165 banchory response id respondent ... - aberdeenshire · response id respondent ... 837 ms ann...

165 Banchory

Response ID Respondent 48 Ms Alexandra Wilowska 94 Mr Neil Young 95 Mr and Ms Robin &

Bryonie Brodie 98 A.M & J.T. Menzies 110 Mr Mark Hagger 126 Ryden on behalf of

Westhill Development Company Ltd

139 Mr and Mrs A.M. & J.T. Menzies

148 L.A. Braidwood 149 Mr George Booth 420 Mr Andy Hessell 422 Ms Jenny Smith 423 Ms Jenny Smith 427 Mrs Sally Berrisford 428 Mr Neil Menzies 438 Ms Kairen Griffiths 439 Mr Charles Stopani 455 Ms Anabel Holroyde 456 Mr Iain Adams 474 Ms Moira Allan 475 Mr Brian Carter 478 Ms Karen Cannon 488 Mr Mark Evans 490 Ms Sue Paterson 491 Ms Gillian Critchley 492 Mr Charles Stopani 493 Mr William Ferguson 496 Mr Stuart Bennett 497 Mr Pete Fottrell 499 Ms Jo Skoyles 500 Ms Tina McConnachie 501 Mr Paul Clark 502 Ms Pauline Rowett 503 Mr Tom Gray 504 Mr James Friend 505 Ms Kerrie Cooper 506 Mr Paul Wraight 507 Ms Elizabeth Macmillan

Response ID Respondent 508 Ms Elizabeth Macmillan 514 Dr. W Wallace 516 Mr Ken Davies 517 Mr Kenneth Wood 520 Mrs Fiona Hope 522 Mr David Hoare 524 Ms Fenneke Wolters-

Sinke 526 Mr Robin Williamson 527 Mr Martin Young 528 Mr Franco Sorrentino 531 Ms Julie Sayer 543 Ms Joyce Paul 545 Mrs Sally Berrisford 548 Mrs Sally Berrisford 550 Mrs Sally Berrisford 556 Ms Eunice Hubbard 566 Mr Peter Dawes 568 Mr Michael Johnston 574 Mr Michael McHardy 575 Ms Elaine Fraser 578 Mr Neil Booth 585 Mr Neil Valentine 601 Ms Kate Robertson 602 F. Graham 603 J.H. Fleming 604 Mr and Mrs Duncan and

Beryl Andrew 612 Ms Linda Urquhart 615 Mr Scott Struthers 620 Mr and Mrs Victor &

Melanie Guatelli 626 Mr Nigel Gibson 630 Ms Heather Robb 636 Mr Ahmadi Tehrani 641 Mr David Simmons 642 Ms Heidi Mellor 643 Mr John Duncan 645 Mr and Mrs P & B

Knight 647 Mr and Mrs Alastair &

Moira Forsyth

of 17

649 Ms Anne Sanders 650 Ms Jane Innes 651 Mr Ian Forrest 652 Mr James Ian Edwards 653 Mr Alan Chesterman 654 Mr and Mrs Bob and

Carol Greenwood 655 Mr Michael Robson 656 Mr and Mrs Bill &

Lesley Birse 657 Mrs Joan Chesterman 658 Mr and Mrs D.

Parkinson 659 Mr John Owen 660 Ms Jane Innes 661 Mr and Mrs S. Emslie 666 Ms Rachel Watt 669 Mr James Ollerhead 672 Mr and Mrs Robert

Dann 676 Mr and Mrs Ian &

Margaret Cordiner 677 Mr James Ollerhead 681 Mr Geoffrey Wilkinson 687 Ms Christine McDonald 697 Mr David Bisset 706 Mr Alan Johnson 707 Ms Annabel Holroyde 708 Ms Audrey Bowker 709 Mr Calum Cormack 710 Ms Jane Hoare 711 Mrs Joan Chesterman 712 Mr Andrew Conway 714 Mrs Elaine Conway 715 Mr Andrew O'Donovan 716 Mr Adam Conway 721 Mr and Mrs Ron &

Linda Mudie 723 Ms Roseleen Kelly 726 Mr Ian Edwards 727 Mr Doug Smith 731 H.J. Mallen 733 Mr Kenneth Davies 734 Mr and Mrs Stewart &

Phllis Emslie 735 Mrs Hilary Duncan

737 Mr John Owen 739 Mr Jim Briggs 740 Ms Anna Simpson 747 Mrs Adeline Bruce 750 Mr and Mrs Laura &

Walter Thain 751 Mr Brian Hope 752 Ms Susan Brown 753 Mr Robert Pollard 758 Mr Sebastian Innes 759 Mr Andrew James 760 Ms Aileen Osborne 762 Mr Alan Robertson 763 Mr John Anfield 764 Ms Fiona Griffin 765 Mr John Anfield 766 Mr Andrew Duff 767 Ms Jacqueline Bell 770 Mr Stephen Black 771 Ms Hazel Marshall 773 Mr Stephen Black 787 Mr Andrew Duff 788 Mr Ian Broughton 790 Ms Laura Duff 792 Ms Audrey Pope 793 Mr Martin Pope 794 Dr. John Coyne 802 Fughdee West

Community Council 811 Mr David Trembath 812 Mr David Trembath 813 Mr and Mrs Colin &

Margaret McLaren 815 Mrs Anna Bisset 821 Mr John Mason 822 Mr Peter Colllins 823 Mr and Mrs Rod &

Christine Dallas 827 Ms Eileen Cook 833 Archial Norr on behalf

of Mr W. Duncan 834 Ms Norma Makin 837 Ms Ann Surma 838 Mr David Mackay 842 Ms Jennifer Hibbert

of 17

844 Dr. Susan Mchardy 849 Ms Margaret McVey 853 Mrs Pamela Watson 895 Mr Craig Duffy 898 Mr Michael Adams 899 Mr Peter Davis 900 Miss Jennifer Littlejohn 901 Ms Rhoda Cameron 905 Ms Alison Robinson 909 Ms Caroline Clephan 911 William Tubby 916 Mr Stephen Eccles 918 Mr Graeme Paterson 922 Ms Christine Durno 927 Mr John Purvis 929 Ms Gillian Tait 945 Dr. John Purvis 946 Ms Pam Reichartinger-

