). The level of housing on the site will be considered through detailed consideration of site conditions. Justification would need to be provided for any increase in housing numbers on the site.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in St Cyrus are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Page 26

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 27 Issue 137 Settlement - Gourdon Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32-33) reference: Volume 3H Supplementary Guidance Settlement Statements (page 16 & 17) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

41 Mr Deryk McNeill 235 Ms Sally Wilkins 835 William Heath 870 Mrs Clare Duncan 950 Mr Paul McLaughlin 951 Miss Joni Gellatly 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2503 Gourdon Community Council 2665, 2669 Halcrow Group Ltd on behalf of A C Reid 2717 Mr Keith Jamieson

Provision of the development plan to Housing and Employment Allocations at which the issue relates: Gourdon – H1 & E1.

Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Support for the Site 2665, 2669: Support the allocation of H1.

Flooding Issues 41, 950, 951: There is a serious issue with flooding in adjacent properties and any improperly supervised development will exacerbate this. Issues of flooding and flood damage should be investigated thoroughly. Due to the lie of the land a site visit is recommended.

2503: The soil is heavy clay which causes drainage issues for the village. There has been flooding along the coastal path, which has arisen since the latest houses were built.

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency note that a Flood Risk Assessment will be required for the site, but raises no significant flooding concerns for site H1.

Access 2503: There is only one road in and out of Gourdon, and increase in housing will increase traffic and journey time.

2717: Request clarification about access to H1. Would object to the use of Brae View as an access as the width of the road is not suitable for through traffic: it is a raised area.

Infrastructure 951: It is queried whether local amenities, the playpark and the coastal road would be upgraded due to the increased number of houses.

2503 Concern about the capacity of the school as the development could cause the roll to exceed 96, which would require a portacabin.

2503: There is a lack of facilities for young people in Gourdon. Also, new houses do not necessarily mean increased business for the local shop.

Other Issues 41: With no information about house types the respondent highlights that it is difficult to comment and requests full details.

Page 28

951, 2717: There is a concern about overshadowing. Two respondents who neighbour the proposed development have highlighted that their properties are sunk 5-7 feet below the site. It is requested that only single level houses be permitted on the site due to the potential for the height difference to cause privacy issues and impact on daylight.

Site E1 235: The A92 has no capacity to cope with greater traffic volume.

835: Site E1 at should be removed and reallocated to Gourdon on land to the north of Linton Business Park. This would be relatively out of sight behind Sillyflat Farm.

870: Request a more precise and concise map which outlines the plans for the business park.

Site R1 2665, 2669: The respondent suggests that the cemetery is extended to the east, R1 should be reallocated to the east of the cemetery. It is suggested site R1 is suitable for housing.

Alternative Site Land at Brae Road 2665, 2669: Request land at Brae Road, identified in the Main Issues Report as K130 and K42, is allocated as H2 for 120 houses, with 50 houses in phase 1, and 70 houses in phase 2. The cemetery can be incorporated into the site. The site is effective and capable of early delivery. The size of the site makes it marketable.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 41, 950, 951, 2503: Request that flooding should be investigated thoroughly prior to any development in H1.

951, 2717: Request that due, to the variance in level between the adjacent housing development and the proposed H1 site, there should be provision for height restrictions or an appropriate baseline level for the development.

2717: Object to the use of Brae View as an access for the development of H1.

835: Site E1 should be zoned as a buffer zone (P6). An extension to the employment site should be located to the north of the business park.

2665, 2669: Request that site R1 is reallocated to the east of the cemetery.

2665, 2669: Request that K130 and K42 are allocated as H2 for up to 120 houses, with 50 houses in phase 1 and 70 houses in phase 2.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Gourdon is located in the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is within the Rural Housing Market Area. The key planning objectives for Gourdon are: meeting local need for housing, sustaining services and providing opportunity for employment. The primary school is forecast to be operating at 104% by 2016 in the most recent school roll forecast.

