Fossoway

Mr Peter Marshall
Planning & Sustainable Development Manager
The Environment Service (Planning)
Perth & Kinross Council
Pullar House
35 Kinnoull Street
PERTH
PH1 5GD

Dear Peter

MAIN ISSUES REPORT (MIR) FOR PERTH & KINROSS (PKC) LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) (SEPT 2010)

I write in formal submission to the above document (although I will also be attempting to respond on-line with my answers to the questions posed by the extended deadline that I had requested to 11/2/11). My response has to be seen also in the context of my three previous major submissions to your colleague Brenda Murray prior to the finalisation of your MIR, dated 30/6/09, 31/8/09 and 28/7/10 enclosed. Between the 2009 and 2010 submissions I held six very well attended public meetings in the rural areas of Kinross-shire; since the publication of the MIR I have held 2 further well attended public meetings in December 2010, one in Fossoway (minute enclosed) and one in the Portmoak Community Council areas; these being the areas where the Kinross-shire landward developments are proposed in the MIR. I also referred at these meetings to my letter enclosed of 27/6/10 to Pam Ewan on the Tayplan MIR (2012-2032) because of its necessary consistent relationship to PKC’s MIR. The other local elected members for Kinross-shire attended some of these meetings.

Following these meetings (involving significant presentations) I feel well placed to respond to the MIR as the elected member for Kinross-shire since May 1999, a constituency whose broad views, particularly from the rural areas, I have always sought to represent to PKC. Whilst clearly not agreeing with all responses to the MIR, I would particularly endorse the submissions of Cleish, Fossoway and Portmoak Community Councils, Friends of Rural Kinross-shire (FORK) and Kinross-shire Civic Trust (KCT). You should also note that the Fossoway Community Strategy Group (SG) comprising representatives of Fossoway Community Council, FORK, KCT and myself met on 3/11/10 to discuss the MIR and I enclose the notes from that meeting.

I note from figure 1 (page 11) the lengthy timescale for the production of the new LDP & reiterate earlier comment that it leaves PKC open to successful challenges from the development sector, given the out-of-date nature of all our existing Local Plans.

I note the Vision Statements, 6 key objectives & Drivers for Change in chapters 2 and 3.

In earlier submissions of ‘generic comment on policy’ I had felt that the MIR should state ‘at the outset’ 2 significant core values, namely that any development framework should ‘protect & enhance the amenity of existing residents and protect prime agricultural land and our scenic landscape against inappropriate development.’ I wished to see the retention of AGLV’s, called for PKC to recognise the need for major mitigation measures on the A977 (following the failed petition to the Scottish Parliament) and noted from the Kinross Community Council questionnaire a significant level of support for the restoration of a rail link through Kinross-shire. “It is hugely disappointing that NONE of these comments on policy have been incorporated into the MIR.”

I note under demographic change and population projections that it’s intended to base Tayplan and the LDP on the 2006 GROS projections (22% growth to 2031) as per PKC’s Single Outcome Agreement (SOA). Our previous PKC Structure Plan growth rate was 3%. I made it clear at PKC in May 2009 under S046 & subsequent submissions that I did not support this ‘alarming & ludicrous’ level of growth proposed and predicted on the latest government projections and contained in that agreement; I reiterate my belief that it poses serious demographic challenges in endorsing a rate of growth and inherent housing density which I view as “neither desirable nor sustainable from an environmental perspective.”

The 2008 based GROS projections (27% growth to 2033) are yet more significantly higher than 2006, indicating that PKC per Figure 3 (page 21) is set to remain one of the fastest growing areas of Scotland. It is noted that the projections are based on past trends and take no account of the current economic climate. ‘I suggest they should come with a Government health warning.’

At this point it is worth reflecting that the population of Fossoway parish was 947 in 1981, 1735 in 2001 and who knows in 2024? I further note from para 3.4 of the current Kinross-shire Local Plan that the county’s population between 1981 and 1991 increased by 25% which far outstripped the average for PKC area at 6%. The highest growth in the plan area for that decade was 41.7% in Crook of Devon/Drum. I note that if we extrapolated past trends, the Kinross-shire area would be the highest growth in PKC and I believe Planning Officers accept this is not sustainable.
I now turn to addressing the questions posed in the MIR from Chapter 4 onwards. I note there are 22 questions under Main Land Use and Delivery Issues, 16 of which relate to housing & economic development, which shows where PKC’s priorities lie. I will not be covering every issue and question in the MIR; it is so big because it relates to the whole of PKC; as you will know I have argued strongly for the retention of a Kinross-shire Local Plan but was not supported by colleagues at PKC. I aim to concentrate on the parameters of the growth figures, the questions in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 regarding Perth City and Kinross-shire.

