Telephone: 01324 696455 Fax: 01324 696444 E-mail: brian...

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuDirectorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals Telephone: 01324 696455 Fax: 01324 696444 E-mail: [email protected]

abc Mr Gordon Reid Senior Planning Officer Planning Division City Development Department Dundee City Council Dundee House 50 North Lindsay Street Dundee DD1 1LS Your ref: GSR/CP LP9 Our ref: LDP-180-1 30 August 2013 Dear Mr Reid PROPOSED DUNDEE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2012 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PLANNING) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 We refer to our appointment by the Scottish Ministers to conduct the examination of the Dundee Local Development Plan. We have completed the examination, and now submit our report, enclosing one bound copy and one unbound copy. In our examination we considered all 26 issues arising from unresolved representations which were identified by the planning authority. In each case we have taken account of the summaries of the representations and the responses, as prepared by the planning authority, and the original representations, and we have set out our conclusions and recommendations in relation to each issue in our report. We have recommended modifications in 17 of the 26 issues. The examination process also included a comprehensive series of unaccompanied site inspections and, for some issues, we requested additional information from the planning authority and other parties. We did not require to hold any hearings or formal inquiries. A letter submitting further representations was received from Rydens dated 24 June 2013 regarding the former East Kingsway Works at Kingsway East. This was after the normal deadline for representations, when the report was partially completed. It was however considered by the reporters, who decided it contained potentially significant information. A response was therefore requested from the planning authority, and received on 5 July 2013. The matters raised are considered under the relevant issues. The correspondence is on file for reference.

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 Falkirk www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk=www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 Falkirk www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk=www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

Subject to the limited exceptions as set out in Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and in the Town and Country Planning (Grounds for Declining to Follow Recommendations) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, the planning authority is now required to make the modifications to the proposed local plan as set out in our recommendations. The planning authority should also make any consequential modifications to the text or maps which arise from these modifications. Separately, the planning authority will require to make any necessary adjustments to the final environmental report and to the report on the appropriate assessment of the plan. A letter will be issued to all those who submitted representations to inform them that the examination has been completed and that the report has been submitted to the planning authority. It will advise them that the report is now available to view at our web site at: http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=qA347744 and at the planning authority’s office at Dundee House, 50 North Lindsay Street, Dundee and that it will also be posted on the planning authority’s website at: http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/localdevplan/ The documents relating to the examination should be retained on the planning authority’s website for a period of six weeks following the adoption of the plan by the planning authority. It would also be helpful to know when the plan has been adopted and we would appreciate being sent confirmation of this in due course. Yours sincerely Trevor A Croft Dannie Onn

http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=qA347744

http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/localdevplan/

Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

abcdefghijklmnopqrstu

REPORT TO DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXAMINATION PROPOSED DUNDEE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Reporters: Trevor Croft BSc DipTRP ARSGS FRSA MRTPI Dannie Onn BSc (Hons) Dip Arch RIBA IHBC Date of Report: 30 August 2013

CONTENTS Issue Page No 1. Strategy 1

2. Economic Development 2

3. Leisure and Visitor Accommodation 16

4. Design 20

5. Housing Land Release 25

6. Housing Land Allowances 33

7. Proposed Housing Sites 38

8. Housing Land Release – Proposed Housing Sites H55 and H56 Mill O’Mains 58

9. Additional Housing Sites 64

10. Design of New Housing 74

11. Other Housing Development 83

12. Facilities in Residential Areas 91

13. City Centre Retail 97

14. New Retail Proposals 103

15. Goods Range Restrictions 111

16. Out of Centre Retail – Class 2 119

17. Alternative Energy 124

18. Nature Conservation 129

19. Open Space 132

20. Waste 138

21. Water and Flooding 141

22. Environmental Protection 145

23. Telecommunications 149

24. Transportation 153

25. Transport Interchange 160

26. Other Issues 165

PROPOSED DUNDEE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Issue 1 Strategy

Development plan reference: Proposed Plan Strategy (para 1.1 – 4.6) Reporter:

Trevor A Croft

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Land Securities (7) NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25) Stewart Milne Homes (58) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31)

Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

This section sets out the vision and the context for the Proposed Plan.

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Land Securities (7): Welcome the strategy set out in Figure 5 “Town Centres and Retailing” (para 4.5) and support these aims as being the most effective strategy to enable Dundee to compete with other major retailing destinations nationally. Recognise the importance of 'Sustainable Economic Growth' is also encapsulated within the diagram although are surprised that this isn't given greater emphasis, particularly in light of the national government's ambitions to enhance productivity and competitiveness across the country. Suggest the diagram be reconsidered to reflect the close interrelationship retailing makes to the City's economy and therefore to delivering sustainable economic growth through job creation and investment. NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21): Seek to amend Figure 5 in relation to the spatial strategy for ‘Sustainable Economic Growth’. Recommend that consideration be given in the diagram to the health and education establishments or campus areas, such as at Ninewells Hospital that make a significant contribution to the City in terms of its services as well as to its national and international reputation. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): Note from paragraph 1.1 of the Proposed Plan that supplementary guidance will be prepared at a later date to expand on the policies and proposals in the Plan. Consider that limited passing reference to as yet unprepared supplementary guidance whilst consulting on the Proposed Plan is not acceptable as it does not allow for proper scrutiny to conform to TAYplan. Suggest that the content of supplementary guidance must be consulted upon now and/or moved to the Proposed Plan and included as policy to be fully tested at examination. Suggest that in paragraph 1.1 of the Proposed Plan the Council include reference to the relevant supplementary guidance being prepared and consulted upon prior to LDP examination. Stewart Milne Homes (58): Note from paragraph 1.1 of the Proposed Plan that supplementary guidance will be prepared at a later date to expand on the policies and proposals in the Plan. Consider that limited passing reference to as yet unprepared supplementary guidance whilst consulting on the Proposed Plan is not acceptable as it does not allow for proper scrutiny to conform to TAYplan. Suggest that the content of