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 61) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the choice of allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site H1 Support for the Site Support for the site is noted.

Flooding Issues

Page 29 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency have not identified any flooding concerns for the site. There are likely to be technical solutions in dealing with surface water on the site through the implementation of a sustainable urban drainage system.

Access The Roads Authority have not raised any concern about the impact from the level of development proposed. It is unlikely that 35 houses would result in a significant increase in traffic in the settlement. The level of development represents an approximate increase in the number of households of 10%. Access would be off Brae Road, and not Brae View.

Infrastructure Regarding the school capacity, the allocations are based on the 2009 School Roll Forecasts, which predicted sufficient capacity in the school. However, there is now forecast to be a significant increase in P1 intakes meaning that the school capacity is forecast to rise steadily until 2016. It should be noted that for smaller schools, it is more difficult to accurately predict the future roll as the departure of one or two families can considerably alter the roll. The school roll will require to be considered at the detailed planning stage.

Upgrade of the playpark and other amenities and facilities could be considered through planning gain if appropriate.

Other Issues There is no information about house types at this time. The Local Development Plan establishes the principle of development on the site. Further design details will be provided through the preparation of a development brief which will be subject to community consultation. The development brief process will take into account issues of overshadowing. Compliance with ‘SG LSD 2: Layout Siting and Design of new development’ will ensure the development takes account of the site conditions and characteristics.

Site E1 The A92 has capacity for this scale of employment development. There are no detailed plans for the business park at this stage, only the principle of development on the site is established through the plan.

There is sufficient employment land in Gourdon without allocating additional land. Site E1 in Inverbervie is allocated for an office, which meets a different need and is better located in the more prominent position at Inverbervie (see issue 138).

Site R1 Site R1 is not a proposal but a reservation to meet the need for the long term future. The cemetery extension could be located to the east of the site: this would also be a suitable location.

Alternative Site Land at Brae Road Site K42 was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. There is no capacity in the primary school for the level of development proposed. Gourdon Primary School cannot be extended as the site is constrained. Development on this site would impact on the coastal setting and character of the village.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Gourdon are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Page 30 Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 31 Issue 138 Settlement - Inverbervie Section 6 The Proposals Map, (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32-33) reference: Volume 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p18 & 19) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

835 William Heath 1004, 1005, 1006, 1008 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Mr G Colquhoun 2501 Gourdon Community Council 2663, 2666 Halcrow Group Ltd on behalf of Fotheringham Property Development 2664, 2669, 2671 Halcrow Group Ltd on behalf of A C Reid

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations at H1, H2 & E1. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 1005, 1008: Object to the allocation H1. The site is not required to deliver the relief road. Site H1 is a considerable distance from the primary school and the village centre. Sustainable modes of transport (walking and cycling) would not be encouraged. Development on H1 would lead to coalescence with Gourdon, and would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of Inverbervie.

2663, 2666: Site H1 is not capable of accommodating 45 houses without requiring a built form entirely out of place to the surrounding residential area. Site H1 is a natural extension and further phase of Castleview which was designed with sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate 30 houses. The reduced capacity of 30 houses would enable the site to be delivered in phase 1. The site is effective and capable of early delivery.

Site H2 835: Inverbervie and Gourdon should be kept as separate and distinct. The landward side of Inverbervie is open to very intrusive major development which could result in coalescence between the two communities, and loss of amenity and open space. Houses proposed at H2 should be reallocated to the west of Townhead.

2664: Site H2 is visually intrusive, particularly on the approach from the south and is an inappropriate gateway to Inverbervie. The site is required to provide the first section of a distributor road which may impact on the viability and deliverability of the site.

2664, 2669: The extension of site H2 westwards is on a steep upward slope. The topography of the site makes the site difficult to develop at the western end, particularly with regard to drainage, ground conditions and infrastructure provision.

2501: Increased traffic from H2 will cause difficulties on the A92.

