Main Issues Report Fork Response

What is FORK?

The Friends of Rural Kinross-shire (FORK) is a local group that seeks to represent the views of local residents in order to influence the future of the Fossoway area.

FORK Main Issues Report Response

Below are FORK's responses to the questions posed by Perth & Kinross Council in the Main Issues Report.

Q1. FORK agrees that the LDP should seek to provide a 7 year effective land supply. This appears to be a sensible method of approaching the allocation of such land. However, the number of such houses throughout the Plan should be significantly revised because of the economic downturn and what is forecast as the long term drop in housing demand, but also because the most recent GROS statistics indicate that inward immigration to Scotland from the rest of the UK is balanced by emigration from Scotland to the rest of the UK, and the projected net increase in the Scottish population is to come from Europe. It appears to us that the housing forecasts should reflect this, both numerically and qualitatively.

Q2. Yes, subject to the same comments as in Q1.

Q3. We agree that this proposal seems to be in accordance with historical experience, and there is no reason to anticipate that it will change.

Q4. We strongly disagree with this policy. There is no need to have such a policy. Uniform large density housing plots on the outskirts of present settlements will look ugly and lead to poor quality and unsuitable housing. We suggest that individual situations should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and appropriate densities of housing be settled having regard to the surrounding circumstances and available land. We accept that this may in appropriate circumstances lead to more land being developed, but the guiding principle should be the quality of the land to be built on. First class agricultural or arable land should not be built on, but poor quality Greenfield sites could be developed within the restraints of the LDP.

Q5. Agreed.

Q6. We strongly support the inclusion of the 2009 Housing in the Countryside policy in the LDP. We note that councillors unanimously approved this policy in 2009. We would like to see it rigorously enforced.

Q7. We agree that small settlement boundaries should not be identified. To set such boundaries might encourage them to be filled. The absence of settlement boundaries should not indicate any development assumptions.

Q8. We agree with the assessment of additional economic development land in general terms, but remain concerned as to where that will be.

Q9 .We agree that existing economic development land should be retained, but suggest that it might be helpful to ascertain why it has not so far been developed.

Q10. We think that the principle of providing for mixed use development by locating business land close to existing residential areas is potentially sound on a case to case basis provided the community agree.

Q11. A specific policy to support key tourist destinations is insufficiently specific to endorse at this stage.

Q12. We agree with this policy approach in principle but it needs clear guidelines to prevent confusion and possible abuse.

Q13. We agree with this policy approach in general terms, but require more detail to understand exactly what it means before giving it unqualified support.

Q14. We believe that the use of steading conversions for housing in the countryside has virtually excluded all available sites for rural businesses. The need for such businesses in the country areas is stronger than ever. This has been recognised for some time in other planning areas. There should be a presumption against such conversion for housing and in favour of commercial use.

Q15. We believe that this proposal is wholly impractical. Business must be encouraged but it is for PKC to connect business with housing and vice versa.

Q16. Yes

Q17. We accept that AGLVs have been replaced by Local Land Areas. We would offer to be involved in any consultation process about how this proposal is to work. We consider that is essential that this policy is developed to be both clear and robust, and in particular that establishing and enforcing such a policy is simple and readily available.

Q18. The approach to biodiversity is a t present is insufficiently specific or strong, but the aim of the policy cannot be disputed.

Q19. The MIR does not yet sufficiently address the key issues of mitigating climate change. As indicated in other parts of the MIR, the area of PKC is particularly beautiful and is very much sought after as a place to live. In these circumstances PKC have the opportunity to see that the highest standards of climate change mitigation can be imposed and enforced. At present there is a complete lack of specification in the proposal.

Q20. We would ask that the following issues be specifically addressed:- commuter traffic and public transport; increased agricultural pollution as a necessary consequence of wetter weather; ditch management schemes.

Q21. We would wish to see far more detail before we can make a realistic assessment of this proposal.

Q22. See previous answer.

Q23. This question is not directly relevant to our members. However there is a feeling that the proposal is far too big and out of all proportion to the true nature of the City of Perth, that there would require to be put in place significant amounts of infrastructure, and that there is no real need for an expansion of this size.

Q24. See previous answer.

Q25 Yes

Q26 -34. These questions are not directly referable to our areas of interest.

Q35. We entirely agree with this proposal.

Q36. We agree with all proposed sites except D which we consider to be unsuitable.

FORK also wishes to make it clear at this stage that our membership strongly oppose the suggestions made by developers and landowners that ground other than that identified in the report should be developed.

Q37. We emphatically agree with the preferred option (Option 1) and the allocation of housing to be distributed more or less evenly between 3 or 4 sites. Option 2 has not been the subject of any public consultation and would produce a lop-sided and uneven distribution of the housing allocation. The local school would be quite unable to cope with such an increase, and there would be considerable strain on all other aspects of local infrastructure. The development would require major engineering works to cross the Devon with resultant disruption to traffic on the A977.

Q38. We prefer the proposed development to be split between Powmill, Blairingone, Scotlandwell and West Balgedie.

Q.39 We agree that there should be the most sever restrictions imposed to protect Loch Leven. Any exemptions should be strictly drafted, enforced and policed.

Q40. Agreed in principle, but there is no mention made of derelict sites in the town of Kinross, some of which would be suitable.

Qs 41 – 53. These questions are not relevant to our areas of interest.

We would wish to comment on particular proposals by developers in the area.

DRUM 03 9047. This site is well outwith the present and proposed village envelopes and occupies a particularly prominent position. It is first class arable land which is regularly sown in barley. Although the sewage could be pumped westward to the Devon, the run-off from roofs, garages etc., would run into the Loch Leven catchment area. The site is served by a single track road, which already serves a number of houses and steading conversions. The alternative of some six houses along the roadside would constitute an isolated ribbon development leading to open countryside. Our members would strongly oppose this proposal.

CROOK OF DEVON 09 2273. This site comprises two low lying fields of first class arable land which has yielded good crops of barley for many successive years. The fields appear to be prone to flooding during the winter months. The fields lie to the north of the settlement of the Back Crook, which Scottish National Heritage argued in a previous consultation should not be affected by development. Our members would strongly oppose this proposal.

CROOK OF DEVON 03 9147. This area of ground lies well out into the countryside and is not served by any public road. It is close to the 9 acre Scout camp and would be an unwelcome intrusion into that establishment. Our members would oppose this proposal.

DRUM 02 9047. This proposal is outwith the present and anticipated village envelopes. Our members would oppose this proposal.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License