1


supplementary guidance must be consulted upon now and/or moved to the Proposed Plan and included as policy to be fully tested at examination. Suggest that in paragraph 1.1 of the Proposed Plan include reference to the relevant supplementary guidance being prepared and consulted upon prior to LDP examination. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): In relation to paragraph 3.3 would like to know what is meant by the phrase "sustainable growth". Also would like to know what is meant by “connectivity” in relation to paragraph 3.5 and suggest that if the Waterfront is to be genuinely "sustainable" and of benefit to the people of the City, then connectivity into and through the Waterfront area for those walking and cycling should be given a higher priority both during the on going works and in the finished design. This representation then considers paragraphs 4.1-4.6 and in particular Figure 4 – Strategic Development Areas and Projects within Dundee. It notes that there is nothing in chapter 9 about the A90 even though the strategic map (Figure 4) refers to the possible upgrade of the A90 through or round Dundee. It considers this proposal would be contrary to the principles of sustainability, climate change mitigation, and the encouragement of sustainable transport. It suggests that we need to be working towards lower road traffic volumes over the next 20 years and this possibility should be dropped from the map on Figure 4. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Land Securities (7): Reconsider Figure 5 - Proposed Local Development Plan Strategy (para 4.5) to give greater emphasis than is currently shown for “Sustainable Economic Growth” and to reflect the close interrelationship retailing makes to the City’s economy and therefore to delivering sustainable economic growth through job creation and investment. NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21): Amend the section on “Sustainable Economic Growth” in Figure 5 - Proposed Local Development Plan Strategy (para 4.5). Insert the sentence “Health and education establishments provide vital services and make a significant contribution to the local economy and future related development proposals will be supported in principle.” Before the sentence “Policies will encourage existing and new businesses to invest with confidence in the City." Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): Include a reference in paragraph 1.1 of the Proposed Plan to the relevant supplementary guidance being prepared and consulted upon prior to LDP Examination. Stewart Milne Homes (58): Include a reference in paragraph 1.1 of the Proposed Plan to the relevant supplementary guidance being prepared and consulted upon prior to LDP Examination. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): This representation seeks clarity on the phrase "sustainable growth" in paragraph 3.3 and "connectivity" as it relates to paragraph 3.5. Further, it seeks to remove the A90 upgrade through or around Dundee from Figure 4, paragraph 4.4. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Land Securities (7): Figure 5 sets out the principal land uses that will deliver the Proposed Plan strategy. This is developed in detail through the various sections of the Proposed Plan and used to inform the policies and proposals covering the principal land use issues in the City. In the context of Figure 5 it is considered that sustainable economic growth is

2


given appropriate emphasis alongside the other principal land uses such as retailing. Clearly there will be close interrelationships between many of the principal land uses including retailing and sustainable economic growth. These are worked out through the relevant policies and proposals in the Proposed Plan. DD One (CD65) and Fife Council (CD62) support the strategy of the Proposed Plan as set out in Figure 5 and in particular the approach to retailing and town centres. It is considered that it is not necessary to reconsider the diagram. No modification is proposed to the Plan. NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21): Figure 5 sets out the principal land uses that will deliver the Proposed Plan strategy. This is developed in detail through the various sections of the Proposed Plan and used to inform the policies and proposals covering the principal land use issues in the City. The Proposed Plan recognises the contribution that the health sector and higher and further education establishments make to the economy of the City in paragraph 5.1. It supports existing employment activity and encourages further growth through the designation of appropriate and effective Economic Development Areas which include “Specialist Economic Development Areas”. Specialist Areas are situated close to Ninewells Hospital and the City’s Universities and safeguarded in the Proposed Plan for inward investment and spin off businesses from these establishments. It is considered that the additional wording requested is not required within the context of Figure 5 which clearly sets out the principal land uses that will deliver the development plan strategy for the City and does not indicate support for specific development proposals. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58): The Council considers that the Proposed Plan complies with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) under section 22 (1) of the Act (CD02). Supplementary Guidance is not required to be produced at the same time as the Proposed Plan. Planning Circular 1/2009: Development Planning (CD13) states at paragraph 98 that “Supplementary guidance may be prepared and adopted alongside the SDP or LDP, or subsequently.” A list of supplementary guidance to be prepared is included on page 89 of the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): The Proposed Plan refers to National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2) in paragraphs 3.1-3.6. NPF2 recognises Dundee and its region as having a key role as a driver of economic activity and growth within Scotland. In order to develop this potential, it is considered that there is the need to ensure that "Investment in new or improved infrastructure reflects economic development priorities and the need to support sustainable growth"(para 3.3). Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) states at paragraph 36 that "Sustainable economic growth means building a dynamic and growing economy that will provide prosperity and opportunities for all, while respecting the limits of our environment in order to ensure that future generations can enjoy a better quality of life too". NPF2 recognises that Dundee has made great strides to develop this potential and regeneration of the Central Waterfront is one element of the strategy to further build on Dundee's improvements. As part of the revitalisation of the Central Waterfront, active travel routes and improved connections to public transport networks are part of the long term master plan for the area. Further Policy 53 and 54 of the Proposed Plan promotes