1005, 1008: Support H2 on the basis that the site can deliver the first section of a new relief road. The area to the north-west of the settlement must be properly masterplanned. However, it is argued once the site has been properly masterplanned that the site will be unlikely to be able to accommodate 200 units.

Site E1 835: E1 should be included within the buffer P6. If an employment site is required this should be located at Linton Business Park at Gourdon, since this would help greatly with the problem of traffic issues as there are too many junctions at the entrance to Inverbervie (see issue 137 Gourdon).

Page 32 2664, 2669: There is no evidence to demonstrate that there is demand for office related space within Inverbervie: there is actually a surplus of office space. The site should be allocated for housing.

2671: Propose replacement of E1 with a larger tourism related development, which would build on the demand for tourism related activities in the area.

Alternative Sites Land to the north-west of Inverbervie (K60) 835: Houses allocated at H2 should be reallocated to Townhead to the north-west of the settlement. The future development of Inverbervie could be virtually unlimited in this area without impinging on the village or threatening the coalescence of Gourdon.

1005, 1008: The whole area to the north-west of Inverbervie should be masterplanned, to provide landowners with the long term comfort of allocated land and provide certainty for up- front funding. Therefore land to the north-west of Inverbervie should be allocated for development, such as Strategic Reserve Land to ensure the deliverability of the relief road. A transport assessment has shown that 100 houses can be accommodated on the existing road network, and following this the land is required to facilitate the relief road.

1005, 1008: Land to the north-west of Inverbervie is within walking distance of local amenities and would reduce dependence on the car. The visual impact of development to the north- west of Inverbervie would be addressed through strategic landscaping.

Land at Newbigging Steading 1004, 1006: Land should be identified to the north-west of Inverbervie within the settlement boundary and identified for up to 30 houses. The parcel of land has housing developments on two sides and Scottish Planning Policy requires settlement boundaries to be defensible and to use easily identifiable features on the ground: therefore the boundary should follow the field boundary and incorporate the land south of Newbigging steading. The site is also within walking distance of amenities.

Sites E1 and P6 2664, 2669: The site at E1 and P6 should be allocated for up to 120 houses, with 50 houses in phase 1 and 70 houses in phase 2. The area is characterised by residential development. Housing on the site would be less visually intrusive than development to the west of the A92. The existing business park at Linton is considered by Council Officials as ensuring the separation between Inverbervie and Gourdon, and therefore the extent of P6 is excessive. The site has direct access to the A92, has no constraints and is effective.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Site H1 1005, 1008: Remove site H1.

2663, 2666: The allocation in site H1 should be reduced to 30 houses.

Site H2 835: Houses allocated at H2 should be relocated to Townhead.

2664: The site should be allocated for 100 houses, with 50 houses in the first phase and 50 houses in the second phase.

2669: Delete part of H2 to the west and north of Hallgreen.

Site E1 835: Site E1 should be included within P6.

2664, 2669: Delete allocation E1 and replace with housing.

2671: Delete allocation E1 and replace with a larger allocation for a tourism related

Page 33 development.

Alternative Site 835: Reallocate H2 to Townhead.

1004, 1006: Land should be identified to the south of Newbigging steading (following the field boundary) within the settlement boundary and should be identified for up to 30 houses.

1005, 1008: Land to the north-west of Inverbervie should be allocated for development, such as Strategic Reserve Land to ensure the deliverability of the relief road.

2664, 2669: The site at E1 and P6 should be allocated for up to 120 houses, with 50 houses in phase 1 and 70 houses in phase 2.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Inverbervie is located in the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is within the Rural Housing Market Area. Development in Inverbervie also contributes to objectives of meeting local housing need, sustaining services and providing opportunity for new services, and providing opportunity for employment. The primary school is forecast to be operating at only 60% capacity in 2016.

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 66), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the choice of allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site H1 The site is to the south of the town which it is accepted is further from the services and facilities which are largely concentrated at the north of the town. However, there is a footpath, and the distance is walkable (approximately 1km by road). There is a large area of protected land to the south of the site (P6) to prevent coalescence with Gourdon. The site is well connected to the existing settlement and there is a line of trees providing a defensible boundary to the south. The site utilises the access road which was built to serve development at Brighead Place.

The site is allocated for 45 houses. It is acknowledged that a density of 30 houses to the hectare may not be appropriate in this location as neighbouring developments are of a much lower density. However, in order to meet the objective of the structure plan we should be striving to meet higher densities. ‘SG Housing 1: Housing land allocations’ does not prevent a lower density being developed on the site, but the density should be justified through the development brief.

Site H2 There is a landscape buffer to the south of the site, and the site is on the opposite side of the road to Gourdon. Therefore, coalescence with Gourdon is not an issue. The site requires a masterplan which will be subject to community engagement, and the detail of layout and design will be considered through this process.

The Roads Authority have not raised any concerns about the impact on the A92. Development of this site is required to contribute to a new distributor road, which will open up land to the east and north of the town for future phases of development, and assist in relieving congestion at Townhead. This will not impact on the deliverability of the site, as access would need to be provided for the site in any case.

The masterplanning process will identify the exact number of units, and it may preclude 200 houses on the site. However, a relatively high density of development should be sought.

Page 34 Steeper areas can be utilised as open space, as the requirement for 40% of the site to be open space applies to the site. Further development can be considered when the plan is reviewed in 5 years if required.

Site E1 Gourdon has sufficient employment land. An employment allocation has been made at Inverbervie in light of the level of housing proposed. The employment uses at Linton are generally more industrial and an opportunity for an office type development is proposed on site E1. There are no other opportunities for business space of this scale in the settlement or surrounding area.

The site is not proposed for tourism: the proposer of the site had not previously suggested a tourist use, but tourism proposals can come forward where they meet the relevant policies.

The site was considered for housing during the debate on the Proposed Plan, but it is a more appropriate location for an iconic business centre.

Alternative Sites Land to the north-west of Inverbervie (K60) Land to the north-west of Inverbervie (K60) was considered in the Main Issues Report. However, following widespread community engagement and debate at the Proposed Plan stage the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. It is acknowledged that the site is capable of development, but additional development in Inverbervie would require a second primary school. A transport assessment would be required, and it is unlikely that Townhead Road would be able to accommodate significant development. It is acknowledged that development in this location will not result in coalescence, but consideration would need to be given to the visual impact from the north of the settlement.

Land at Newbigging Steading The strip of land to the east of Newbigging Steading was considered in the Main Issues Report as part of bid number K60. The ability of Townhead Road to accommodate further development is uncertain. The allocation of site H2 in Inverbervie will begin a link road which will open up development to the west of the settlement. The road must take access from the A92 and therefore it is logical for the link road to begin at site H2. It is proposed that development at Townhead and Newbigging Steading is not released at this stage, but can be considered in a future review of the plan when sufficient infrastructure is in place to serve the development.

Sites E1 and P6 Land to the south of Inverbervie (K40) was considered in the Main Issues Report. However following widespread community engagement and debate at the Proposed Plan stage the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. The Council took a view which placed greater weight on the perceived community benefit, as coalescence with Gourdon is cause of great concern in the community. With the level of development proposed there, an extension is already required to the primary school and so there is not capacity in the primary school for an additional 120 houses. The preferred strategy for the future development of the settlement is for western expansion.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Inverbervie are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority:

Page 35 No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 36 Issue 139 Settlement - Roadside of Section 6, The Proposals Map (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6 (p28) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32-33) reference: Volume 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p43-44) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

180, 182, 2253, 2651 Ryden LLP on behalf of Alexander Adamson Ltd 382 Mr Jan Wiggelman 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Mr J Forbes 2313, 2376 Mr Gordon Duncan 2320 , Kinneff and Dunnottar Community Council

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations at Roadside of Kinneff which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site M1 Support for site M1 1626, 1629, 1630: The respondent supports the allocation of site M1. The site offers the opportunity to improve the linkages between the residential area to the west and the school to the east. Currently children are bussed to the school from the village. Development to the east of the A92 adds weight to the case for a reduction in speed to 30mph.

