Dear Murray

Regional Parks in Scotland

In my letter of July 2017 regarding LDP2 under Landscape Designations I stated that I would maintain strong objections to the plan if it did not contain a provision to review the case for the former AGLV areas of the Cleish Hills and Devon Gorge to be redesignated as Local Landscape Areas following their loss, as a direct result of accepting a deeply flawed consultant’s exercise on landscape designation that I attended.  This remains the case!

In Relation to Regional Parks, I stated that there needs to be a commitment to engage with neighbouring local authorities on my previous request for the Ochil Hills to be considered for Regional Park status and to look at extending the Lomond Hills Regional Park to Loch Leven.  I also raised the issue of Regional Parks in Scotland at the last meeting of the Council of APRS, which I am a member of.  I was appraised of a May 2019 draft review (post workshop) of this issue, which I enclose.  I would draw your attention to Paragraph 9.10 of the review calling for a new park in the Ochil Hills and a re-launch of an expanded Lomond Hills Regional Park to include the Loch Leven area.

I find it interesting that my letter of July 2017 is mirrored by this draft review, the content of which I have only just been made aware of.  Forward Planning at Perth & Kinross Council have always resisted my calls on Regional Parks issues that affect Kinross-shire, citing budgeting constraints.

This enclosed review champions the value of Regional Parks to the country and Paragraph 10 conclusions give much food for thought.  I would ask that your administration endorse this approach and you will note that I have copied this letter to forward planning officers in neighbouring authorities for their observations.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Michael Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Ps I will forward a final version of the review when it becomes available.

Cc      Karen Reid, Chief Executive PKC

          Peter Marshall, Forward Planning

          Craig Walker, Fife Council

Graeme Finlay, Clackmannanshire Council

Emma Fyvie, Stirling Council

          Roseanna Cunningham MSP

          John Mayhew, Director of APRS

          Councillors, McDade, Purves, Stewart, Robertson, Watters

          Stuart Deans, Friends of the Ochil’s Chair

          Eileen Thomas, Kinross-shire Civic Trust secretary

MAB/XM/CP/WR/CSMW 13 August 2021 Kevin Stewart MSP Minister for Local Government, Housing & Planning The Scottish Government St Andrew’s House Regent Road EDINBURGH EH1 3DG

2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH Tel:  01738 475000

Dear Minister

Current Local Plan System Following Reporter’s Examination

We write with concern to yourself regarding the above following the recent experience of local councillors in Perth & Kinross when debating the Examination Report on our Local Development Plan 2 on 25 September 2019.

5 councillors, including 3 of the local members for Kinross-shire, asked for their dissent to be recorded from the Council decision to adopt the Report. It became clear during the briefing sessions in August with planning officers that we would be recommended to accept the Examination Report, however flawed we may feel the conclusions. We were also advised by legal services of Perth & Kinross Council that moving amendments may not be competent within the strict confines of the Planning Regulations 2009, despite noting that the Report had been made on the basis of written submissions, unaccompanied site inspections and no enquiry or public hearing.

We find it anti-democratic that elected members cannot challenge the findings of an unelected reporters’ unit regarding what they may regard as a flawed assessment based on incomplete evidence and only have recourse back to Perth & Kinross Council officers for acceptance of the Report. This is a clear “democratic deficit” in the current planning system, agreed by your Government which we think should be debated at MSP level, hence this letter to yourself, copied to our MSPs.

We look forward to your response in due course and attach as background Councillor Barnacle’s address to the full council debate on LDP2 aforementioned.

Yours sincerely

Councillor M Barnacle               Councillor X McDade              Councillor C Purves

Councillor W Robertson             Councillor C Stewart   

cc. Roseanna Cunningham MSP

      Claire Baker MSP

      Murdo Fraser MSP

      Dean Lockhart MSP

      Alex Rowley MSP

      Mark Ruskell MSP

      Liz Smith MSP

      Alexander Stewart MSP

      Editor, Kinross Newsletter

Dear Ross as discussed I enclose three items that you may wish to use in your publications.