Lawlor 949 Mr Robin Richmond 950 Mr Michael Jarrett 952 Mr Michael Cameron 957 Ms Jane Drury 1013 Mr Charlie Stopani 1017 Ms Mary Wilson 1023 Mr Andrew Cruickshank 1024 Ms Lucy Gilbert 1025 Mr Stuart Durno 1026 Ms Alyssa Kennedy 1029 Mrs Rebeccah Stripling 1032 Mrs Gill Whatling 1035 Mrs Katherine Dawes 1047 Mr Alexander Sligo 1048 Mr and Mrs Matt &

Anne Cowlishaw 1049 Mr Neil Bruce 1053 Mr Michael Burke 1058 Mr Dave Holroyde 1059 Mr Trevor Ricketts 1060 Mr Jamie Farquharson-

Welsh 1067 Ms Matti Ferguson 1071 Ms Karen Moore 1072 Ms Anne Martindale

1073 Ms Jill Smith 1074 Mr Tim Tubby 1075 Ms Kayren Campbell 1076 Mr and Mrs F.J.

Chadwick 1084 Mr Matthew Merchant 1085 Ms Jackie Allan 1086 Mr Melvin Hauxwell 1087 Ms Sharon Hauxwell 1093 Mr Alan Fowler 1096 Mr Chris Ball 1103 Mr Derek Ashby 1120 Mr Andy Wilkins 1123 Mrs Margot Kennedy 1132 Mr and Mrs James &

Margaret Cairns 1147 Mr and Mrs Ian &

Christine Mechie 1148 Mr and Mrs Christopher

& Adrienne Hunt 1152 Mr Lawrence Ross 1154 Dr. Shirley Johnston 1165 Bancon Developments 1170 M.B.A. Thomas 1173 Ms Becky Adams 1201 Mr George Campbell 1203 Mr John Owen 1206 Mr Calum Myles 1211 Mr Philip Bird 1212 Mr Bob Elder 1230 Ms Mhairi Morriss 1231 Mr and Mrs Nicola &

Robert Glendinning 1242 Mr Russell Petty 1244 Ms Deborah Verkuil 1246 Ms Naomi Smith 1248 Ms Lucy Gilbert 1249 Mr Chris Ball 1250 Mr George Campbell 1252 Mr and Mrs Peter &

Susann Greaves 1254 Mr and Mrs David & Pat

James 1256 Ms Britney Houvet 1257 Mr and Ms David &

Jayne Christie

of 17

1260 Mr Ben Williamson 1261 Mr Nick Wood 1264 Mr and Ms Norman &

Margaret Wood 1266 Ms Lucy Gilbert 1274 1st Banchory Scouts 1276 Mr and Ms John &

Christine Wilson 1278 Mr Ian Murray 1286 Mr Sean Mechie 1291 Mr Paul Law 1292 Mr Drew Young 1295 Mr and Ms Michael &

Jane Gill 1297 Mr Alastair Graham 1299 Mr Mike Sutherland 1306 Mr John Adron 1311 Mr Harry Verkuil 1313 Ms Julia Davies 1316 Mr Martyn Brett 1318 Ms Frances Getliff 1324 Ms Clare Gordon 1325 Mr Stephen Paterson 1329 Mr Alan Sealy 1330 Mr Graham Smith 1331 Ms Rebecca Hubbard 1332 Mr Marek Wilowski 1337 Mr Simon Richards 1341 Ms Becky Adams 1344 Ms Julia Ricketts 1351 Ms Maggie

Cunningham 1352 Mr John Reid 1360 Banchory Community

Council 1363 Mr Stephen Kemp 1365 Ms Samantha Kemp 1368 Mr Colin Stuart 1369 Dr. Jonathan Stephens 1378 Mr Mark Sanders 1383 Alex & Shona

Campbell 1385 Alex & Shona

Campbell 1386 Mr and Ms Philippe &

Gitta van Welbergen

1387 Alex & Shona Campbell



1397 Margaret & Norman Wood

1401 Mr Mike Sutherland 1402 Sarah Richards 1409 Ryden on behalf of

Sandlaw Farming Co Ltd

1414 Burness Paull on behalf of Iain Adams



1423 Mr Alexander Johnson 1424 Mr John Milne 1437 Warren & Jill Birch 1444 Ms Yolanda Christie 1448 Mr Fred Williams 1456 Mr Ben Williamson 1460 Lesley Reader 1475 Britney & Joras Houvet 1476 Ms Britney Houvet 1485 Mr Michael Sibson 1495 Mr James Stewart 1497 Ms Laura Myles 1499 Mr Euan Blackhall 1505 Ms Rosalind Eames 1513 Ms Jayne Christie 1517 Mr Archie Cook 1527 Mr Peter Reader 1528 Ms Karen Williamson 1538 Mr and Ms Ian &

Christine Mechie 1546 Mr Nick Wood 1547 Miss Megan Abbot 1556 Mr and Mrs Neil &

Christina Murray 1566 Mr Keith Lawson 1567 Mr and Mrs Tony & Sue

Rochester 1572 Ms Maria Underwood

of 17

1575 G. Jones 1577 Mr Robin Davies 1578 Mr Robert Davidson 1580 SEPA 1583 Halliday Frser Munro on

behalf of Mr & Mrs Burnett

1596 1st Banchory Scouts 1600 Mr and Mrs John &

Christine Wilson 1603 Ms Cecilia Rogers 1613 Mr Chris Low 1615 Mr and Ms Alex &

Shona Campbell 1622 Mr William Drury 1628 Ms Morag Clapferto

1648 Ms Moira Langmuit 1667 Mr Bob Elder 1681 Mr Dennis Thompson 1693 Mr and Ms Robert &

Vivienne Moore 1703 Scottish Natural

Heritage 1712 Mr John Allen 1715 Mr and Mrs Peter &

Susan Greaves 1749 Ms Tracey Emslie 1809 Scottish Water 1810 Mr and Mrs Ramsay &

Angela Duncan 1824 Dee District Salmon

Fishery Board

1. Issues Settlement Objectives Support has been expressed for the Banchory settlement objectives identified within the Main Issues Report (98, 641), particularly in relation to protecting and enhancing the role of the town (420, 1360). It has been highlighted that the town centre would benefit from some rejuvenation (1123).