1628: Support the allocation of M1.

Infrastructure 180, 182, 2253, 2320, 2651: A number of respondents have raised concern about road safety issues resulting from the development at M1. The single track road to the primary school is not suitable for pedestrian use and is not capable of supporting the development. The junction with the A92 has road safety issues. Considerable road improvements would be required for the development of this site. There is limited public transport provision. The site is significantly constrained by road and access issues (180, 182, 2253, 2651).

2320: There are infrastructure issues with M1, including with waste water provision. There is flooding at the site. Significant affordable housing should be provided.

Landscape Impact 180, 182, 2253, 2651: M1 is located on undeveloped coast and this area is not justified when assessed against local policy. The settlement has historically developed along the west of the A92 and an allocation to the east of the A92 will result in an isolated development, setting precedent for large scale development on the opposite side of the main road. The site will have significant visual impact and be of detriment to the character and identity of the settlement.

General Objection 180, 182, 382, 2253, 2313, 2320, 2376, 2651: These respondents object to the allocation of site M1. 2313, 2376: The site is adjacent to an electricity substation and the respondent has concerns about the viability of housing next to a substation. There are health risks from exposure to electro-magnetic radiation which would make the site unattractive to young families who are required to regenerate the area.

Alternative Site Land to the west of Martin Terrace (K116) 180, 182, 2253, 2651: Object to the failure to identify land west of Martin Terrace (site K116 in

Page 37 the Main Issues Report) in the plan. Site K116 lies adjacent to the settlement boundary. Site K116 will be screened by woodland to the north, while its position to the east of the A92 provides direct access to local services and bus links. The site can be easily accessed from the adjacent road. Development would sustain Kinneff Primary School.

382: Site K116 should be allocated: there were positive comments in relation to the site yet K84 was allocated.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 180, 182, 2253, 2651: Site M1 should be removed from the plan and replaced with site K116.

382: Site K116 should be allocated.

2320: Site M1 should be removed from the plan.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Roadside of Kinneff is located in the Local Growth and Diversification Area, and is within the Rural Housing Market Area. Development in Roadside of Kinneff contributes to the objective of meeting local housing need, sustaining services and providing opportunity for new services, and providing opportunity for employment. The primary school is forecast to be operating at only 45% capacity in 2016.

The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 66) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the choice of allocations in the Proposed Plan.

M1 Support for site M1 Support for the site is noted. The site is allocated partly to help sustain the school, which includes improving linkages between the settlement and the school. The A92 which goes through the village has already had the speed limit reduced to 40mph. The allocation of the site to the west of the A92 is likely to result in further traffic calming measures, and potentially the provision of a pedestrian crossing.

Infrastructure Pedestrian access to the school will need to be provided. The junction onto the A92 will require upgrading, this will have a positive benefit on access to the primary school. By increasing the critical mass in the settlement, there is greater opportunity to improve public transport services.

In their response to the supplementary guidance, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have advised that a flood risk assessment will be required, but do not object to the site. It is likely that there will be a technical solution in providing drainage. It is recognised that the waste water treatment works is nearing capacity but a growth project will be initiated once a development meets Scottish Water’s 5 point criteria.

The site requires a contribution of 25% affordable housing. A mix of house types is required in conformity with ‘SG LSD2: Layout siting and design of new development’ which will allow some house types to be affordable through design.

Landscape Impact It is true that the site is identified as Undeveloped Coast in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan. Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 100) requires the development plan to identify coastal locations suitable for development and those unsuitable for development. The allocation of land through the settlement strategy allows coastal areas to be reviewed. In this case, the site is not deemed to add significant value to the coastal area, and on balance is the best location

Page 38 for the extension of the settlement.