3


active travel and accessibility in new development. The Proposed Plan recognises the need to ensure that Dundee is well connected to its wider region, the central belt and the rest of the world. The importance of wider connectivity is recognised in NPF2 and paragraph 3.6 of the Proposed Plan refers to this with a need to improve the journey time to Edinburgh, increase the services from Dundee airport and develop the opportunities the East corridor offers in relation to the knowledge economy. The A90 upgrade through or around Dundee is highlighted in paragraph 203 of NPF2 (CD09) and taken forward as a strategic project in the Scottish Government’s Strategic Transport Projects Review (CD29) and within Tactran’s Regional Transport Strategy Delivery Plan 2008-2023 (CD20). It is a strategic project recognised in the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012-2032 (CD25). The TAYplan Action Programme (June 2012) (CD26) identifies the implementation of this project to be post 2024 with an assessment of route options to be undertaken during the initial twelve years of the Strategic Development Plan. This timescale is beyond that of the Proposed Plan and as such there is no reference made to it in the strategy, policies or proposals. The inclusion in Figure 4 is to reflect all the strategic projects identified by the Strategic Development Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Land Securities (7) 1. Figure 5 gives a diagrammatic breakdown relating to six key priority areas that form the plan strategy. These are (not in any particular order): • Quality housing and sustainable communities; • Sustainable and accessible transport; • Sustainable economic growth; • Sustainable natural and built environment; • Town centres and retailing; and • A city recognised for leisure and culture. 2. Being diagrammatic there are limits to the amount of information that can be provided for each sector, but overall I consider it an effective way of setting out the key areas for consideration. Inevitably an approach like this will mean that some areas of plan interest are subsumed within a wider heading. 3. There is no priority given to these strategy components, and none is implied. Retailing is given emphasis through its linking with town centres. This is clearly in addition to sustainable economic growth, and I consider it gives sufficient prominence for the purposes of the strategy diagram. I note the planning authority’s point that these relationships are worked out through specific policies and proposals, and do not consider that any modification is required here. NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21) 4. My comments in paragraphs 2 and 3 above are relevant. Health and education are well established activities that will form part of sustainable growth for the city. The sector of the diagram relating to sustainable economic growth does not refer to any existing areas of strong economic activity, so health and education are not being disadvantaged in relation to others. The reference to tourism and culture relates to an area that will be given increasing prominence compared to the past.

4


5. As the planning authority points out, education and health are mentioned in paragraph 5.1 under sustainable economic growth. This lists these as key sectors in a diverse economy. I do not find any case for further modification. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58) 6. These virtually identical representations are based on the premise that supplementary guidance should be produced at the same time as the local development plan. This was never the intention of legislation or guidance. As the planning authority points out above, Planning Circular 1/2009 states clearly that whilst supplementary guidance can be prepared at the same time as a strategic or local development plan it can also be done subsequently. The only proviso is that it has a clear basis in the development plan. A list of proposed guidance is included in the plan. 7. The Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 state clearly at Section 27 that in submitting supplementary guidance to the Scottish Ministers authorities must state the publicity provided for the plan, and representations made to the authority, and the extent to which they were taken into account in preparing the guidance. This will ensure the necessary consultation takes place. There is no need for any further modification. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 8. The planning authority points out that ‘sustainable growth’ is set within the context of the National Planning Framework 2, and that Scottish Planning Policy refers to ‘sustainable economic growth’, although it does not provide a glossary definition for the term. In the absence of a glossary or definitions section in the plan, I do not consider it necessary to provide explanations for terms that are in widespread use in public policy and planning documents. 9. Similarly with connectivity, where Policies 53 and 54 deal with active travel and accessibility in new development. Specifically regarding the Central Waterfront, this is part of the master plan for the area, albeit that is not part of the development plan. I am not persuaded any modification is needed however. 10. I note the planning authority’s response regarding the proposed A90 upgrade, and that it is referred to in National Planning Framework 2 as well as strategic transport documents. The Strategic Transport Projects Review in particular goes into some detail about a potential northern relief road (pages 136 and 137). Paragraph 4.4 of the proposed plan states that Figure 4 sets out major infrastructure and transport projects identified within TAYplan strategic development plan. Under these circumstances I accept that no further explanation is required. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

5


Issue 2 Economic Development

Development plan reference:

Sustainable Economic Growth preamble (para 5.1-5.8) Policy 1: Principal Economic Development Areas (para 5.9-5.19) Policy 3: General Economic Development Areas (para 5.25-5.29) New Policy Request (para 5.1-5.34)