Q1 NO
Although this may seem a sensible method of approaching the allocation of such land it is subject to the caveat that I am hugely sceptical, as earlier indicated, of the growth projections upon which this whole plan is based; I therefore suggest the traditional 5-year period should be used thereby allowing for revision earlier of the figures if these spurious projections prove wrong.

Q2 YES
Your proposal acknowledges the need to slow growth in Kinross-shire and recognises the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts on Lochleven if this situation is not addressed. I welcome the strengthening of policy on phosphate mitigation for the loch’s catchment and strongly urge you to resist the inevitable calls from the development sector to oppose this reallocation. I suggest there is a case for the 10% reallocation to be spread throughout Perthshire, not just Perth itself, given my previous expressed concerns about the proposed expansion of the City.

Q3 YES

Q4
I strongly disagree with this proposal and note that the housing density ranges per figure 14 (page 39) have been increased in comparison with our current local plan. I strongly suggest that accepting the level of growth in PKC’s SOA forces us to make choices between housing density and the irrevocable loss of prime agricultural land as a resource. I noted at a meeting of Rural Scotland on 27/11/10, to discuss the Scottish Government’s draft land use strategy (consultation ended 17/12/10), that we only have relatively small areas of such prime land, mostly in the east, it is therefore vital it is retained for food production. I would argue strongly against the use of the highest grades (1, 2 & 3.1) of land for housing and suggest it is contrary to national planning policy.

Q5 YES
I note from figure 15 (page 41) that Kinross-shire had the highest average house price in PKC in 2007, reflecting it’s ongoing attraction to developers to provide housing at the top end of the market for central belt commuters. We know we have an increasing ageing population (section 4.2.21) and it was clear from previous public meetings and questionnaires that, although there is strong opposition to large scale housing development and widespread concern about the number of development proposals put forward for the rural areas, it was felt that the 25% affordable element therein was a target not being met. There is a lack of housing provision for older people, rent and smaller size so a new policy proposed to increase supply is welcomed.

Q6 YES
Rural communities and I felt that the previous 2005 policy had proved detrimental to the countryside and we campaigned for the unanimously approved 2009 policy. I suggest it is fit for purpose and should be enforced. I note that the Planning Department is still currently assessing some applications on the basis of the old policy and I feel this should cease immediately in 2011.

Q7 NO
I note it is suggested that settlements with less than 20 houses should not be enclosed, except within the Lochleven catchment. I suggest small communities want some certainty as to the parameters of their settlements so why not have boundaries? Conversely, opportunities to expand small settlement boundaries could prevent creeping unauthorised development in the countryside on the edge of settlements and I refer here to my earlier submission requesting incorporation of the Greenacres travelling people’s site into the Lochran sidings settlement envelope. A development brief to finally ascertain and contain the parameters of the Greenacres site is urgently needed, this area being synonymous with continual retrospective planning approvals that have expanded the site by stealth, despite strong local objection. The MIR should address this.

Q8 & Q9 YES
We urgently need to develop zoned employment land and identify new areas. The SG in Fossoway has indicated they would like to see rural development sites in Blairingone and Crook of Devon but the MIR has not addressed this.

Q10 YES
Mixed use development should be supported if the community agree and the policy is not abused; the core value on residential amenity protection I called for is paramount here.

Q11 NO
I think applications for tourist development should be dealt with as they arise in accord with a policy framework.

Q12 YES

Q13 & Q14 YES
There is a strong case for supporting key rural businesses within policy. A clear independent appraisal of whether or not farm buildings are redundant or vacant is required because the development sector argues such status usually to justify conversion or demolition for housing. There should be a presumption in favour of rural business use within the policy.

Q15 NO
Such a policy would be a discouragement to business.

Q16 YES
However, section 4.3.32 (page 50) bullet point 1 should include safety and bullet point 2 should embrace artistic and cultural aspects within Perth City.

Q17 YES
In responding to this question you should be aware that I am dismayed that AGLV’s are due to be lost from the LDP under Scottish Planning Policy. The community and I worked hard at our last Local Plan Inquiry to acquire the extension of the AGLV’s to our county’s hill and river borders. The MIR suggests the creation of local landscape areas to replace AGLV’s and I propose that these should include the Cleish, Lomond and Ochil Hills, along with the River Devon. A regional park for the Ochil Hills, like the Lomonds, should be considered here. I will be happy to be involved in further discussions on the areas to be included for safeguarding against inappropriate development.

Q18 YES
I have reservations about the robustness of the approach and feel that currently not enough attention is paid within planning assessments and reports to this statutory aspect and the duty of PKC to deliver on Action Plans. I commented in my earlier submission of June 2009 on the Perth Lade Biodiversity document, stressing that the Lade (which should be considered for SSS1 status) is seen, along with the Inches and the Tay River, as the green lungs of Perth City and an important template on which to build a sustainable environment.

Q19 NO
There is much in Key Issue 18 in mitigation measures to deal with climate change that I broadly support and note. However, on the issue of on-shore renewable energy there is a definite deficiency in policy. I understand there is an on-going review in this area but there is a distinct lack of engagement with local members and communities on this. I have received no detail on the outcome of Scottish Government consultations on permitted development for single turbines, meanwhile a considerable number of small clusters and single turbines are being approved in Kinross-shire by the Planning Department, often dealt with seemingly in isolation and little account taken of overall cumulative impact, despite Officer assurances. I suggest this requires to be addressed urgently and also that there should be more encouragement within policy for communities to identify windcroft sites to support their needs rather than simply react to individual development proposals. In the Ochil hills, PKC’s landscape consultant suggested we could accommodate one large windfarm but we now have 3, resulting from Scottish Government policy.

Q20 YES
I have noted that Tayplan has a strong approach on avoiding development in flood risk areas, highlighted as a major issue in November 2009 by PKC members of the Environment Committee. The LDP recognises this but should building progress in such areas (e.g. currently at Bridge of Earn), a fundamental re-design guidance for properties that raises living areas above ground level should be undertaken. There are also areas with high water tables (i.e. Drum) that don’t have flood prevention schemes where more assistance for communities to set up localised ditch and water course management schemes would be welcome. There is a perception that periods of intense rain fall have increased recently but that PKC cleaning of roadside ditches and drains has not kept pace.

Q21 & Q22 YES
In the current financial climate that local authorities find themselves in, (being ‘between a rock and a hard place’ in facing the ‘double-whammy’ of a seemingly indefinite politically popular council tax freeze from Scottish Government dictat and cuts in the public sector handed down from the new UK Government), it is absolutely essential for developers to make contributions to infrastructure provision. There is a strong feeling in our communities that developer contributions should be directed to the locality of that development, involving community benefit and consultation, rather than controlled and directed by PKC.

I note that on Transport and Accessibility the document completely ignores Kinross-shire.

Chapter 5 of the MIR dealing with Spatial Strategy in figure 20 (page 66) shows the Tayplan hierarchy of settlements and I note is very much in line with the existing PKC Structure Plan Strategy. Whilst I agree with the overall strategy of concentrating growth in the City and principal settlements (excepting my answer to question 26) the reality is that the level of growth you are accepting signifies much greater development than I am content with, not only in the Perth area but also in Kinross and Milnathort.

Q23 & Q24 NO
In my submissions I expressed concern on the Perth area at the potential conflict between green belt preservation and growth in outer villages to achieve the Administration’s dubious concept of a Greater Perth and City status (I thought we were already known as “the Fair City” and will lose that quality with the level of growth proposed). Significant development west of Perth’s outer ring road begs the question ‘where does it stop once outer ring roads of cities are breached?’ The green belt inner boundary should be much more tightly drawn to the outer ring road and the A9 west and north.

Q25 NO
My answers to Q1, 2 and 4 in Chapter 4 state my disagreement to the growth and density levels being planned for and justify this response. Clearly I am opposed to Perth West proposal! (Q28)

Q26 NO
It would be consistent with my concern over the expansion of the Perth core area to suggest we might leave one new village proposal for consideration in future ‘in the mix’, subject to the views of the community and local members in that area. It may serve to relieve the pressure for development somewhat in the Perth core.

Q27 YES
As regards the proposals for the Kinross-shire Area in Section 5.4 of the MIR, I wish to draw Officer’s attention to para 5.20 of our current Local Plan. It identified the settlements of Blairingone, Crook of Devon and Milnathort where PKC with the community, landowners and others would formulate long-term development strategies (LTDS) by 2005/06, the results of which will be incorporated into any subsequent review of the Local Plan (i.e. Now!). This paragraph resulted from a recommendation by the Inquiry Reporter, after community representations, prior to the adoption of the 2004 Plan. PKC Planning Officers encouraged me to include Powmill and Rumbling Bridge in the work of the Fossoway LTDS (see attached letter to residents of November 2010 and earlier correspondence). The SG and myself have been working on this since 2004 in Fossoway, involving the community and landowners, but apart from commissioning a landscape capacity report of August 2005 which the community has made much comment on, PKC Planners have failed to address this requirement in any meaningful way since 2004 and I find it astonishing that this LTDS as a process doesn’t even get a mention in the MIR, despite assurances from PKC Planning that our representations would be taken into account and form a significant input to the MIR, as regards Fossoway.

Q35 YES
You should note that figure 28 (Page 114) shows additional housing allocations for the period 2010 - 2014 but this should read 2010 – 2024 as per Figure 27. I note from this table an allowance for windfall sites over the 14 year period of 80 for Kinross-shire; however, I would question the accuracy of this figure given that according to Portmoak Community Council 10 are approved/pending for their area alone in 2010?

Q36
I note that of the 525 houses on Map 31 only about 50% are required to 2024. My personal view is that sites B and D should be excluded, which is approximately 300 houses, B being the furthest away from Milnathort and D contributing to the creeping coalescence of Kinross with Milnathort.

Before responding to the housing proposals for the landward area of Kinross-shire I would again make reference to the work of the SG on the Fossoway LTDS since 2004 and my earlier submissions to the MIR enclosed, including reference to previous questionnaires carried out in Fossoway by the SG and the Community Council in Powmill. This work culminated in Final Landscape Capacity Maps for Blairingone, Crook of Devon, Powmill and Rumbling Bridge being submitted with my letter of 28/7/10 enclosed.

Q37 YES
I agree with the preferred Option 1 that allows for gradual incremental growth across settlements giving a wider choice of sites and range of locations because this option is much more in line with the work of the SG.

I am dismayed that Option 2 should feature the Naemoor Road site at Crook of Devon on Map 36. Planning Officers should be well aware that development here has been opposed by the community and myself for many years and was one of the principal reasons for para 5.20, referred to earlier, being incorporated into our current Local Plan.

This site is an important village setting gateway to Crook of Devon that should be retained and contains a flood risk. It is hugely disappointing that the developer (who has made no attempt at consultation with the local community regarding their plans for the settlement over many years) and PKC persist with a proposal involving a new bridge to the A977 that would be a prelude to a major expansion of Crook of Devon to the west & north. Both through the consultation on the LTDS and the ‘failed’ appeal by the developer against refusal of outline planning permission, the community has voiced strong objection to development of this site and the SG’s Final Landscape Capacity Map opposed development of CD13 assessment area, so I maintain strong opposition to even the concept of site A being included in Option 2. PKC has had ample opportunity since 2004 to address this issue and have comprehensively failed to do so, despite the best efforts of myself and the SG.

Q38
Option 1 is preferred. Sites A and B in Blairingone on Map 32 basically conforms to the SG’s Final Landscape Capacity Map; development here should help to secure the future of the primary school but proposals should consider a site for a replacement village hall and the possible undergrounding of the pylon line that passes through site B. I note that Blairingone’s long established need for a by-pass is not addressed in the MIR. There is concern in Blairingone that two sites are put forward and may proceed together which would double the size of the village, it may be better to preference one of the sites here.

Site C at Powmill Farm/Hotel on Map 33 conforms to the SG’s Final Landscape Capacity Map and would presumably be additional to the existing planning approval at Powmill Farm.

Site D at Scotlandwell on Map 34 would open up the prospect of the future southern expansion of the settlement boundary and I believe there is opposition to this, which I share.

Site E at Wester Balgedie on Map 35 is actually within the Lochleven catchment and should only be developed if mains sewerage connection can be secured. There was a presentation at Portmoak Community Council on 11/1/11 from the developer at which the community made it clear no housing should be built to the east of Mawcarse Road (MIR submission 03/9076) and an opportunity should be taken to re-align the road junction at Balgedie Toll to the west & north of site E. On the 17/1/11 I was informed by a local resident of serious flooding of the A911 and this site; which has persisted and I have passed information to the Roads Maintenance section but I note it is not registered as a planning constraint by Officers.

I would comment that, although I do not favour Option 2, site B at Powmill on Map 37 could conceivably conform to the SG’s Final Landscape Capacity Map, if adjusted to P3 and P5 assessment areas. You should take note of my detailed comments on Powmill in my submission of 28/7/10 and the feedback from the Community Engagement Event undertaken by Thomson Homes on 4/10/10; it is my understanding that this developer is prepared to modify earlier proposals for 300 houses to 90 in light of the MIR.

Finally as regards Crook of Devon/Drum, I would point out that the SG did highlight assessment areas CD2 and 11 on their Final Landscape Capacity Map that had some development potential, the former area at Muirfield Hatchery is currently being developed and is a site referred to in para 5.20 of our current plan.

Q39 YES
I strongly endorse this approach, although some clarity on the brownfield development category would be welcome. Section 5.4.15 should give some reassurance to residents of Carnbo, where a number of developer representations were made but where there is no community appetite for any material change to the existing village settlement boundary.

At this point I would ask you to note that the MIR has not addressed 2 small sites that I refer to in earlier submissions viz,

a)Keltybridge (site 513 west of Tabernacle Hall). This village setting area should be identified for community usage as car parking and visitor information on local footpaths, etc and should not be identified for housing development.

b)An opportunity to reinstate the western boundary of Kilmagadwood to that of the previous Draft Local Plan should be taken, in view of the number of recent planning refusals and community objection to development here.

Q40 YES
However, I wish to qualify this answer. I was, and remain, extremely concerned about the potential for the spread of Kinross west of the motorway and its coalescence with Balado from the 8 developer proposals for this area. I am, therefore, somewhat reassured by Map 38 and note from a recent consultation on proposals for an upgraded motorway service area at Turfhills that a large roundabout on the A977 would be introduced, being one of the major mitigation measures we have been seeking funding on. Proposals for a business park at Turfhills have been refused since 1998 and now resurface as site B on the map. I state now enduring community concerns at the status of PKC’s Environment/Roads Depot at this locus resulting from Tayside Contracts restructuring because the recent wintry weather highlights the absolute need for emergency flood equipment and winter gritting/ploughing plant to be retained here in Kinross-shire.

This final section of the MIR on Kinross-shire is deficient on key infrastructure proposals, namely no reference to A977 major mitigation measures (3 large roundabouts at Blairingone, Crook of Devon/Drum and Turfhills) restoration of a rail link to the county but even more significantly the need to recognise the deterioration of Kinross Town Centre and an overall strategy for the town to deal with the number of PKC buildings empty and surplus to requirement there; the provision of the link road and a supermarket are only part of the story.

Finally, Chapter 6 at the back of the MIR under Policy Framework contains a table summarising the policy issues and seeks comment. Can you confirm there will be opportunities for consultation on these policies before production of the proposed plan in December 2011?

I would particularly mention the following:

The stated need for the LDP to meet Scotland’s zero waste plan under a new policy is welcome.

Conservation Areas – it is disappointing that there doesn’t appear to be any new initiatives for Kinross-shire; Scotlandwell was agreed in 2009 but I had requested we re-examine Back Crook, Keltybridge and Maryburgh.

Airport Safeguarding – I welcome this new policy, particularly as regards Balado and Portmoak. I would support the extension and strengthening of the zonal area at Portmoak but have suggested that an independent consultant should be considered, when undertaking a new policy, to produce a draft proposal for local comment and consultation; it is not clear this has been taken up.

Perth City Centre Pubs and Clubs – I welcome the inclusion of a new policy that was supported at the 2004 Draft Plan stage by local elected members.

In conclusion, I apologise for the length of this submission and fully expect you to take full account of my comments written from my experience as a former Convener
of the Environment Service and Vice Convener of Development Control. I would particularly expect that my comments relating to the Fossoway parish of the landward area of Kinross-shire would be actioned given the work done since 2004 on the LTDS that forms such a key input to the new plan. I commend this submission to you.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Mike Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire

p.s Please let me know if you require clarity on any points or any background correspondence.

Circulation List

Cleish & Blairadam, Fossoway and Portmoak Community Councils
F.O.R.K and K.C.T
Local Members – Councillors K Baird, S Miller & W Robertson
Keith Brown MSP
Gordon Banks MP

Enclosures

Councillor Mike Barnacle’s (MB’s) submissions of 30/6/09, 31/8/09 & 28/7/10
on the Main Issues for the new PKC Plan.
MB’s letter of 27/6/10 to Pam Ewan on Tayplan MIR (2012 – 32)
Notes of SG meeting 3/11/10
MB’s letter to Fossoway residents November 2010
Poster and Minutes of Public Meeting at Powmill 16/12/10