It is also felt that the services in Banchory do not meet the needs of the current levels of housing (420, 475). It has also been highlighted that there is a poor range of shops (mainly charity shops, gift shops and cafes) in the Town Centre (657, 711).

The value of Banchory and its surroundings has been identified as being very important (653, 726, 1360) particularly for the benefit of visitors and residents as well as supporting tourism in the area and therefore should not be compromised (428, 528, 1060, 1123). Of particular landscape and amenity value is the land to the south of the river (602, 653, 655, 676, 726, 1123, 1318).

Housing It is felt that further major housing development should be limited to that already identified and allocated in the current LDP which are sufficient) and there is no need for any further housing in Banchory (420, 428, 602, 603, 660, 1029, 1123, 1242, 1360, 1577, 1538). It is considered that the existing ‘sensible’ (428) growth has retained the town’s character and surroundings (428, 655). Conversely however, it has been argued that there is insufficient housing land provision in Banchory (1165) and the wider area.

It has been expressed that the settlement objective for housing should be strengthened to ensure there is no pressure for larger developments (602) as concern has been expressed over the scale of bids received (657, 711, 1096, 1383, 1385, 1387, 1388 ) as well as existing allocations (759). It is considered that all development must be carefully managed in order to conserve the natural beauty of the area (759, 1383, 1385, 1387, 1388 ) and it has been highlighted by some that small scale proposals may be acceptable or more appropriate (658, 1383).

Services and Infrastructure

of 17

It has been raised by a number of respondents both in relation to specific sites as well as more generally, that Banchory’s primary services are under considerable strain. There is an existing requirement for a new Health centre and the Banchory schools, particularly Banchory Academy, are at or nearing capacity (1360, 1485, 1390, 1437). Additional development will further exacerbate these pressures (681, 952, 1060, 1257, 1324, 1329, 1383, 1385, 1387, 1388, 1485). It is suggested that this issue is incorporated into the settlement objective and land is reserved for future educational facilities (1360).

Traffic and congestion has repeatedly been highlighted as an issue (mostly identified in relation to each individual bid) whereby large volumes of traffic pass through Banchory town centre on the A93, particularly east to Aberdeen (1693). This road can be a bottle neck and is in need of upgrading west of Banchory (1123). Concern has been raised that ribbon development along this route will compound the traffic issues (1123, 1437). In addition, it has been highlighted that any development south of the River Dee will cause significant traffic problems, particularly in peak hours (655). Lack of adequate public transport in the area has also been highlighted as an issue, particularly for commuting as many employment centres are not located in the centre of Aberdeen (where the buses go) which heightens car dependency (1693).

Water shortage has been raised as an issue in Banchory (1495, 1580), and is explored more specifically under each site. It has been highlighted that water network upgrades may be required to facilitate further development and developers may be required to carry out a Water Impact Assessment to ensure there are no detrimental impacts on existing residents (1580, 1809). It has also been highlighted that there is insufficient waste water treatment capacity (1390) and a growth project may be required at Banchory Waste Water Treatment Works in the near future to meet the needs of upcoming development (1809). Existing Allocations It has been highlighted in relation to the R2 site reserved for a cemetery extension, that burials can pose risk of pollution to groundwater including private water supplies and full screening would be required (1580).

MA007 It has been highlighted that development should not be supported in and around the Auchattie area of Banchory, south of the river where this site lies (48, 110, 543, 652, 726, 740, 811, 1324, 1369, 1622). This is on the basis that this is not the historic development pattern and the rural nature of the area is very important and should be protected (543). However it is also noted that the scale and nature of this site (7 houses) is less likely to have a significant impact and should be supported as it is on previously developed land (1360). Also the proposal would not be opposed as it is more minor in scale (658, 802, 1360), however the adjacent road should be improved to adoption standards if pursued (658, 802, 811). It was suggested that a smaller scale proposal of 2-3 houses would be more suitable (802) or just one (1103). It has been noted that the site is in close proximity to the River Dee Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (1703) and adjacent Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS) (811).

MA008 It has been highlighted that even though the bid is only for 4 houses it should not be supported along with other sites in and around the Auchattie area of Banchory (48, 110, 543, 652, 726, 740, 1324, 1360, 1369, 1622, 1648). This is on the basis that this is not the historic development pattern and the rural nature of the area is very important and should be protected (543, 1074, 1360). It has also been put forward that the development, in conjunction with others could impact on the appearance of

of 17

the area and local infrastructure (952) as well as contribute to the town’s traffic congestion (1329). Access has been highlighted as being very difficult due to a tight bend and on this basis should not be considered suitable (502).

It has been noted that the site is in close proximity to the River Dee SAC (1703).

Support for the site has also been expressed (802).

MA016 There has been overwhelming objection to the proposal for 230 units on site MA016, also known as Auchattie or Braehead, to the south of the River Dee in Banchory, in line with the officer’s recommendation. (48, 94, 95, 98, 110, 139, 148, 149, 422, 423, 427, 428, 438, 439, 455, 456, 474, 475, 478, 488, 490, 491, 492, 493, 496, 497, 499, 500, 501, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 514, 516, 517, 520, 522, 524, 526, 527, 528, 531, 543, 556, 566, 568, 575, 578, 585, 601, 602, 603, 604, 612, 615, 620, 630, 636, 641, 642, 645, 647, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 666, 669, 672, 676, 677, 687, 706, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 714, 715, 716, 723, 726, 727, 731, 733, 734, 735, 737, 739, 740, 747, 750, 751, 752, 753, 758, 759, 760, 762, 763, 765, 766, 767, 770, 771, 787, 788, 790, 792, 793, 794, 802, 813, 822, 827, 834, 837, 842, 849, 853, 898, 899, 900, 901, 905, 909, 911, 916, 918, 922, 927, 929, 945, 946, 949, 950, 952, 957, 1013, 1017, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1029, 1032, 1035, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1053, 1059, 1067, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1093, 1103, 1120, 1147, 1148, 1152, 1154, 1170, 1173, 1201, 1203, 1211, 1212, 1230, 1231, 1244, 1246, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1252, 1254, 1256, 1261, 1264, 1266, 1274, 1276, 1278, 1286, 1292, 1297, 1299, 1306, 1311, 1313, 1324, 1325, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1337, 1341, 1344, 1351, 1352, 1360, 1363, 1365, 1368, 1369, 1378, 1390, 1397, 1401, 1402, 1414, 1417, 1418, 1423, 1437, 1460, 1475, 1476, 1499, 1505, 1517, 1527, 1538, 1546, 1547, 1566, 1567, 1575, 1577, 1578, 1596, 1600, 1603, 1613, 1615, 1622, 1648, 1681, 1715, 1749).

It was noted by a number of responses that the scale of the proposal would be overwhelming and inappropriate particularly in this rural location. It was highlighted that development south of the river would fragment the town and will lead to the suburbanisation of this area countryside (48, 500, 508, 526, 566, 615, 647, 651, 657, 661, 731, 788, 899, 909, 1067, 1212, 1246, 1256, 1297, 1306, 1313, 1330, 1337, 1341, 1344, 1360, 1368, 1401, 1460, 1499, 1517, 1527, 1538, 1566, 1567, 1575, 1577, 1603, 1615, 1749). Significant concern has also been expressed that this could create a precedent.

It is also asserted that there is currently adequate housing provision within Banchory and therefore no need for any additional housing on this site (95, 428, 438, 474, 490, 503, 506, 543, 578, 602, 630, 708, 715, 727, 735, 758, 763, 765, 911, 1017, 1032, 1074, 1093, 1212, 1299, 1329, 1344, 1352).

Significant concern regarding the impact that the proposal would have on the visual, landscape and rural characteristics of the site has been raised. It has been noted by many that the area has significant landscape value, and development on this site would negatively affect the views across the River Dee, and particularly the view from Scolty Hill which is considered very important for the setting of the town (48, 95, 98, 139, 148, 149, 422, 428, 438, 439, 455, 456, 474, 475, 478, 488, 491, 492, 496, 501, 503, 504, 508, 514, 516, 517, 520, 522, 524, 526, 527, 531, 543, 556, 568, 575, 578, 601, 602, 603, 620, 636, 642, 647, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 660, 669, 672, 687, 708, 710, 711, 715, 723, 727, 733, 735, 739, 740, 747, 750, 751, 752, 758, 759, 760, 763, 765, 766, 767, 787, 790, 792, 793, 802, 813, 822, 834, 849, 853, 898, 899, 905, 909, 916, 927, 945, 946, 949, 950, 957, 1013, 1024, 1025, 1035, 1047, 1048, 1053, 1067, 1071, 1075, 1093, 1103, 1148, 1154, 1173, 1201, 1212, 1231, 1244, 1246, 1248, 1250, 1252, 1256, 1261, 1264, 1266, 1274, 1278, 1297,

of 17

1299, 1313, 1325, 1329, 1331, 1332, 1337, 1341, 1351, 1352, 1360, 1363, 1365, 1368, 1369, 1378, 1390, 1397, 1401, 1414, 1417, 1418, 1423, 1460, 1475, 1476, 1505, 1546, 1566, 1567, 1575, 1577, 1578, 1603, 1613, 1615, 1622, 1648, 1715, 1749). In addition, development of the site would result in the loss of valuable countryside which is important for local leisure, recreation and amenity (94, 95, 98, 139, 422, 423, 427, 428, 439, 475, 488, 492, 493, 501, 504, 506, 508, 514, 520, 528, 556, 578, 615, 620, 652, 658, 660, 677, 712, 714, 716, 723, 731, 735, 747, 751, 752, 759, 763, 765, 766, 792, 813, 837, 849, 853, 898, 900, 901, 905, 927, 945, 946, 949, 957, 1013, 1024, 1029, 1035, 1047, 1048, 1053, 1067, 1076, 1093, 1203, 1230, 1248, 1266, 1274, 1286, 1306, 1324, 1329, 1331, 1341, 1344, 1360, 1363, 1365, 1369, 1378, 1397, 1401, 1423, 1475, 1505, 1547, 1566, 1596, 1603, 1613, 1615, 1622).

These characteristics have been identified as being particularly important in creating an attractive place for tourists and visitors to the area and development on the site could affect this. It has been highlighted that tourism is very important for the local economy (94, 95, 98, 148, 422, 423, 438, 478, 493, 497, 520, 528, 556, 578, 615, 620, 642, 654, 658, 669, 677, 739, 740, 751, 763, 765 , 766, 787, 790, 792, 793, 900, 911, 927, 945, 949, 950, 957, 1013, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1049, 1053, 1059, 1074, 1076, 1093, 1103, 1173, 1201, 1231, 1248, 1261, 1264, 1306, 1324, 1329, 1331, 1332, 1337, 1344, 1351, 1352, 1369, 1378, 1397, 1402, 1423, 1476, 1505,1546, 1547, 1566, 1567, 1603, 1622, 1648, 1715).

The site is also valuable in terms of biodiversity and wildlife. MA016 is within immediate proximity to the River Dee Special Area of Conservation and has the potential to affect the diverse range of wildlife (most notably red squirrels, deer, otter, pine martins, bats and bird species) and their habitat which includes areas of woodland (94, 139, 148, 422, 438, 455, 456, 478, 493, 505, 522, 527, 531, 556, 566, 575, 601, 602, 603, 620, 630, 641, 642, 649, 655, 657, 658, 661, 666, 669, 677, 710, 712, 714, 716, 727, 735, 740, 747, 752, 766, 767, 787, 790, 792, 793, 813, 837, 842, 849, 853, 898, 900, 901, 905, 911, 916, 922, 929, 952, 957, 1013, 1023, 1025, 1029, 1048, 1049, 1053, 1059, 1067, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1103, 1147, 1148, 1154, 1201, 1203, 1244, 1250, 1252, 1254, 1256, 1286, 1313, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1341, 1344, 1351, 1363, 1365, 1369, 1378, 1390, 1418, 1423, 1475, 1476, 1505, 1538, 1547, 1577, 1613, 1615, 1681, 1703, 1715). It is also noted that the proposal could affect water quality and subsequently wildlife (salmon) (1505).

