The following is a letter written to Nick Brian & Peter Marshall (Development Quality & Strategy and Policy Managers, PKC Planning Department) on 17 November 2014.

Dear Colleagues

Establishment & Expansion of Gypsy/Traveller Sites within Lochleven Catchment

I refer to previous correspondence and concerns expressed to yourselves by the community and local elected members, with particular reference to the Crook Moss & Greenacres sites. In the context of the current discussions regarding the quality and standard of planning reports and relations with community councils, I wish to focus mainly on the Crook Moss site.

Between the first rumour of this site proposal in May 2010 and the lodging of a validated planning application in March 2012, extensive site clearance works and development of the site was allowed by PKC, contrary to the wishes of the community and elected members locally.

There was significant objection from the community, local elected members (who had been advised by planning officers that a delegated refusal, which we expected, would keep the process of appeal within PKC) and SEPA to the application; meanwhile works continued on site in advance of any planning decision. My letter of 20^th June 2012 to David Littlejohn attached highlighted community concerns on how his department were handling the Crook Moss/Greenacres sites and the policy approach to such developments, in particular the new “open-door” Policy RD5 that suddenly appeared without consultation in the Local Development Plan (LDP), I being wary of how it would be used by agents to support invariably retrospective applications that result in sites becoming established and proliferating, without adequate planning control. I suggest my concerns have been justified since. I noted that in May 2006, PKC planning stated that the potential of the Greenacres site had been achieved at 7 units; a site visit now, consistently rejected despite requests by myself and Cleish Community Council (CCC), would reveal about 5 times that in terms of capacity.

The Crook Moss site was brought to the Development Management Committee (DMC) on 1^st August 2012 with a recommendation for approval (having been all but established already) to the amazement of local members who could not vote thereon, having declared opposition (I personally will never repeat that mistake). Fossoway Community Council (FCC) and local members addressed the Committee on the number of policies and reasons for refusal (in particular regarding landscape, settlement boundaries and residential amenity), along with ambiguities, inaccuracies and omissions in the report. After an extraordinary length of time questioning officers, a deferral for more information was agreed.

Councillor Cuthbert and myself met the SNP Convenors of the DMC on 13^th August 2012 with our concerns on the outcome, process and standard of report presented to DMC and I prepared a number of questions/observations that arose that required to be addressed during the deferral period, also referring to FCC’s questions summarised, attached. None of this, including a request to visit the Greenacres site to establish need (LDP includes a generous settlement boundary around this site following representations from CCC and myself seeking to establish parameters of the site), was responded to and FCC lodged a formal complaint over the handling of the application, which I fully concurred with.

On 9^th October 2013, the application was brought back to DMC for approval, with a host of conditions, principally on the basis of Policy RD5 & Housing in the Countryside. FCC and local members again addressed same and I noted that most of the issues I had raised at deferral and since had not been addressed in the report, nor had mention been made of FCC’s complaint (2 of which had been upheld). The DMC chose to ignore the level of community objection and that of local members which continued, granting planning approval as recommended. The agent gave assurances his client would meet the list of extensive conditions within three months!

On 10^th October 2013 I wrote to yourselves and also to Legal Services on 26^th November 2013 attached, following a Kinross-shire CC’s Forum meeting regarding the Memo of Understanding for Planning Procedure for Applications in the Lochleven Catchment agreed between PKC, SEPA & SNH (no local member involvement) reported at the E & I Committee of 28^th August 2013. Cllr Robertson and myself had expressed concern at removal of Section 75 Legal Agreements and replacement by conditions, given our experience of lack of enforcement. Following the DMC decision of 9^th October 2013 re Crook Moss, when this Memo Protocol was first mentioned, it became clear that ‘it could not be adhered to where retrospective applications are involved’ (seemingly encouraged by PKC) because development has already commenced on site without the necessary drainage arrangements being implemented in accordance with it. I suggest strongly that the authorities, by their approach, are in breach of their statutory duty to protect Lochleven under Policy EP7 of our LDP.

Between February 2014 and current date, local members and residents have continued to make representations regarding the lack of enforcement of Crook Moss planning conditions and extension of deadlines to meet same. It is my understanding that currently there are no drainage or water supply arrangements in place that have a licence or comply, whilst noise conditions and the so-called landscape framework are breached. (They have been on site, in the catchment, since March 2012). Whilst I recognise that enforcement is a discretionary power, I note that a top priority for same are breaches of planning control on matters of environmental importance on protected environments, along with impact on public visual and residential amenity. Given this failure by the applicants, I suggest strongly it is time to review this planning permission and consider its revocation.

IN SUMMARY AND TO CONCLUDE

There is no Local Democracy inherent in our Planning System (An area committee for Kinross-shire giving stronger weight to the views of the local community and it’s elected members, which I continue to advocate, has been consistently rejected by our centrist, controlling and corporate minority SNP administration in Perth).

The lack of any meaningful deterrent to retrospective applications being applied by PKC, under directive from the Scottish Government, makes a mockery of the planning system, giving no incentive to applicants to follow correct due process.

As suggested earlier, Lochleven catchment policies are being undermined by the current approach and I have no faith that PKC and its partners in the planning protocol will protect the loch.

The community I represent wants to see a level playing field exercised, which planning regulations stress but it would appear to me that, from any detailed examination in relation to this matter, the European Convention on Human Rights confers special treatment for certain so-called ethnic groups that produces the opposite in planning terms.

