ABERDEENSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINALISED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN CONSULTATION KINCARDINE AND MEARNS – PORTLETHEN TO STONEHAVEN STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA Issue 39 Spatial Strategy – Portlethen to Stonehaven Strategic Growth Area Section 4, The Spatial Strategy (p6 & 7) Reporter: Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p21) Development plan Schedule 1, Table 6 (p28) reference: Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32) Schedule 3, Table 2 (p35 - 41) Schedule 4, (p43) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 178, 179 Ryden LLP on behalf of Alexander Adamson Ltd 517 Phillip & Fiona Clark 580 Portlethen & District Community Council 918 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Bett Homes Ltd 946, 1268 Barton Willmore on behalf of Stewart Milne Homes 957, 959 Dundas & Wilson CS LLP on behalf of Stewart Milne Group 1081, 1386, 1414, 1415, 2129, 2130 Turley Associates on behalf of The Stonehaven South Consortium 1087 J G Jameson 1378 PPCA Ltd for Banchory & Leggart Estate and Edinmore 1417, 1419, 1432, 1456, 1457 Bancon Developments 1478, 1479 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of CHAP Homes 1485, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498, 1499, 1500 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Barratt East Scotland & Drum Development Company (Stonehaven) Ltd 1520 James Benton 1551, 1552 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Mr Stuart McDonald 1555 Caroline Graham 1556 Mr David Summers 1638, 1943 Archial Planning on behalf of Stewart Milne Homes 1684, 1686 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Elsick Development Company Ltd 1863 Ryden LLP on behalf of Cala Management Ltd (Cala) 1909, 1910, 2657 Ryden LLP on behalf of Mr R M Kinghorn 1953 Montagu Evans LLP on behalf of The Sluie Estate Trust/ David & Richard Strang Steel 1976 R.E. Winmill 2054 Mr Michael Birch 2062 Maclay Murray & Spens LLP on behalf of Forbes Homes Limited 2097 Mr & Mrs Jack & Anne Campbell on behalf of Kirkton Development 2131 Newtonhill, Muchalls & Cammachmore Community Council 2236 Mr Malcolm Ritchie 2281 Mrs Anne Geldart 2294 Mr Adam Adimi 2292 Mr Neil Paterson 2295 Miss Daisy Paterson 2274, 2356, 2419 Mr Graham Brown 2309 Mr William Walton 2616 Graham and Sibbald on behalf of James Manson, Garry Manson and Sandra Brebner t/a Manson and Partners Page 1 Provision of the development plan to Distribution of development between which the issue relates: settlements in the Portlethen to Stonehaven Strategic Growth Area Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): General Issues 1419, 1684, 1686, 1976, 2054, 2131, 2236: Support the proposed strategy for this Strategic Growth Area. 1684, 1686: This is the most appropriate model in which to accommodate growth. 1976: It will assist to maintain the separation of town and country. 946, 959, 1268, 1417, 1863, 1909, 1910, 2062, 2657: A number of respondents who support the identification of a new settlement at Elsick comment that additional sites should be allocated in the Strategic Growth Area, particularly in the first phase, in order to help meet the Structure Plan requirements. 517, 1520, 2097: Question the scale of housing required. Respondents comment that the allocations should be re-allocated across a number of smaller sites to provide a range of locations and promote choice (178, 179). Efficient use of infrastructure 1482: Comment is made about the education strategy for the South Aberdeenshire area. Object to the approach taken suggesting it is too simplistic. The approach seems to suggest that 4,000 houses are required for a secondary school and there is little to suggest re-consideration of school catchments. Suggest that it is unlikely that more than 4 academies can exist in this Strategic Growth Area. The proposed spatial strategy does not use existing educational infrastructure; Mackie Academy’s roll is falling and a new Mearns Academy is in the pipeline. Accessibility The strategy needs to consider the implications of addressing transport infrastructure at the Bridge of Dee (2274, 2281). Delivery Respondents 178, 179, 517, 1087, 1456, 1457, 1478, 1479, 1485, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498, 1499, 1500, 1638 2356, and 2419 comment that the strategy should direct development to existing settlements where there is existing infrastructure in place. The proposed approach will not meet the Structure Plan requirements. There is a concern that by directing development to a single large site there is little opportunity to consider alternatives if issues arise and that, due to its scale, this site will fail to deliver the structure plan housing land requirement for this area. The scale of the allocation at Elsick should be reduced. 