In addition, some responses have drawn attention to valuable farm land also contained within the site area, which whilst currently being left fallow, could be used productively and provides an important asset to the area (439, 492, 1013, 1276, 1369, 1600).

There is particular concern that the proposal will put considerable pressure on the town’s services, particularly the health care, schools and sporting and community facilities (48, 475, 499, 500, 505,517, 526, 528, 531, 566, 575, 578, 603, 604, 612, 620, 636, 642, 649, 651, 654, 657, 658, 669, 677, 687, 723, 731, 747, 751, 752, 759, 763, 765, 766, 770, 771, 787, 788, 790, 792, 802, 827, 849, 898, 900, 901, 905, 916, 952, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1032,1035, 1049, 1053, 1059, 1067, 1073, 1093, 1120, 1147, 1148, 1154, 1170, 1173, 1230, 1246, 1248, 1249, 1256, 1274, 1297, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1341, 1344, 1351, 1363, 1365, 1368, 1369, 1378, 1437, 1460, 1475, 1476, 1499, 1517, 1527, 1538, 1547, 1566, 1577, 1613, 1648) and result in further social impacts (516, 636, 733). It has been highlighted that Banchory’s Schools are already at or nearing capacity and a development of this scale would likely overwhelm them. In terms of a health centre, it has been proposed by the developer that the MA016 could accommodate a new health centre. However a number of respondents have objected on the basis that this location is

of 17

inappropriate and it should remain in its current central location. It is highlighted that funding is the issue, not the requirement for a site (1246).

It is also noted that the development will dramatically increase traffic and subsequent congestion in the area and particularly the town centre as a result of both the added population and construction traffic (particularly the Dee St junction) (94, 98,148, 149, 438, 439, 455, 456, 474, 475, 478, 488, 492, 493, 497, 500, 501, 505, 506, 508, 516, 517, 520, 522, 526, 527, 528, 531, 543, 556, 578, 585, 602, 603, 604, 612, 620, 636, 642, 645, 647, 649, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 657, 661, 676, 706, 709, 712, 714, 716, 723, 731, 733, 734, 735, 739, 747, 750, 751, 753, 758, 759, 760, 763, 765, 766, 767, 770, 771, 787, 788, 790, 792, 794, 802, 813, 827, 837, 842, 849, 853, 898, 900, 901, 905, 909, 916, 922, 927, 929, 945, 946, 952, 957, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1032, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1053, 1059, 1067, 1072, 1073, 1076, 1093, 1120, 1152, 1154, 1173, 1201, 1203, 1212, 1230, 1231, 1244, 1246, 1248, 1250, 1252, 1266, 1274, 1276, 1286, 1297, 1299, 1306, 1313, 1324, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1337, 1341, 1344, 1360, 1363, 1365, 1368, 1369, 1390, 1397, 1401, 1418, 1423, 1437, 1460, 1475, 1476, 1505, 1517, 1527, 1538, 1546, 1547, 1566, 1567, 1577, 1578, 1596, 1600, 1603, 1613, 1681, 1715, 1749). This issue is compounded by the fact that the roads, access and associated bridges (particularly Bridge of Feugh and Dee Bridge) are unsuitable and inadequate for this level of additional traffic (94, 95, 98, 139, 148, 149, 422, 423, 428, 438, 456, 478, 497, 499, 500, 517, 520, 522, 526, 527, 543, 578, 602, 604, 612, 636, 642, 645, 647, 650, 652, 654, 655, 657, 658, 660, 661, 676, 706, 709, 711, 715, 727, 731, 733, 758, 759, 766, 787,788, 790, 794, 827, 837, 842, 849, 898, 899, 905, 909, 911, 916, 922, 927, 929, 945, 946, 950, 952, 1017, 1023, 1024, 1029, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1053, 1067, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1120, 1148, 1152, 1154, 1173, 1201, 1211, 1212, 1230, 1244, 1246, 1249, 1250, 1254, 1261, 1264, 1278, 1297, 1306, 1324, 1329, 1332, 1337, 1341, 1344, 1363, 1365, 1369, 1402, 1418, 1423, 1437, 1460, 1505, 1547, 1567, 1600, 1603, 1613). This will also increase carbon emissions and pollution in the area (439, 456, 492, 604, 620, 636, 652, 654, 655, 712,714, 715, 716, 731, 733, 735, 767, 770, 837, 842, 849, 898, 957, 1048, 1073, 1093, 1154, 1201, 1231, 1250, 1256, 1341, 1363, 1365, 1368, 1423, 1437, 1475, 1476, 1547, 1615).

Concern has also been raised in relation to the potential safety implications of more cars on the road. It has been noted that the narrow winding roads have already been the scene of a number of fatal road accidents, and additional traffic would compromise road and pedestrian (particularly for more vulnerable groups) safety even more. (94, 439, 492, 520, 522, 527, 585, 649, 652, 712, 714, 715, 716, 750, 751, 758, 766, 770, 787, 790, 794, 813, 842, 898, 905, 927, 945, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1048, 1059, 1072, 1152, 1154, 1212, 1256, 1266, 1274, 1306, 1344, 1363, 1365, 1369, 1390, 1475, 1476, 1547, 1596, 1600).

The sustainability of such a proposal has been brought into question as it has been noted that the proposal will likely result in further commuting into Aberdeen, Westhill or Kingswells (516, 612, 620, 636, 649, 651, 652, 655, 676, 706, 853, 1017, 1025, 1074, 1231, 1292, 1313, 1329, 1330, 1337, 1363, 1365, 1378, 1402, 1527, 1538, 1566). It has also been pointed out that there is a significant lack of public transport not only in the Auchattie area, but onward from Banchory to these locations.

In addition to the inadequate road infrastructure highlighted previously, it has also been noted by a number of respondents that there is currently insufficient drainage and waste facilities in the area (94, 423, 456, 527, 578, 585, 650, 660, 676, 727, 753, 794, 898, 916, 952, 1059, 1147, 1148, 1154, 1170, 1201, 1211, 1250, 1276, 1344, 1363, 1365, 1369, 1418, 1476, 1566, 1577, 1578, 1600, 1681). It has been highlighted that this development could exacerbate these issues as well as cause flooding and water run-off problems (438, 527, 585, 630, 712, 714, 716, 727, 735, 753, 794, 849, 898, 911, 952, 1032, 1074, 1154, 1344, 1363, 1369, 1423, 1538,

of 17

1575). It is noted that there are small areas of surface water flooding on the site and there is flooding to the east (1580).

There are also existing water supply and pressure issues which will require upgrading (770, 771, 1032, 1276, 1306, 1369, 1600) and electricity supply to the area could be an issue (1261, 1264, 1397, 1546).

Concern about the light and noise pollution of such a proposal has also been highlighted (1024, 1075, 1248, 1266, 1313, 1341, 1363, 1365, 1378, 1423, 1460, 1476, 1527, 1547, 1577).

It has also been asserted that the bid conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy on Sustainable Development (1578).

It is proposed that this site is identified as being protected to halt development interests in the site and preserve it (438, 456, 790, 1203, 1369, 1414) or identified as a ‘green zone’ (1475, 1476).

Support Developer support for the proposal has been expressed on the basis that the preferred housing land supply option will lead to a shortfall in housing supply. In addition the proposal will help meet local demand for housing, is in close proximity of Banchory town centre, does not contain any drainage or sewerage issues, will substantially enhance the existing road network, and will make appropriate contributions to education to accommodate demands arising from the development. In addition a new masterplan has addressed the visual impact of the development. (1409).

Support for this proposal has been expressed, on the basis that the infrastructure and facilities within Banchory are upgraded to adequately take account of the increase in population and traffic (574).

A number of representees have expressed concerns in relation to the detail of this proposal including the relocation of the Health Centre as well as tenure of the housing and how this would work. At this stage it is not possible to comment on the specific details of the proposal on the basis that this is not for consideration as part of the Local Development Plan.

MA017 It has been highlighted that development should not be supported in and around the Auchattie area of Banchory, south of the river where this site lies (48, 110, 439, 492, 543, 652, 655, 726, 740, 945, 1074, 1324, 1325, 1360, 1369, 1622, 1648). It has also been noted that the scale of the MA017 bid (15 houses) is too large for this area (602, 802, 901, 1577, ) and would negatively affect the settlement pattern and setting of Auchattie (927, 945, 952, 1297, 1648) which is important for local amenity and attracting tourists (1074, 1297, 1324).

The bid site also contains a number of valuable trees, biodiversity, and is in close proximity to the River Dee SAC (602, 802, 901, 927, 945, 952, 1074, 1360, 1577, 1703). It is difficult to access (602, 802) and it will contribute to more traffic and congestion in the area (901, 927, 945, 952, 1074, 1324, 1577), and compromise safety (927, 945, 1297, 1577).

It has also been noted that there are drainage issues in this area, and development here would increase runoff and reduce drainage (952, 1577) as well as put increasing pressure on the schools (952, 1648).

The Developer supports the site and notes that its development would not have any detrimental impacts on the River Dee SAC or Loch of Leys Local Nature Conservation site (126). However, it should be noted that the Main Issues Report

of 17

refers to potential impacts on the River Dee LNCS, and not Loch of Leys as the respondent highlighted.

MA017 has also been put forward for consideration as a potential location for a new Health centre (currently identified within the LDP), on the basis it is appropriately located in close proximity to the town centre and would integrate into the landscape (126). However it has been noted that this site is not appropriate for a health centre as it is too far from the housing in Banchory (602, 1648).

MA048 As with the above, it has been highlighted that development should not be supported in and around the Auchattie area of Banchory, south of the river where this site lies (48, 110, 439, 492, 543, 652, 655, 740, 927, 945, 1324, 1369, 1572, 1622).

Objection to the allocation of 9 houses on the site has been raised on account of the potential impact of the proposal on the natural beauty and surrounding settlement pattern of the area (802, 927, 945, 1324, 1360, 1572). In addition, it lies on a dangerous stretch of road (439, 492, 543, 802, 1572) and development will compound traffic travelling into Banchory and east to Aberdeen on the Bridge of Feugh and Dee (543, 655, 927, 945, 1324, 1505, 1572). It has also been highlighted that the bid could impact on wildlife and recreation (927, 945, 1369, 1505) and there is no drainage connection here which would result in the use of septic tanks (1572).

Developer support for the bid has been submitted stating that it will provide much needed housing, affordable housing if required, will support local transport, schools and retail, and is modest in scale (833). MA054 Concern has been expressed that the 10 houses put forward for the site would visually impact on the setting of the area and Royal Deeside (626, 802, 838, 844, 1032, 1360) and create ribbon development along the Dee corridor which could lead to the coalescence of Banchory and Bridge of Canny/Inchmarlo (626, 812, 844, 1032, 1324, 1437).

It has also been raised that this could negatively impact on tourism (626, 844), notably fishing tourism (838).

The site is also adjacent to the River Dee SAC and LNCS could impact on its associated wildlife (626, 802, 812, 1360, 1703).

Drainage issues have been highlighted and it is suggested that the development would require septic tanks (802, 812, 1032). It has also been noted that drainage from the trunk road and proximity to the river could result in flooding (1032, 1437). In addition, the development could result in more traffic on the road (1324, 1437), making it more dangerous (1032, 1437).

It has also been highlighted that there are no facilities in this area which would increase car dependency.

Developer support has been outlined on the basis that the site will contribute to providing a mix of housing, it has no real biodiversity value and will not lead to coalescence (1583). An option for the reduction of the site to 5 houses (from 10) has been put forward which would provide a sufficient gap between the development and River Dee and avoid any negative impacts (1583).