I will be interested in your responses, particularly as ward councillors are to meet with planning on 27^th November 2014 to discuss Crook Moss, Greenacres & Mawcarse Gypsy/Traveller sites.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Michael Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Circulation List & Background Papers Attached
Cllrs Cuthbert, Giacopazzi, Robertson, Kinross-shire Ward
Cllrs Gray, Band, Convenors DMC
Sandy Morrison, Chair of Fossoway Community Council
Ron Kitchin, Chair of Cleish Community Council
Sean Caswell, Planning Unit Manager (Perth & Edinburgh) SEPA
Helen Taylor, Operations Officer (Planning for Lochleven Catchment) SNH
Roseanna Cunningham MSP (Perthshire South & Kinross-shire)
Willie Rennie MSP (Lib Dem for Mid Scotland & Fife)
Liz Smith MSP (Conservative for Mid Scotland & Fife)
Gordon Banks MP (Ochil & South Perthshire)

Background Papers

1. MB’s letter to Nick Brian re Greenacres 4/7/11
2. MB’s letter to Mark Williamson 25/4/12
3. MB’s letter to David Littlejohn 20/6/12
4. MB’s note to DMC Colleagues 30/7/12 + attachments 4a – 4h
5. Emails to Convenor of DMC & attachments 15&16/8/12
6. MB’s address to DMC 9/10/13
7. MB’s letter to Legal Services + attachment 26.11.13
8. Cllr Giacopazzi’s email to Chief Executive 4/2/14
9. MB’s email to SP&R 11/2/14

This article appeared in the May 2014 edition of the Kinross Newsletter and was written by Mike Barnacle, member of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland Council and an Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire.

In 2000 the Draft Local Plan produced by Perth & Kinross Council (PKC) omitted any reference to Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) and was much criticised in that respect. As a result of repres entations, the original area of the AGLV (covering the hills to the east and south of Loch Leven to the Fife boundary) was extended to cover the Cleish and Ochil Hills up to the Fife and Perthshire boundaries in the Final Draft Local Plan 2001. At the Public Inquiry in 2003, representations that the whole of Kinross -shire should be an AGLV were rejected by the Reporter because areas within the shire had varying quality in landscape terms.

However, the River Devon and its gorge were regarded by him as of outstanding quality and merited inclusion in the designation; this contrasted with PKC’s position that they did “ not know what to do with the Devon Gorge area”.

The Local Plan 2004 included these extensions of the AGLV to the shire’s hill and river borders aft er a hardfought campaign by Community Councils, pressure groups and local elected members. The designation offered some degree of protection against inappropriate development; in particular it assisted opposition to wind farm development in the Ochil Hills, most notably at Mellock and Tillyrie Hills (the latter the subject of a current appeal to the Scottish Government).

During consultation on the Main Issues Report for PKC’s Local Development Plan (LDP) between 2009 and 2011, calls for the retention and ext ension of the AGLVs were made by the community and elected members, who were dismayed that the designation was due to be lost from the Proposed Plan due to a change in Scottish Planning Policy. In a speech to our Full Council in September 2010, I expressed concern at this loss and the essential need to replace AGLVs with robust Local Landscape Areas (LLAs). I then followed this in February 2011 requesting involvement in further discussions on including LLAs for safeguarding against inappropriate development. PKC’s Proposed LDP 2012 contained Policy ER6 to protect landscape, but only referred to National Scenic Areas (NSAs), with the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment to be used for assessing development proposals until supplementary guidance on LLAs is produced.

During 2012, the community and elected members lobbied PKC reinforcing the view that Kinross – shire’s AGLVs should become LLAs, remaining in place until supplementary guidance is produced and expressing concern at the delay in the process. At Full Council in January 2013 a Report on Representations to the Proposed LDP covering landscape change suggested PKC make no modification to the Plan, and left to the Reporter the option to retain existing AGLVs in the short period before supplementary guidance is available (2013/14), this having been delayed because of insuffi cient resources. An amendment by local members in Kinross-shire to retain the AGLVs meantime was withdrawn upon assurances from PKC offi cers that landscape guidance would be prioritised.

At Full Council in December 2013 a Report on Plan Modifications and recommendation to adopt the LDP by accepting the Reporter’s Examination changes was approved reluctantly, but it was noted that the Reporter thought “ it was unfortunate the supplementary guidance on landscape protection was not available”; he also “ considered that Policy ER6 provides a better framework for managing the landscape in the former AGLV areas”.

At a meeting in November 2013 of local Councillors and Kinross -shire Community Councils it was decided not to pursue a NSA for the shire following advice from Scottish Natural Heritage, but continuing scepticism remained over the Reporter’s view that current policy is a satisfactory defence against inappropriate development. I subsequently made a formal request for local elect ed members to be involved at the outset in shaping the supplementary guidance needed. At PKC Committee in April 2014 the Action Programme for our LDP (adopted by Scottish Ministers in February 2014) contained the need to prepare, consult and adopt Supplementary Guidance during 2014 on landscape protection and wind farm strategy amongst 15 items of policy guidance still outstanding for 2014 and later consultation within our new LDP.

A Review of Local Landscape Designations at PKC is now to be undertaken and I have sought participation.

In summary, it has taken PKC five years to address this matter and I suggest currently there is a widening gap and policy vacuum from the loss of AGLVs and what is to replace them. I would be interested to hear what other members of APRS know regarding their local authority’s current policy on landscape protection; I do know for example that Fife Council has LLAs in place and has used them to recommend refusal of a wind farm on the border with Kinross-shire at Outh Muir.

This article first appeared in the Spring 2014 issue of Rural Scotland, published by the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland.