10 February 2012
Mr Peter Marshall
Planning & Sustainable Development Manager
The Environment Service (Planning)
Perth & Kinross Council
Pullar House
35 Kinnoull Street
PERTH
PH1 5GD / 2 High Street
Perth PH1 5PH
Tel: 01738 475000
Fax: 01738 475007
Councillor Michael A Barnacle
Moorend
Waulkmill
Crook of Devon
Kinross-shire
KY13 0UZ
Tel: 01577 840516 /
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LDP & reiterate earlier comment that it leaves PKC open to successful challenges from the development sector, given the out-of-date nature of all our existing Local Plans.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 AGLVs 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 AGLVs to our county’s hill and river borders. The MIR suggests the creation of local landscape areas to replace AGLVs 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.