Reporter: Trevor A Croft

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) West Green Park Residents (165) Dundee Civic Trust (64) Scottish Natural Heritage (39) Forth Ports Limited (54) M Astin (9) I & H Brown (43) NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Sustainable Economic Growth and Economic Development Areas

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Sustainable Economic Growth preamble (para 5.1-5.8) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Consider Linlathen and the Western Gateway should not be prioritised as Strategic Development Areas (paragraph 5.7) whilst there are several large vacant sites along the Kingsway which could accommodate major industrial developments. This representation suggests this is contrary to the fine principles on sustainable development set out in figures 5 and 6 of the Proposed Plan. Also contrary to the principles set out in TAYplan and is therefore in breach of the requirements for the Local Development Plan. Dundee Civic Trust (64): Support the content of the Proposed Plan subject to consideration being given to including an interim strategy in the Plan that provides for the treatment of sites awaiting development in the Central Waterfront in view of the fact that the long timescale for this is likely to exceed the Plan period. West Green Park Residents (165): This representation is not seeking a change, merely reassurances that certain factors will be taken into account when the 50 hectares of strategic employment land is allocated in the Western Gateway. Two main concerns have been raised. Firstly, that a site of such strategic significance should not be located close to existing or proposed housing development as there are obvious noise, pollution and visual concerns. Secondly, this representation raises grave concerns that the existing local road network could not accommodate such a development. It notes the road network is already heavily congested at peak times and this could be exacerbated with such a development. It notes the lack of a clearly defined cycle route from the roundabout to the

6


pavement on the new road leading up to West Green Park. Additional traffic such as industrial and heavy goods vehicles could result in dangerous situations particularly for cyclists and local children who use the road. The representation suggests that a suitable location for the employment site should be sought close to the A90 towards the Perth & Kinross border, away from housing, and with a new access point from the A90 which avoids using the Swallow/Landmark roundabout. Policy 1: Principal Economic Development Areas (para 5.9-5.19) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Welcome the recognition in the Proposed Plan of the important contribution of brownfield sites in economic development (paragraph 5.18) and recommend that this should mean that such sites are prioritised for development given their higher sustainability credentials. It supports the commitment to make the most of opportunities to develop Dundee Port area for renewable energy related development (paragraph 5.10). Question the allocation of greenfield sites at Claverhouse to support this new and developing industry (paragraph 5.15). Suggest that the priority for development should be on existing large vacant brownfield sites on the Kingsway rather than greenfield sites identified at Claverhouse. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): Seek to insert the words “Principal Economic Development Area” after the words “Port of Dundee” in the final sentence of Policy 1 to read “Any development at the Port of Dundee Principal Economic Development Area should not have an adverse affect, either alone or in combination with other proposals or projects, on the integrity of any Natura Site.” SNH explain that doing this provides clarification that this applies to the Port of Dundee, as defined on the Proposals Map, and ensures compliance with the Habitats Directive in line with the findings of the draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal record of the Proposed Plan. Forth Ports Limited (54): Welcome the Proposed Plan and its support for development at the Port of Dundee but request an amendment to the wording of paragraph 5.10 to strengthen links between the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan and the Local Development Plan. Suggest the first sentence should be replaced with “The plan recognises the identification of Dundee in the Scottish Government’s National Renewables Infrastructure Plan stage 2 Report and the range of potential locations for the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of offshore renewable energy devices and supporting infrastructure.” M Astin (9): In relation to paragraph 5.2 this representation highlights the many vacant business units available around the city and questions whether it isn’t more cost effective to focus on getting these occupied. It questions why Riverside is targeted for economic/business development as the whole Riverside corridor is supposedly protected and the Inner Tay Estuary is one of Dundee’s most important and best natural assets. Suggests this stretch of land beyond the rail bridge would be better used for the public good, increasing the attractiveness of Dundee as a tourist destination. Suggest the proposed developments in this area decrease its attractiveness and are environmentally insensitive. Policy 3: General Economic Development Areas (para 5.25-5.29) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): In relation to paragraph 5.29 this representation questions where existing industrial areas are close to residential areas and have experienced closures should active consideration not be given to shrinking the industrial