It is acknowledged that the site will be visible, but through a well designed development the site will not impact on the character and identity of the settlement. The site has the advantages of improving linkages to the primary school, and will require the improvement of the junction onto the A92.

General Objection The substation is located adjacent to the hall, some distance away, and so is highly unlikely to impact on this site. There is a sewage treatment works approximately 100m to the north but this is sufficient distance to ensure no impact. A development brief will be required for the site therefore there will be a further opportunity for engagement in relation to the layout, siting and design of the site.

Alternative Site Land to the west of Martin Terrace (K116) The site was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s consideration was to exclude it. It is acknowledged that the site would have less visual impact from the A92 than site M1. However, site M1 has advantages as outlined above. The Roads Authority have highlighted that there could be issues with the junction onto the A92 from this site. Site M1 has been allocated to sustain the primary school, and over-development would result if this site was allocated in addition to site M1.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocation in Roadside of Kinneff are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 39 Issue 140 Other Sites in Kincardine and Mearns Rural Housing Market Area Section 6, The Proposals Map (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6 (p28) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 6 (p32-33) reference: Volume 3H, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Kincardine & Mearns Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 662: Andrew Hayes 1531, 1533: Catterline Community Working Group 2259: Craigallan Homes Ltd

Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in other settlements in the which the issue relates: Rural Housing Market Area part of Kincardine & Mearns. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Alternative Sites

Fasque 662: Land at Fasque should be allocated instead of site H1 in Fettercairn. The Fasque estate masterplan offers a more appropriate addition to address housing needs than the allocation at Fettercairn. The development will help secure , a piece of architectural and historical heritage which should be preserved. The Fasque proposal will encourage facilities and tourism to the benefit of Fettercairn.

Catterline 1531, 1533: The respondent (duplicate response) requests that no development be permitted in Catterline. Particular points of objection are made against the Main Issues Report sites K91, K92 and K147.

West Cairnbeg 2259: The respondent objects to the failure to allocate land at West Cairnbeg (site K95 in the Main Issues Report). The site could accommodate housing without putting pressure on local infrastructure. The site would result in additional housing being provided in a choice of locations. Development of the site would provide a sustainable solution to a private sewage treatment works.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 662: Land at Fasque should be allocated, in line with the proposed masterplan.

2259: Land at West Cairnbeg (K95) should be allocated.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview The allocations within the local growth and diversification area are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan (see issue 66). There is no need to consider any alternative sites.

Most of the issues raised in relation to Catterline and West Cairnbeg were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (Pages 21 and 147).

Page 40 Alternative Sites Fasque The site was not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. Land at Fasque is best dealt with by the relevant policies, in particular Development in the Countryside and Enabling Development. SG Enabling development 1 generally permits development to support the retention of a listed building where it is at risk. The Fasque proposal is currently going through the pre-application process, and a Proposal of Application Notice has been submitted. The allocation at Fettercairn is appropriate and sufficient, and should not be removed.

Catterline Sites in Catterline (K91, K92 and K147) were fully debated at both the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s consideration was to exclude them. Therefore, no allocations are promoted in Catterline. Some small scale development may be permitted through relevant policies, such as the Development in the Countryside policy, which promotes development on brownfield land and economic development proposals. Representations have been made by the Catterline Community Working Group to this policy regarding the use of the Aberdeen Housing Market Area Boundary (see issue 8).

West Cairnbeg The site was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. West Cairnbeg was identified as a ‘rural service centre’ in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan, and has recently been subject to extensive growth compared to its size. There are no services in the hamlet and it is not proposed to identify West Cairnbeg as a settlement. Regarding the potential to resolve sewage issues, no indication of the level of growth required to resolve these issues is given. In a letter from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency submitted as part of the bid (see supporting information), it is suggested that the developer would wish to see the settlement consist of 85 houses, meaning that approximately 50 houses are proposed. This scale of growth is not appropriate in this location.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in the rural housing market area are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 41