Planning and Environment Archives - Page 21 of 22

Letter to Peter Marshall

Dear Peter

Landscape Guidance for Proposed Local Development Plan

At the meeting of local Members and Kinross-shire Community Councils’ Forum/Network on 20/11/13, it was agreed not to pursue a National Scenic Area for Kinross-shire, following information received from SNH. However, there remains continuing concern over the loss of the AGLV’s under Scottish Planning Policy and scepticism over the Reporter’s view that current proposed policy is a satisfactory defence against inappropriate development. As you know, in my submission of 10/12/11 to the MIR I proposed that local landscape areas should include the Cleish, Lomond and Ochil Hills, along with the River Devon and that a regional park for the Ochil Hills should be considered.

I note that SNH have contracted land use consultants to review the Tayside Landscape Character Areas and feed their work into the guidance before consultation.

I hereby make a formal request for the Kinross-shire elected Ward Members to be involved in discussions now around this review and in advance of wider public consultation, a request first made in my aforementioned submission.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Mike Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire
and on behalf of Councillors Cuthbert, Giacopazzi and Robertson

cc Helen Taylor, NNH Area Officer for Tayside & Grampian

Following the deferral on 1/8/12, it is disappointing that most of the issues I raised then and copied to yourselves on Monday have not been addressed in the lengthy ensuing period.

Fossoway Community Council had 2 of their official complaints regarding the planning report subsequently upheld.

The site history (Paras 30 – 35) refers to actions from May 2010 to August 2013 but fails to mention a host of other retrospective activities alerted to planning; the applicants have been permanently residing on the site since 2/3/12 and have continued to establish it, all in advance of any permission. This includes a horse paddock area (Para 4 and Condition 8) overlaid with hardcore which I believe has been done to create further pitches; exactly the practise at the Greenacres site (Paras 52 and 54). The Crook Moss and the land to the west is owned by Harelaw Farm (the site for phosphorous mitigation proposed), so fears of site expansion have grounds.

The site is outwith both the current and proposed settlement boundary of our Local Plans but close to them (contrary to Policy 48 – Paras 24 and 50). PKC’s Landscape Consultant notes constraints against development here in his study of 2005. The Report again completely ignores this and the work done by the community in preparing a long-term development strategy for the area (Para 5.20 of current local plan following a public inquiry), which has been used to inform the settlement strategies (Para 7.1.12 of proposed LDP). During this local plan process (2004 – 2012) there was no indication of a proposed gypsy/traveller site here, in fact Crook Moss (Para 41 and Policy 22) was proposed for community access, forestry, open space and recreation; so residential amenity will be lost from development at this site.

Para 55 fails to mention the prominence of the site from the east and north, lacking an adequate landscape framework (Policy RD5b) although clearly retrospective works have been undertaken without permission on this. The Maps and Table sent to yourselves on Monday are relevant.

The Report states the absence of allocated travellers sites and then refers to Greenacres; I dispute there is a need for further pitches in Kinross-shire.

Paras 53 and 54 are incorrect. Gairneybridge has planning permission for 25 residential chalets, it was empty of gypsy/travellers on 4/10/13. Greenacres has 16 pitches, which have been sub-divided and a generous settlement boundary to the north and west which I called for in our Proposed LDP. Para 54 fails to recognise the extent of retrospective development at Greenacres and it is my belief that the need identified at 9/8/12 by Officers has been met, with spare capacity available, so there is no justifiable need for the Crook Moss site. Para 52 omits reference to a June 2009 report on housing need and demand where Section 7.7 states “there was a 125% growth in gypsy/traveller households across a 3-year period in PKC’s area as opposed to a 6% growth across Scotland and we are well equipped in terms of provision and pitches available.

As the community ascertained with Scottish Water on 25/7/12, Drum WWTP is at capacity (Para 56) for the foreseeable future. An environmental improvement having been recently put in by public funds, at community request, to service existing residencies within the Loch Leven catchment and not to provide capacity for gypsy/traveller sites. Whilst the applicant has now proposed a private WWTP which is acceptable to SNH and SEPA (Para 58), both these organisations prefer mains drainage connection within the catchment (Policy EP7 of Proposed Plan) and they also share elected member concerns about the expansion of gypsy/traveller sites therein, almost always retrospectively. The Memo (per Para 57) agreed at E & I Committee on 28/8/13 is part of supplementary guidance for our Proposed Plan currently being consulted on; it will be essential that suggested conditions are enforced where no S75 legal agreement is required. Suggested Conditions 16 & 17 on Page 27 are not in accordance with this memo since they omit reference to ‘no development commencing on site until’ the foul drainage infrastructure has been installed and an approved CAR licence submitted.

The importance of Loch Leven Catchment Management Area policies cannot be understated if we are to ensure the health of the Loch and its tributaries, which include the Gairney Burn (a trout spawning area) near this proposed site.

Para 42 omits reference from Environmental Health regarding the use of portaloos as a temporary expedient (weeks rather than months). They state no objections but the applicants have been using these for 18 months already.

Whilst it may be correct that there is no significant flood risk to the site itself (Paras 40 & 59), the adjacent Crook Moss is a wetland lowland bog and the land to the west is subject to permanent flooding now (which was not the case until recently).

There is no reference in conditions or informatives regarding connection to mains electricity, which was proposed at 1/8/12; whilst it may be the applicant’s intention, I remain sceptical this will happen and that generators will continue to operate for the foreseeable future (Para 61).

The Report acknowledges continuing capacity constraints at Fossoway Primary School (Para 66) but then argues site proximity is sustainable (Para 68). This is contradictory!

The Report makes no mention of Policy 81 (KALP 2004) or Policy RD1 (Proposed LDP 2012) on residential amenity. The impact of this site and its potential expansion does have an effect on this and the Moss biodiversity (Policy 22) but the Report makes little of this in Paras 62 and 63. I suggest very little regard has been given to this aspect from the large no of objections summarised in Para 44, there being approximately 50 houses in the immediate neighbourhood, but considerable regard to facilitating this site against local wishes. One has to ask ‘who is the Council representing?’

The Report’s recommendation appears based on two policies, viz:-

(a) RD5 of proposed LDP 2012. This policy is a final draft that members were not consulted on prior to its inclusion in the proposed plan. I have made comment on this in my submission, being very wary of how it will be used by agents for gypsy/travellers sites to support what is usually retrospective applications that result in sites becoming established, without adequate planning control, as at Crook Moss. I would like to see changes to this policy.

(b) Para 51 refers to rural brownfield land and small scale housing provision under our 2009 policy. I would query the status of static caravans as affordable housing? There were no buildings on this site of a former landfill.

Three of the local members requested refusal of this application under delegated powers in May 2012 and I ask you again to refuse the application for the reasons and policies I’ve referred to.