7


area to allow new housing if there is a persistent lack of market demand for new industrial use. I & H Brown (43): Seek to remove the former ABB Nitran Factory, Kingsway East as an allocation for general economic development as identified on the Proposed Plan Proposals Map and Policy 3. It does not support the Council’s policy of maintaining and safeguarding all existing allocations within the General Economic Development Areas (GEDA). Recommend removing sites from this policy where there is a demonstrable lack of market demand or an existing supply of employment land. It highlights that the site has been vacant for 10 years and suggests it makes no positive contribution to the economy of the City. Suggest it represents a better mixed-use development opportunity and its retention as a GEDA is not justified. Also recommend removing the last sentence of Policy 3 which reads “Other uses within these areas will not be accepted.” Replace with alternative wording allowing selective removal of sites based on a set of criteria such as prolonged vacancy, evidence of marketing and lack of market interest for employment use and a requirement to maintain a level of employment space in an alternative development proposal. Recommend rewording paragraphs 5.25-5.29 to acknowledge that these areas are appropriate for mixed-use development including Class 1 retail, subject to compliance with other policies in the plan. New Policy Request NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21): Note the health and education establishments or campus areas, such as Ninewells Hospital, make a significant contribution to the City in terms of its services as well as to its national and international reputation. Suggest this is not given sufficient recognition in the Proposed Plan. Consider the Ninewells Campus area is often subject to development pressure to renew and improve facilities and/or scope for rationalisation and suggest the Proposed Plan should establish a clear policy that supports hospital related development in these areas. This would assist in giving confidence for investment to enhance public benefits. Also this approach would conform to the approved TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (June 2012) for the Dundee city region. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Sustainable Economic Growth preamble (para 5.1-5.8) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Remove the identification of Linlathen and the Western Gateway as Strategic Development Areas in the Proposed Plan (paragraph 5.7). Dundee Civic Trust (64): Include an interim strategy in the Proposed Plan for the treatment of sites awaiting development in the Central Waterfront. West Green Park Residents (165): That on allocating a site for 50 hectares of strategic employment land in the Western Gateway a suitable location be identified close to A90 towards the Perth and Kinross border, away from housing, with access from A90 avoiding the Landmark roundabout. Policy 1: Principal Economic Development Areas (para 5.9-5.19) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Priority given to existing brownfield sites on the Kingsway to further support the development of renewable energies industry at Port of

8


Dundee rather than allocating greenfield sites at Claverhouse. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): Insert the words “Principle Economic Development Area” after “Port of Dundee” in the final sentence of Policy 1 to read “Any development at the Port of Dundee Principal Economic Development Area should not have an adverse affect, either alone or in combination with other proposals or projects, on the integrity of any Natura Site.” Forth Ports Limited (54): Replace the first sentence of paragraph 5.10 with "The plan recognises the identification of Dundee in the Scottish Government's National Renewables Infrastructure Plan Stage 2 Report and the range of potential locations for the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of offshore renewable energy devices and supporting infrastructure." M Astin (9): Remove the Principal Economic Development Area allocation from Riverside in the Proposed Plan and on the Proposals Map. Policy 3: General Economic Development Areas (para 5.25-5.29) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Amend paragraphs 5.25-5.29 to support a change in use of a general economic development area to allow new housing for existing sites close to residential areas that have experienced closures and where there is a persistent lack of market demand for industrial use. I & H Brown (43): Remove the former ABB Nitran Factory, Kingsway East as an allocation for general economic development as identified on the Proposed Plan Proposals Map in relation to Policy 3. Amend the supporting text to Policy 3, paragraphs 5.25-5.29, to allow selective removal of sites based on set criteria such as prolonged vacancy, evidence of marketing and lack of market interest in industrial use. Remove the final sentence of Policy 3 which reads “Other uses within these areas will not be supported”. New Policy Request NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21): Add a new policy in the sustainable economic growth chapter (paras 5.1-5.34) that reads “Encouragement will be given to the establishment and retention of hospital-related development including residential accommodation within the Ninewells Hospital campus as identified on the Proposals Map.” Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Sustainable Economic Growth preamble (para 5.1-5.8) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (CD10) requires strategic development plans to identify an appropriate range of strategic business locations such as mixed developments, business parks, science parks, medium and large industrial sites and high amenity business locations (SPP, paragraph 49). Linlathen and Dundee Western Gateway are identified in Policy 4 of the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012-2032 (CD25) as Strategic Development Areas. The Local Development Plan for Dundee is required to be consistent with the Strategic Development Plan and in line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) protect these sites from inappropriate uses and development which would compromise their quality, accessibility or marketability as a business location (SPP, paragraph 51). These sites have been safeguarded in the

9


Proposed Plan for future growth opportunities in key sectors with the exception of the Western Gateway. It should be noted that the Proposed Plan does not indicate a specific site for the employment land at the Western Gateway as the TAYplan Action Programme (June 2012) (CD26) identifies this to be a long term (Post 2024) allocation. For this reason this area remains allocated for Open Countryside on the Proposed Plan Proposals Map. The removal of these allocations would result in the Local Development Plan failing to comply with the Strategic Development Plan (CD25) and Scottish Planning Policy (CD10). No modification is proposed to the Plan. Dundee Civic Trust (64): A master plan is in place for the redevelopment of the Central Waterfront (CD47) to provide a robust framework for investment and decision making. Further design guidance is being prepared for the Central Waterfront and individual site briefs will be prepared as and when sites come forward. It is not felt necessary to provide additional policy coverage for the interim treatment of sites in the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. West Green Park Residents (165): The Council notes the concerns of the residents. Dundee Western Gateway is identified in Policy 4 of the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012-2032 (CD25) as a Strategic Development Area and as such is identified on Figure 4, paragraph 4.4, of the Proposed Plan. As it is identified as a long term (Post 2024) allocation in the TAYplan Action Programme (June 2012) (CD26) it remains allocated for Open Countryside on the Proposals Map. The issues that have been raised by the residents will be addressed in subsequent development plans and will be considered at such time as a proposal does come forward for the Western Gateway when a full development appraisal will be undertaken. Any proposal that does come forward will be assessed against a range of criteria including access and accessibility, potential impact on neighbouring uses, traffic impact and noise and disturbance. A policy framework is in place in the Proposed Plan to ensure new development proposals do not adversely affect the performance of the road network in terms of both capacity and road safety, promotes active travel routes and connectivity and ensures that new development safeguards and enhances environmental quality, creating quality places and mitigating potential negative impacts. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 1: Principal Economic Development Areas (para 5.9-5.19) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Dundee Port is one of two Low Carbon/Renewables East Enterprise Areas established by the Scottish Government. A complementary area of land within Claverhouse East Energy Park has also been given Enterprise Area status to accommodate developments not requiring immediate quayside access. To further support the potential of this new and developing industry, a generous supply of land has been identified in Energy Parks at Claverhouse East and West. It is expected that some of the larger site requirements associated with the manufacture and assembly of wind turbines could be directed to the Claverhouse Energy Parks and the Strategic Development Area at Linlathen. The sites at Claverhouse were identified in the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40) as Principal Economic Development Areas and development has already taken place in these areas. The sites are fully serviced, located next to the trunk road network and meet the potential transport and accessibility requirements to the Port.