1. Letter to planning on landscape 12.09.19 with the attachment Letter to Murray Lyle 13.06.19 and enclose Regional Parks Review.
2. Letter to Murray Lyle Lack of Policy on Sustainability 13.06.19 please note as of today no reply has been received.
3. My address to the Full Council of Wednesday 25 September on LDP2

Just prior to the LDP2 briefing session I attended on the 8 August, I had queried why we were having them when it’s clear from paragraphs 2.5-2.7 that we are directed to accept the Examination Report, however flawed we may feel the conclusions.  I find it astonishing that onecannot challenge the unelected reporters unit regarding what one may regard as a flawed assessment, based on incomplete evidence and only have recourse back to PKC for blind acceptance.  This is a clear “democratic deficit” in the current planning system, sanctioned by the government, which should be challenged at MSP level .

I am advised by legalservices that moving amendments may not be competent but I take realissue with thekey findings and modifications in the examination report on 3 matters, noting that all has been decided on the basis of written submissions, unaccompanied site Inspections and no enquiry or public hearing.

1. Policy ld Place Making {Paras 2.15- 2.17)

The Member Officer Working Group that looked at LDP2 issues decided that a capacity range for house zonings was more appropriate than the LDPl approach, which simply stated a site number. Since there have been a number of PKC planning recommendations approving site applications in excess of the LDPl figures in recent times, I was content that the capacity range approach was more flexible but also gave communities some certainty as to the upper parameters of development. I regard the upper figures of the range as something that would have addressed this but the Reporter regards it as inappropriate and has taken the representations from the development sector as ‘indicative only’. This is a worse position than before and a ‘development charter’ which I am totally opposed  to.

• Secondly I find no reference to my representationson policy ERS which is Prime Agricultural Land.

This policy is not strong enough and there has been significant failure to protect such finite land for food production from development, bothin PKC and elsewhere, contrary to National Planning poli cy. When we have an increasing population, this is short sightedI Hopefully, the National Planning Framework 4 on rural issues may address this.

• Kinross-shire  area – removal of  sight  MU266 in Crook of  Devon (Paras 2.53 & 2.54)

The reporters assessment acknowledges the existence of services in Crook of Devon but maintains there is significant local opposition to the allocation of the site and the historical context. My evidence file would dispute thisassessment and I would wonder why 4 local members who supported its inclusion would have done so if such opposition was ‘manifest’. The separation between Orum and Crook of Devon referred no longer exists, having been compromised by PKC planning when they sanctioned the Crook Moss Gypsy Traveller site in October 2013 (I have 5 aerial photos of the site showing 8 potential pitches marked when only 5 are consented and conditions relating to drainage on a site within the Loch Leven catchment of questionable compliance). This site was approved against the overwhelming opposition of the community and local members with noreference at any time to the landscape consultants assessment of the area. This consultants assessment covered both MU266 and the location of Crook Moss. The Fossoway Community Strategy Group, which included myself, changed their position in August 2015 regarding the land being suitable for development following PKC’s appalling decision to sanction the Crook Moss site. The Reporter ignores all this evidence in their assessment and for me the greatest prominence at the eastern gateway to Crook of Devon is the Crook Moss ‘eyesore’ sanctioned by PKC but ignored at site inspection.

The reporter cites MU74 at Blairingone by comparison to MU266 but I would argue that sustainable planning would justify MU266 as more appropriate now for development. Blalringone has ‘no services’ following the recent PKC decision to close its school (the only community building that remained) with PKC forward planning constantly negative about development interest. Despite this, the Reporter favours development here rather than at Crook of  Devon, and illogical position.

As regards the A977 mitigation measures currently planned, it is a stated fact that the available PKC budget for these does not meet the total capital cost assessed as desirable, so the clear possibility of a contribution from site MU266 is discounted incorrectly.

The generous affordable housing element of the site at 50% Is a writtenguarantee and I think there is no possibility of securing same at the alternative smaller sites suggested.

I note that PKC Strategic Housing Investment Plan to 2024/25 contains no provision for affordable housing in the rural villages of Kinross-shire!

For these reasons, I fundamentally disagree with the Reporters conclusions, based on incomplete evidence, regarding the  assessment as an ‘opportunity lost’ for the community.

I did mention at the briefing, landscape policies but I have made a submission on supplementary guidance on the 12.09.19 and have received an assurance that consideration will be given to my request for a review of designations for Kinross -shire as part of that consultation.

In summary. I would like my dissent recorded on adopting LDP2 in relation to the three matters I have outlined.

Kind regards

Councillor Michael Barnacle Independent Member for Kinross-shire