From: To: Localplan Subject: Angus Main Issues Report - Response (Carnoustie Area) Date: 21 December 2012 10:39:11 Attachments: Angus Main Issues Report.doc I submit my response to the above consultation exercise as an attachment to this e-mail (word document) A S Franklin Ravensby Cottage Barry Carnoustie DD7 7RJ Angus Main Issues Report – Carnoustie Area Response The favoured site, utilising the prime agricultural land round Piskelly up to Upper Victoria, is vast in area. Indeed it is approximately one quarter of the present area of Carnoustie. As the report states, this would cater for a period of time way beyond the time considered in this report. The site has an open nature, is rural in setting. If the Upper Victoria part of this area is developed first, as is favoured in the report, due to the undeniable good links to the main road, it would form a development remote from Carnoustie. It would form a “dormitory” settlement used by commuters to Dundee and Arbroath. Using present roads, it is over four km. to the town centre. I doubt if people this far out would consider themselves to be part of Carnoustie. It would introduce development into a very open agricultural landscape. I would imagine that there would have to be significant investment to resolve drainage issues associated with any development. It would bring a built up area into open countryside with high visibility from the A92. The land slopes down towards the link road from the North East. Landscaping and structural planting, no matter how high the standard could not hide any development, business or housing. Carnoustie has an image of a “golf town” and the link road is a main access. Do we want visitors first image of Carnoustie to be that of a building site for the next who knows how many years? The report talks about the ground being used to include business. In the previous Angus Local Plan the ground round Pitskelly was promoted as a business park. This was turned down by the reporter as unsuitable and not appropriate. Does this latest plan envisage the business park site at Carlogie identified for this but not developed being somehow encompassed within this huge area? I would have thought that the objections previously identified would still be valid. If the link road is to be used initially, surely this would produce ribbon development along it, a process frowned upon by planners. Any such building would have the associated street lighting, creating light pollution and its effect on wildlife. There would have to be developer input to cope with the increased demand on primary school places as Burnside and Woodlands Primary Schools have limited capacity left. For any pupil walking or cycling to the High School, it could involve a 2km journey, some of it over a muddy unlit track at the back of Shanwell cemetery unless significant work was done to upgrade it. The whole area is prime agricultural land with access to Carnoustie via the Upper Victoria link and its associated excellent cycle track. The link road, together with the farm roads to Ravensby, Pitskelly, Barry, and Shanwell are used recreationally by walkers, cyclists, joggers and riders in increasing numbers now there is good access to the west end of Carnoustie. The quality of these activities would be affected if the proposed development went ahead in my opinion. As far as the other sites go, I would rule out the site to the east of Carnoustie as it crosses a boundary road. It is also further for pupils to get to school. The site near Panbride and to the west of it is more suitable for road and school use and would form a more natural extension of the Carnoustie boundary. The cost of realigning the road at Carlogie is used as a reason for not proceeding with development in that area on the grounds of safety, but I am not aware that this is an accident blackspot. There are no school issues to resolve with this site. I would put this option as my first choice to be a more natural evolution of Carnoustie. Surely some thought should be given to the land at Clayholes. It is dismissed for the reason of a one way junction to the A92 being a hindrance to traffic access. The Carnoustie Farm Cooperative at Clayholes seems to have no problem. I regularly see Eddie Stobart artics there loading up! I presume they do not have any difficulty doing “loops” at the Muirdrum or Upper Victoria graded junctions, a distance of less than two minutes travel in each case. The people who live in the new houses in Newton Road almost certainly do the same. It might be worth seeing what they think. Senior school access and drainage would not be a problem. I accept there would have to be some changing of catchment areas for primary school pupils, in order that the space in Carlogie PS could be utilised. A S Franklin Ravensby Cottage Barry Carnoustie Angus DD7 7RJ .