Councillor Mike Barnacle

Working hard for your community.

A977 Mitigation Measures and Lack of PKC Funding

By

The following letter was written by Councillor Mike Barnacle to Jim Valentine at PKC on 16 March 2015.

Dear Jim

Need for ‘Major’ Mitigation Measures and Lack of PKC Funding for A977 (The Forgotten Road)

I refer to my letter of 18 July 2014 regarding the above enclosed, which remains my definitive position on this matter.  I note that I never received a formal response to the points in my letter and my request for a meeting of all those circulated was not actioned.  The lack of a response from the Leader of the minority SNP administration and the Convener of Enterprise and Infrastructure Committee reinforces my view that there is no political will to address this matter, which remains a priority for the people of the villages in West Kinross-shire that I represent.

I also enclose my email of 13 November 2014 on this matter, asking you to note that Peter Marshall has confirmed to me that the level of housing development in the countryside around Crook of Devon and Powmill to justify the major engineering undertaking of by-passes would be contrary to Tayplan.  He also informs me that the cost of proper engineering/surveying for appropriate by-pass lines is significant.

The A977 Route Study, provided at the hugely disappointing meeting with local ward members on 27 February 2015 and discussed then, invites further comment viz:

The study makes no mention of PKC’s Statement of Case at the Public Inquiry in November 2004 into the new Clackmannanshire Bridge or the 2009 petition to the Scottish Government signed by over 1100 residents and now reinforced by Paragraph 7.1.18 of our adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) of 3 February 2014, likewise the Enterprise and Infrastructure Committee Report of 18 October 2006 is ignored; all of which supported the case for the large roundabouts I made the continuing case for in my letter.  The study also omits reference to the preferred routes stated by Transport Scotland of the A9 or A985 for HGV’s or the status of the A977 as strategic at times of Forth Road Bridge closure to HGV’s in bad weather.  No reference is made to the number of fuel tankers using the road from Grangemouth refinery to access the M90 when there is only on filling station between Gartarry Roundabout and the Turfhills Service Station.  There have been two major accidents involving tankers in Drum that had major repercussions for residents referred to in my letter and you have been made aware of the tanker crash in Powmill of 4 March 2015 since our meeting.

Has the author of the study seen my letter of 18 July 2014?

I have noted that Councillor Cuthbert had produced a table from figures supplied by the Roads Department which clearly shows that the A977 carries the highest number of HGV’s than any other ‘A’ road for which PKC are responsible and I enclose this.

This ‘incomplete’ A977 Route study fails to acknowledge local perception on HGV traffic and seeks to justify the conclusion that the hitherto agreed major mitigation measures cannot be considered for priority capital funding at this time, in my view it, mistakenly, firmly places residential amenity for the villages that straddle this road as secondary in importance to the demands of the freight industry.

Whilst I accept that by-passes would obviously reduce the impact of HGV’s on the villages and are justifiable in the longer term per Charles Haggart’s email of 3 March 2015 enclosed; if PKC are unwilling to budget for the roundabouts they have previously agreed are required (estimated at £1.5 million in 2009), would they please explain to me how they are proposing to fund by-passes?  What local members are being offered is a ‘do-minimus option’ of belatedly approaching Transport Scotland on signage (long requested), the provision of side-entry gullies in the villages in 2015/16, as previously requested by me and vehicle activated speed signage (proposed by the Independent Group in failed discourse with other political groups during the recent budget process).

In the Composite Capital Budget 2015-2023 (the time period that guides development for Perth and Kinross in our LDP), it states that the Prudential Code requires PKC to set a budget ‘to meet local needs and priorities’ in the most cost effective manner (Para 1.2 of 12 February 2015 Report), it further proposes that each Service is invited to submit outline business cases (OBC’s) up to the value of £10 million per annum for 2020/23 by February 2016 and to fully review and update the criteria (Paras 3.8 and 3.9).

I therefore re-state the case for an OBC for the A977 to be re-commenced now, focussing on short and longer term solutions for this forgotten road, hoping my fellow ward councillors will support same.

Yours sincerely

 

Cllr Michael Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Enc

cc        Charles Haggart (Traffic and Network Manager)

Peter Marshall, Strategy and Policy Manager

Daryl McKeown, Traffic and Network

John Symon, Head of Finance

PKC Ward Councillors (Kinross-shire) Dave Cuthbert, Joe Giacopazzi, Willie Robertson

Fossoway and Kinross Community Councils

Special Council Meeting on 2015 Budget (12/2/15)

By

The following is an email from Mike Barnacle to the Provost, written on 16 Feb 2015.

Dear Provost

Special Council Meeting on 2015 Budget (12/2/15)

I am reluctantly moved to write to you in relation to the procedure at the start of the above debate.

The Independent Group had been advised that our Motion was competent, something we wished to ensure after our experience at the March 2013 Budget debate.  I was, therefore, very surprised when you effectively ruled out discussion on same, citing the opportunity afforded to call for a second recess if required, something I was unaware of.

Whilst we had no expectation of success, the Motion had been framed in order to generate discussion on the merits of our main argument that in future there should be two Council meetings on the Budget, one for presentation of various Groups’ proposals and the second a few days later to debate same and attempt a consensus.  Both Councillor Cuthbert and I were denied that opportunity to address colleagues on the budget process by your actions, having spent time preparing same.