MA058 Considerable opposition to the proposal for the community housing (70 units), community care and workshop development at Corsee Wood has been expressed (420, 545, 643, 653, 681, 681, 697, 707, 721, 773, 815, 823, 1058, 1085, 1086,

of 17

1087, 1132, 1203, 1260, 1324, 1325, 1329, 1360, 1390, 1448, 1456, 1528, 1615, 1667, 1712, 1810). It is argued that Banchory cannot accommodate any more development (1085) and there is no further need (1087, 1132, 1325).

A number of respondents have raised concern that the proposal is significant in scale and density (420, 657, 1085, 1325, 1360) and would result in the loss of a large area of woodland (which has been identified as being important for flood resilience (1628)) of biodiversity and wildlife value (420, 545, 653, 657, 697, 707, 711, 721, 739, 764, 773, 823, 1058, 1085 ,1132, 1260, 1291, 1295, 1324, 1325, 1456, 1528, 1556, 1628, 1667, 1681 ). The area is locally valued for recreation, leisure and amenity and development here would significantly affect this (420, 545, 657, 681, 697, 711, 721, 739, 764, 773, 815, 823, 895, 1058, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1132, 1291, 1295, 1324, 1325, 1329, 1386, 1448, 1667, 1712, 1810).

The site is within an area of natural beauty known as Sunset Seat and development would have a negative impact on this, the wider landscape, and skyline (545, 548, 707, 739, 815, 823, 1132, 1386, 1556, 1712). It is also popular for visitors and tourists to the area (545, 1132).

It has also been highlighted that development in this location will result in an increase in traffic and congestion (653, 681, 697, 707,721, 773, 821, 823, 895, 1058, 1086, 1132, 1260, 1295, 1324, 1386, 1390, 1448, 1456, 1528, 1556, 1615, 1667, 1681, 1712, 1810). The accesses and narrow roads to the site are currently not suitable for this level of additional traffic or large vehicles (653, 697, 721, 739, 773, 815, 823, 895, 1086, 1132, 1260, 1448, 1456, 1528, 1810). In addition, it will also result in air and noise pollution (1058).

Concern has been expressed over the increasing pressure that the development would put on Banchory’s services and facilities, particularly the schools (681, 721, 773, 823, 1058, 1086, 1087, 1132, 1325, 1390, 1556, 1615). It was also noted that additional community facilities will be required to accommodate the additional population (1086).

Another issue which has been raised is poor water pressure in the area which the development could exacerbate (545, 548, 721, 773, 823, 1556, 1693, 1810) and it is noted that the proposal will put additional pressure on the sewage system (1295).

It has also been suggested that MA058 should be a protected area (815, 821, 1329) for its woodland, greenspace and recreational value (821, 1329).

Developer support for the site has been expressed, particularly in relation to the Main Issue Reports assertion that ‘a smaller proposal in the south eastern portion would be considered preferable’ (1084). However, it has been raised that taking forward a small portion of the site is likely to lead the way for further development of the rest of the area (653) which is not desirable. However, it has also been noted that consideration of part of the site for development should seek community input (1360).

It has also been noted that the proposal for MA058 appreciates the sites value to the community and for recreation (1242). MA060 Objection to the bid for 250 houses on land adjacent to the existing M2 allocation has been expressed (1360, 1390, 1577, 1615).

Concern has been raised over the sensitivity of the site due to its proximity to the Loch of Leys LNCS (1360, 1577).

It is also considered that the scale, in addition to the existing Hill of Banchory allocation is significant (653) and extends too far north from the centre of the town (753).

of 17

Developer support for the inclusion of site MA060 has been expressed (1165). It is stated that the development would not have an impact on the Loch of Leys LNCS, is in close proximity to site R3 which is reserved for potential educational facilities, will contain local services and is the most appropriate site from a landscape perspective (1165).

MA061 Opposition to the bid for 57 houses at Upper Arbeadie has been expressed (1360, 1242, 1260, 1324, 1325, 1329, 1390, 1456, 1528, 1615).

It is considered that development in this location would impact on its rural setting, and result in the loss of woodland (420, 490, 548, 1242, 1260, 1316, 1324, 1329, 1360) as well as associated wildlife and biodiversity (420, 548, 1242, 1260, 1316, 1324, 1325, 1456, 1528). The area is also valued for its leisure and recreational uses (548, 1242, 1316, 1324, 1325).

In addition, it has been asserted that the site is disconnected from other residential areas (420, 1242), there is a lack of services in the area (420, 490) and lies some distance from the town centre (1360).

Concern has been also raised about the existing sewer capacity in the area, and it is suggested that there could be significant implications as a result of the development (1448). There is poor access to the site (420, 653, 1242, 1260, 1448), particularly to accommodate significant additional traffic which is likely to be created (653, 1242, 1260, 1324, 1448, 1456, 1528).

It is suggested that MA061 should be identified as a protected area for its recreational value (1329).

Developer support has been put forward on the basis that it would not be disjointed from existing built up areas as identified in the Main Issues Report, is in close proximity to the service centre to be delivered as part of the existing allocations (M2) in the area, will retain most of the trees and provide appropriate road improvements to access the site (1165).

MA062 The site which forms an extension to MA061 at Upper Arbeadie for 56 houses is supported by the developer on the basis that significant access improvements will be delivered as part of the existing M2 site masterplan, the trees will be retained as part of the development (1165).

Opposition to the allocation of the site has been expressed (550, 1360, 1242, 1260, 1324, 1325, 1390, 1456, 1528) notably on account of the potential loss of woodland (420, 490, 1242, 1260, 1316, 1360, 1456, 1528) and distance from local services and amenities (1360, 1448). The area is also valued for its leisure and recreational uses (1242, 1316, 1324, 1325, 1329, 1456, 1528).

It is noted that the density of the site is too high for the area (1325) and development in this location would impact on its natural rural setting and overall landscape of the town (550, 1316, 1329). It could also impact on wildlife and biodiversity (420, 550, 1242, 1316, 1324, 1325, 1456, 1528).