1378, 1555, 1556, 2292, 2294, 2295: Development should be directed to Banchory Leggart instead of Elsick as it is a more suitable option for growth. It requires less infrastructure, bus services can be easily extended, it has less impact on the transport system, has close links to Aberdeen and can take advantage of pedestrian/cycle options. It is a more deliverable option (1378). Alternatives - Focus on Portlethen Respondents 918, 957, 959, 1943, 2616 comment on the role of Portlethen and its ability to accommodate additional growth. 918: Portlethen is a main service centre, has good local services and infrastructure and transport. 957, 1551, 1552: Portlethen is an established employment location and an obvious location for additional employment land. Respondent 580, supports the approach in the plan which proposes no further significant Page 2 development around Portlethen. Alternatives - Focus on Stonehaven 1081, 1386, 2129, 2130: The strategy does not suitably reflect Stonehaven’s role as a regional centre. Stonehaven is the only settlement proposed to have a regional/sub-regional role within the Kincardine and Mearns area. In comparison with other regional centres the proposed scale of allocations for Stonehaven is very modest. 1386: Whilst Stonehaven has a number of services and facilities normally associated with a sub-regional centre, there are some gaps in provision, which are not met by the plan. 1414, 1415: The proposed allocations for Stonehaven are neither appropriate nor relevant. 1417: Stonehaven is the only option for additional allocations in this Strategic Growth Area. Around 800 houses at Portlethen remain in the established housing land supply and Stonehaven is capable of accommodating early growth. It would benefit from growth. 1953: Reference should be made to the requirement, or need for a large scale foodstore in Stonehaven, in order to reflect the Structure Plan recognition that in order to create sustainable communities, retail services must be one of the main considerations. 1432: Development in Stonehaven should be included in the short term where infrastructure and services are present to allow immediate delivery. Respondent 2236, however, comments that major development in or around Stonehaven would have a detrimental effect and put additional strain on already stretched facilities and services. Alternatives - Laurencekirk 2309: The Strategic Growth Area extends as far south as Laurencekirk and consideration should be given to locating large scale development in that area, since it has an operational railway station and is an area with a greater capacity for absorbing new development. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 959: Re-allocate housing from Elsick to Schoolhill, Portlethen. 957: Re-allocate some of employment land from Elsick to Schoolhill, Portlethen. It has advantage of proximity to Aberdeen City, close association with Portlethen area, available infrastructure and enjoys stronger market profile than Elsick. 1378: Banchory Leggart is a better site to accommodate housing and business use required by the Structure Plan in conjunction with land at Schoolhill, Portlethen. 1432: Development in Stonehaven should be included in the short term where infrastructure and services are present to allow immediate delivery. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview and general issues The spatial strategy proposed for this area is both appropriate and sufficient. The scale of development, set by the approved Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan, is the greatest for any of the strategic growth areas within Aberdeenshire. The local development plan recognises and takes account of paragraph 38 of Scottish Planning Policy in identifying locations for development (see issue 29). Paragraph 77 of Scottish Planning Policy requires that in making allocations planning authorities should consider efficient use of existing infrastructure, accessibility by a range of transport options, coordination of development with infrastructure provision, deliverability and environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts on the South of the city also require to be minimised, through consideration of the settled view of Aberdeen City as to where development should take place within their boundary. A new settlement is proposed as part of the spatial strategy for this area. This decision has been taken with reference to paragraph 85 of Scottish Planning Policy, and in particular the Page 3 infrastructural constraints to the further growth of existing settlements, and the opportunity this presents to reduce development pressure on other greenfield land. Particular constraints identified include access to and impact on the trunk road network, and the capacity of the secondary school estate to accommodate an estimated 800 pupils over the life of the plan. Incremental