Surely it would have been courteous on your part to have discussed this matter privately well before the debate, given that these are valid reasons for our approach.  I enclose a copy of 2 previous articles on the budget debates of 2013 and 2014 that provide background to concerns.  I am an accountant and understand budgets but I find public accounting around the budget process very difficult to follow.  I maintain that the time allowed on Budget Day to examine the complexities of various Motions and Amendments is insufficient to arrive at a correct consensus on behalf of the people of Perth and Kinross we seek to represent.  Our argument for 2 meetings is not unique, it happens in other local authorities.  Ward members over the years, in my experience, have seen their influence in the budget process reduced and marginalised to corporate control and I regard budget setting day as a highly charged political debate that borders on ‘the farcical’ with the minority Administration’s budget invariably being passed with minor amendment.

It think it is a deeply flawed process and there has to be a better way of setting a £331,500,000 budget.

Councillor Miller said after the last election that he would lead ‘an inclusive’ minority Administration but clearly this was political rhetoric because I have no experience of inclusiveness since.

I have no doubt you were following your Party’s instructions at the debate as regards our Motion, rather than adopting a non-partisan approach one expects from a Provost, a position I find regrettable.

I was so incensed by what occurred that I chose to leave the debate early, having become completely frustrated at the process and the lack of dialogue with other Groups regarding our proposals, despite our best efforts; democracy is not being served in PKC.  I assume it is correct to say that there is no way that the spirit of our Motion, suggesting an improvement to the process, will ever be countenanced by your Administration.

I would be interested in your response at your convenience.

Yours sincerely,

 

Cllr Michael Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

PKC’s Review of our Local Development Plan (LDP) – call for Main Issues

By

The following email and attachments were sent by Mike Barnacle to Perth & Kinross Council in response to the call for Main Issues for the Main Issues Report.

 

I refer to my email of 27/1/15 enclosed, noting the outcomes from the recent Kinross-shire Ward Forum/Network of Community Councils (CC’s) and enclosing the paper I have asked to be discussed at the next Planning MOWG in March on the Quality and Standard of Planning Reports and relations with CC’s along with Councillor Cuthbert’s thoughts on improving the Development Management process.

You will recall that PKC have asked communities to let them know by the end of March issues they would like to see raised in the Main Issues Report for their review of our LDP.  I thought it might be useful if I outlined some of my thoughts on issues in Kinross-shire for your assistance and possible consideration viz:-

TRANSORT

Reinforce the need for major mitigation measures for the A977 (Para 7.1.18 of current LDP) and consider calls for restoration of a rail link in the shire.  Is there sufficient recognition of speed control measures on other major roads in the shire, i.e. A911?

POLICIES

You may recall my letter of 19/1/15, copied to yourselves, on the draft supplementary guidance for special landscape areas and hopefully this will be concluded shortly and include the Cleish Hills and River Devon/gorge along with those proposed for Lochleven, Ochil Hills and Portmoak.  I noted in April 2012 that a spatial framework for wind energy developments was to be completed and it is still awaited; in January 2012, I called for a moratorium of further major windfarm cluster developments in the Ochils and still feel this is justified, given developments since.

Are we happy with the increased housing density ranges in our LDP and should we be seeking greater protection for prime agricultural land, in accordance with national planning policy?

Policy PM4 currently seeks to prevent development outwith settlement boundaries, should this be expanded upon and clarified more?

Should we call for a review of employment sites zoned in our LDP;  I have always been against the development of such west of the M90, whilst existing zoned sites remain un-developed.  However, the status and retention of the Turfhills environment/roads depot should be emphasised.

I strongly suggest a call for a review of our open-door policy RD5 on gypsy/traveller sites and because of the usually retrospective nature of planning applications that result, this policy should surely not apply in the Lochleven Catchment Area; thereby enhancing policy EP7 to protect the Loch.

Should we be lobbying for Crook Moss (a lowland bog area that is re-foresting) to be considered for declaration as a site of special scientific interest?  Although Planning are reluctant to propose new conservation areas, should we call for Back Crook, Keltybridge/Maryburgh and Milnathort to be considered?

SETTLEMENT PLANNING AND BOUNDARIES

Should we revive calls for masterplans for Kinross Town (including maintaining Site H46 and the Market Park site as open space/community woodland) and the Fossoway villages of Blairingone (to include consideration of a by-pass line) and Powmill (including re-alignment and improvement of the A823 junction).

12 settlements had boundaries removed in our current LDP at Balado Crossroads, Blairforge, Craigowmill, Cuthill Towers, Easter Balgedie, Gairney Bank, Gairneybridge/Fruix, Lochran Sidings, Mawcarse, Middleton, Netherton and Upper Tillyrie; nine of these were within the Lochleven catchment area and should we argue for their boundaries to be re-instated?

Are we happy with the settlement boundaries for Cleish (divorced), Glenlomond (Care Home site zoning), Greenacres (enclosed to prevent retrospective expansion), Keltybridge (Policy PM4 failed to protect a former village setting area from development), Kinnesswood (Stephen’s field implications), Rumbling Bridge (reinstate village setting) and Scotlandwell (divorced from Kilmagadwood and H54 extended eastwards)?

The above represents merely ideas and is not exhaustive, purely provided as a snapshot of what we maybe should consider for a plan review to 2024.  I trust also it may be helpful in setting the agenda for public CC meetings in March.

Kind regards

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Tel:  01577 840516

Ps          You will have noted the relevant email (DevelopmentPlan@pkc.gov.uk) and website (www.pkc.gov.uk/article/10339/Main-Issues-Report) addresses for contact with PKC on this matter.

Attachments:

Improving the planning process

Quality and standard of planning reports

Note of meeting on quality and standard of planning reports