It has also been asserted that the site is disconnected from other residential areas (420) and there is a lack of local services in the area (420, 1242). In addition, there is poor access to the site (420, 1242, 1316, 1448, 1456, 1528) and roads in the area are insufficient to accommodate significant additional traffic (1242, 1324, 1316, 1448, 1456, 1528).

Concern has been raised about poor water pressure and limited sewer capacity in the area, and it is suggested that there could be significant implications as a result of

of 17

the development (550, 1448). In addition, MA062 has been described as boggy and prone to flooding which development could exacerbate (1316).

It has also been suggested that MA062 should be identified as a protected area for its recreational value (1329).

MA063 Objection to the allocation of the site for 34 houses at Upper Lochton has been expressed (420, 1060, 1206, 1257, 1424, 1444, 1497, 1513). Specific concern has been raised over the road access to the site and potential additional traffic that the development would create (420, 1060, 1257, 1360, 1444, 1513) and subsequent pollution (1060). It is added that the junction onto Raemoir Road would be dangerous (420, 1257, 1444, 1513).

It is also highlighted that development of the site would affect the rural character and setting of the area (1206, 1444, 1497) as well as its recreational (1060, 1257, 1513) and wildlife value (1060, 1206, 1257, 1424, 1497, 1513).

It has been noted that the site does not relate well to the existing settlement boundary (753).

Infrastructure issues have also been highlighted including: insufficient access to mains gas (1060, 1424), poor water pressure (1060) and inadequate drainage (1206, 1424).

Developer support has been expressed for the bid on the basis that the site will be served by the local access and service improvements as a result of site M2 (1165). In addition, it would not involve any felling of trees (1165).

It has been noted that location of this site, which adjoins existing development would be preferable to the other options proposed in the area if necessary (603, 1360).

In addition, the site is adjacent to ancient woodland (‘Type 2b – long established of plantation origin’), and should it be included in the proposed plan, this woodland should be safeguarded by a buffer strip (1703).

Flooding and Environment The following impacts were recorded on Salmon Fisheries: High impact from, MA016, MA017, MA054 and MA060, Medium Impact from MA058, MA061 and MA062 and Low impact from MA063, MA007, MA008, MA048 (1824). In addition, existing allocations were recorded as follows: High for M2, Medium for H1 and M1 and Low for H2 (1824).

Further to the general comments in relation to water and environmental factors, technical information has been provided on individual bid sites. Flood risk within and in close proximity as well as surface water flooding has been identified on sites MA016, MA017, MA054, MA060. Each of these sites will require a Flood Risk Assessment (1580).

2. Actions Settlement Objectives It is reasonable and appropriate to retain the settlement objective to ‘Protect and enhance the role and attractiveness of the town’.

The need for a better range of shops and some ‘rejuvenation’ of the town centre and a wider retail offer could be emphasised through the settlement objectives. A new settlement objective could be added to reflect this comment. Banchory town centre provides a good range of shops for the size of the community and can be

of 17

characterised as being a tourist service centre. The presence of gift shops and cafes is a reflection of the importance of tourism to the area

A request has been made to reserve a site for educational facilities, however this has already been done through R3 which is reserved for this use and therefore no further action will be taken on this.

Traffic congestion issues are not considered to be so great as to result in an absolute ban on development in Banchory. Potential impacts on increased traffic flows from the south on the town centre junction could be an issue, and were development to be favoured in any of the areas to the south of the town this would have to be conditional on an appropriate traffic solution being deliverable.

Requests have been made for sites MA016, MA058, MA061 and MA062 to be given protected status for their woodland, recreation and amenity value. Extension of the settlement boundary to the south side of the River Dee to include a protected area at Ma016 may not be appropriate due to the opportunities that this would bring for infill development in the area, but the value of the Sunset Seat area to the town could be thus recognised.

MA058 tightly abuts the settlement boundary and residential development to the south. Whilst the site does contain some core paths, it is felt that this area may be too extensive for an area of protected land, particularly where it bleeds into the wider countryside (and stricter policies already apply). Identifying such a large area may be unnecessarily restrictive and whilst it is recognised that the site is of recreational value, this is not formalised and there is no other justification for this, such as being part of a LNCS.

Sites MA061 and MA062 lie to the north of MA058 and also comprise a significant area. There is a core path running through the centre of the site, however, like site MA058, it is not considered that there is an overwhelming reason why these sites should have protected status.

Land Allocations Considerable opposition has been demonstrated towards development within Banchory, most notably the Auchattie site (MA016), south of the River Dee. In addition, significant concern has been raised in relation to the impact on infrastructure and services that any further development in the town will have.

The comments in support of and against the bid sites are acknowledged. There are some conflicting views as to whether further development should be pursued within the town. However, it is not considered that the comments in support of the bid sites raise any new issues to justify their inclusion in the plan. It is therefore maintained that the assessment of the bids through the Main Issues Report provide a robust assessment. In addition to this, following the approval of the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan there is no requirement to provide additional housing land allocations in Banchory at this time. This position is supported by reference to the current existing allocations within Banchory which are effective or capable of becoming effective. It is also noted that the majority of the support for additional development sites have been promoted by site agents.

Technical matters raised by consultees included water (1809) and environmental factors (1580). These issues will be taken into account during the consideration of a planning application through the development management process. No further action is required at this stage.

3. Committee Recommendations

of 17

1. A new settlement objective to ‘sustain and enhance the role of the town centre and promote new retail opportunities’ should be added.

2. The existing allocations should be retained within the LDP. As no additional needs have been identified within the settlement, and the existing sites are capable of becoming effective, there is no reason to allocate additional development land at this stage.

3. Consideration should be given to “protecting” bid site Ma058, Ma061 and Ma062.

of 17

4. Committee Decision 1. Marr Area Committee agreed the above recommendations at their meeting on

3 June 2014 with sites Ma058, Ma061 and Ma062 being put forward as Locally Valued Landscapes

2. Infrastructure Services Committee at their meeting of the 3 July 2014 noted the recommendation of the Area Committee and agreed that no new allocations were required.

of 17

165 banchory response id respondent ... - aberdeenshire · response id respondent ... 837 ms ann...

Documents