10


It is likely that if major manufacturers locate in these areas other related business could develop and a range of other employment land of varying size and locations will be required. The Proposed Plan safeguards employment and business land from other development pressures to assist economic development and to support the potential role the City could play in the offshore renewable energy sector. Scottish Enterprise (CD73) supports the Proposed Plan and specifically supports the policies contained within the Sustainable Economic Growth section. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): The Council notes that this additional wording would provide clarification that this applies to the Port of Dundee as defined on the Proposal Map and would ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive. If the Reporter is so minded to support the proposed modification the Council would raise no issue with the wording as suggested. Forth Ports Limited (54): Not necessary to provide any clarity to the wording of the paragraph. However if the Reporter is so minded to support the proposed modification the Council would raise no issue with the wording as suggested. No modification is proposed to the Plan. M Astin (9): The economic development area at Riverside is an established Principal Economic Development Area allocated in the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). It is an important site that remains well suited for its purpose and capable of providing future employment opportunities. It has good accessibility to the trunk road network, the airport, rail station and active travel network. In line with Scottish Planning Policy a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (CD37) of the Proposed Plan has been undertaken in consultation with SNH. The Riverside Principal Economic Development Area is located close to the Tay Estuary which is an internationally designated conservation site and forms part of an EU-wide network of protected areas known as Natura 2000. The Riverside Principal Economic Area was screened out of the Habitats Regulations Appraisal as the airport runway acts as a buffer between the economic area and the Tay Estuary and no likely significant effects on the integrity of the Natura site were identified. The Proposed Plan aims to create a supportive business environment and a spread of varied effective sites across the City is essential for the continuing revitalisation of Dundee. The Council considers it is necessary to safeguard employment and business land from other development pressures to assist economic development. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 3: General Economic Development Areas (para 5.25-5.29) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): General Economic Development Areas form an important part of the economic development land supply in the City. They attract a broad range of businesses including small local businesses which cumulatively employ a significant number of people. The Council considers it is necessary to safeguard employment and business land from other development pressures such as housing to assist economic development. The City is well placed to benefit from the offshore renewables energy sector and the Council considers it is important for the Proposed Plan to support the potential for this new and developing industry and ensure there is an appropriate and effective supply of economic development areas. Widening the policy to

11


include housing would conflict with the aims of the housing strategy, introduce the potential for conflict between neighbouring industrial and housing uses as well as threaten the supply of general economic development land in the city. No modification is proposed to the Plan. I & H Brown (43): This site offers an attractive location for new and growing enterprises in an established General Economic Development Area. The Council considers it is necessary to safeguard employment and business land from other development pressures particularly for sites such as this with good visibility and accessibility from the trunk road network. The Proposed Plan recognises the identification of Dundee in the Scottish Government’s National Renewables Infrastructure Plan stage 2 Report (CD03) and given the site’s proximity to the Port of Dundee and connections to the trunk road network it is considered that it could have a role to play in supporting businesses in connection with the development of the offshore renewable energy sector. The Proposed Plan allows a limited relaxation of general industrial designation where criteria stated within Policy 3 are met. Widening the criteria to include housing or retailing would conflict with the aims of the housing and retailing strategies. Sufficient land has been identified to meet the housing and retailing requirements over the period of the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan aims to create a supportive business environment and a spread of varied effective sites across the City in terms of size and quality is essential to assist economic development and the continuing revitalisation of Dundee. No modification is proposed to the Plan. New Policy Request NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21): The Proposed Plan recognises the contribution that the health sector and higher and further education establishments make to the economy of the City in paragraph 5.1. It supports existing employment activity and encourages further growth in this well established and recognised sector through the designation of appropriate and effective Specialist Economic Development Areas which are situated close to Ninewells Hospital and the City’s Universities. Ninewells is only one of several campus areas in the City. The further development of these areas would be supported. Rather than a policy in the Proposed Plan it would be more appropriate for campus plans to be prepared for the area by the individual organisation setting out future development intentions. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Sustainable Economic Growth preamble (para 5.1-5.8) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 1. As the planning authority points out the local development plan must comply with any approved strategic development plan for the area. TAYplan Proposals Map 1 sets out how the region will develop over the 20 years between 2012 and 2032. This sets out 11 strategic development areas, three of which are in Dundee, and include 8 – Western Gateway and 6 – Linlathen. These are then listed under Policy 4 which proposes 750+ homes and 50 hectares of employment land at the Western Gateway, and 40 hectares of

12


employment land at Linlathen. The issues raised in the representation would have been considered during the preparation of the strategic plan. To ensure compliance with that plan it is not open to me to remove these two allocations from the proposed local plan. Dundee Civic Trust (64) 2. This representation is largely supportive of the proposed plan. The planning authority notes the master plan is already in place for the redevelopment of the Central Waterfront. However, it would be sensible to acknowledge this in the proposed plan by the inclusion of a reference to it in paragraph 5.31, thus giving it a specific connection to the local development plan. West Green Park Residents (165) 3. The planning authority has explained the timing of the proposed development at the Western Gateway and that in the short term, at least up to 2024, the site remains allocated as open countryside. As such it is too early in the process to consider the detailed issues raised in the representation. I accept the planning authority’s assurances regarding its understanding of the issues raised, and that they will be dealt with at the appropriate time. No modification is necessary to the proposed plan. Policy 1: Principal Economic Development Areas (para 5.9-5.19) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 4. I note that the development of these areas dates back to the local plan review of 2005, and that the majority of the area at Claverhouse East is already designated as an enterprise area. The additional amount of land here that is greenfield is relatively small. The Claverhouse West designation lies entirely within and surrounded by the built up area. Also the sites are fully serviced and located adjacent to the main strategic road network. I find no justification for modifying the plan. Scottish Natural Heritage (39) 5. This is effectively a technical modification to ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive following the draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal. The planning authority accepts the proposals and the modifications should be made accordingly. Forth Ports Limited (54) 6. This representation seeks to strengthen the links between the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan and the proposed plan. I am not convinced that the wording as proposed in the representation actually does this, as the proposed plan states directly, at paragraph 5.10 that the Infrastructure Plan identifies Dundee’s position, rather than the possibly weaker statement that the local plan merely recognises this. I note the planning authority, whilst not objecting to the proposed wording, does not consider any modification necessary to improve clarity. The proposed wording does however include a rather wider range of offshore energy devices than simply wind energy and the relevant sentence should be expanded to reflect this.

13


M Astin (9) 7. I note that the designation of the Riverside Economic Development Area is well established in the 2005 Dundee Local Plan Review. The current proposal is thus carrying forward this designation and I am not convinced there is any merit in changing this. I note the screening through the Habitats Regulations Appraisal has not identified any adverse impacts on the Tay Estuary special area of conservation or special protection area, so there is no justification here for the site’s removal. Policy 3: General Economic Development Areas (para 5.25-5.29) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 8. Whilst the concerns expressed in this representation are well understood, I accept the planning authority’s view that the designated economic development land is an important resource at a time of potential increase in economic activity within the City. Housing land is already designated in accordance with a considered strategy, and it is always open to potential developers to apply for planning permission for houses in cases where material considerations could justify this. However, if allocated sites do not show continued demand for economic development it would be open to a future review of the proposed plan to considered an alternative use. No modification is needed now. I & H Brown (43) 9. The concerns here relate to the former ABB Nitran factory at Kingsway East, that has been vacant for 10 years. It was subject to a late representation letter on the grounds that the planning authority, in discussing potential development on the site, was unable to set out any clear timetable as to when proposals may come forward for renewable energy related employment. As this is an important issue the reporters decided to accept the letter and sought the planning authority’s response. This noted the planning authority had received a Proposal of Application Notice with regard to the erection of a food store, pub restaurant, coffee drive-through, and employment land with associated car parking, access and landscaping. The planning authority states this submission, and an associated meeting, are the only things to have happened concerning the site since the proposed plan was submitted. 10. I have some sympathy that little interest appears to have been shown in the site over a 10 year period. However, as the planning authority also points out in its response, there are increasing signs of renewables related activity, including the granting of planning permission in principle for renewable energy based mixed manufacturing for a site at Stannergate Road Docks. This situation could therefore change. 11. Given that other uses, such as retailing or other commercial developments, are provided for in their own policies, I am not persuaded that now is the time to consider releasing general economic development land for other purposes. Policy 3, which designates these areas, does not restrict use to renewables based activity, but gives support to proposals within use Classes 4, 5 and 6. Development is not therefore as restricted as the representation suggests. 12. I find there is inadequate justification for any modification to the proposed plan.

14


New Policy Request NHS Tayside and Netlatch Ltd (21) 13. The Ninewells Hospital Campus is one of a number of institutional sites in various uses – the University being another example – which are designated as ‘white land’ on the proposals plan. This does not mean that development within these areas is precluded, but rather that there are no specific proposals identified for them. In these circumstances, rather than identify each campus individually for the specific use involved, I accept the planning authority’s comment that it would be better for individual campus plans to be prepared by the organisations involved. In the meantime, I do not see development on such sites being prejudiced. In fact Ninewells itself is supported by the allocation of adjacent ground for a medi-park, as referred to in paragraph 5.22 of the proposed plan. 14. I find no justification for any modification. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modifications be made: 1. In paragraph 5.31, after ‘the Waterfront Project’ insert the words: ‘, for which a master plan has been prepared,. The sentence should read: ‘The Waterfront Project, for which a master plan has been prepared, and the establishment of the V & A at Dundee will significantly boost the tourist and business appeal of the City and bring major benefits to the local economy. 2. In the final sentence of Policy 1, after ‘Port of Dundee’ insert the words: “Principle Economic Development Area”. The sentence should read: ‘Any development at the Port of Dundee Principal Economic Development Area should not have an adverse affect, either alone or in combination with other proposals or projects, on the integrity of any Natura Site.’ 3. In paragraph 5.10 delete the first sentence and replace with: ‘The Scottish Government's National Renewables Infrastructure Plan Stage 2 Report identifies the Port of Dundee as a potential location for the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of offshore renewable energy devices and supporting infrastructure.’

15


Issue 3 Leisure and Visitor Accommodation


Policy 5: Tourism and Leisure Developments (para. 5.31-5.32) Policy 6: Visitor Accommodation (para. 5.33-5.34)

Reporter: Dannie Onn

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Natural Heritage (39) Lomond Land (15) VICO Properties Ltd (16) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Tourism and leisure developments and visitor accommodation.

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 5: Tourism and Leisure Developments (para. 5.31-5.32) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): Seeks the insertion of words in the final sentence of Policy 5. This will provide clarification that this sentence refers to the City Centre as defined on the Proposals Map and to ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive in line with the findings of the Draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal (CD37) of the Proposed Plan. Policy 6: Visitor Accommodation (para. 5.33-5.34) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): Seeks the insertion of words in the final sentence of Policy 6. This will provide clarification that this sentence refers to the City Centre as defined on the Proposals Map and to ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive in line with the findings of the Draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal (CD37) of the Proposed Plan. Lomond Land (15): Policy 6 should recognise the existing planning consents for visitor accommodation outwith the City Centre. The respondent wishes for this addition as in the current economic climate it takes longer than normal to bring planning consents to fruition in terms of developing out. VICO Properties Ltd (16): Amend paragraphs 5.33 and 5.34 and Policy 6 to include a presumption in favour of hotel development adjacent to the Kingsway in addition to the City Centre. This would allow for the potential requirement for business accommodation along the main arterial route through Dundee to be realised. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 5: Tourism and Leisure Developments (para. 5.31-5.32) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): To insert in the final sentence of Policy 5 “in the City Centre” after the words “Any development”.

16


Policy 6: Visitor Accommodation (para. 5.33-5.34) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): To insert in the final sentence of Policy 6 the words “in the City Centre” after the words “Any development”. Lomond Land (15): To amend Policy 6 so that existing planning consents are recognised and to only restrict additional consents over and above the existing. VICO Properties Ltd (16): To amend Policy 6 to include support for hotel development within the Kingsway corridor and for paragraphs 5.33 and 5.34 to be amended to reflect this. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 5: Tourism and Leisure Developments (para. 5.31-5.32) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): To provide clarification and compliance with the Habitats Directive and the findings of the Draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record (CD37) the Council has no issue with the addition of the proposed text. If the Reporter is minded to support the proposed modification the Council would raise no issue with the wording as suggested. Policy 6: Visitor Accommodation (para. 5.33-5.34) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): To provide clarification and compliance with the Habitats Directive and the findings of the Draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record (CD37) the Council has no issue with the addition of the proposed text. If the Reporter is minded to support the proposed modification the Council would raise no issue with the wording as suggested. Lomond Land (15): This policy does not affect existing planning permissions which will remain in force as per the relevant decision notice issued. It is considered unnecessary to make reference to existing planning permissions as the policy is setting the direction for future developments. In order not to undermine the provision of new visitor accommodation in the City Centre there will be a general presumption against additional accommodation throughout the City. This is particularly important given the City Centre's role as a location of retail, business, leisure and tourist related activities and where the potential exists to achieve the greatest accessibility and economic benefit from visitors to the City. No modification is proposed to the Plan. VICO Properties Ltd (16): The Proposed Plan recognises that it is important that the City provides a range of visitor accommodation to meet the needs of tourists and business visitors. New economic opportunities are being realised through the revitalisation of the City Centre and the on-going redevelopment of the Central Waterfront. Through this approach the Council considers that the greatest economic benefit from visitors to the City can be realised by encouraging new visitor accommodation to locate in the City Centre. In order not to undermine this there will be a general presumption against additional accommodation outwith the City Centre and Central Broughty Ferry. Furthermore, Policy 6 encourages the integration of new visitor accommodation in the City Centre and Central Broughty Ferry with public transport, active travel and green infrastructure networks rather

17


than dependence on the car. The Proposed Plan recognises that outwith the City Centre there already exists a wide range and choice of existing visitor accommodation, particularly around the Kingsway. Therefore, priority for new accommodation is focussed on the City Centre and Central Broughty Ferry and this approach is strongly supported by Dundee Civic Trust (64) (CD67). No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Scottish Natural Heritage (39) 1. A Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the proposed local development plan has been undertaken under the provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. The screening stage identified four policies, including Policies 5 and 6, to be taken forward for appropriate assessment in view of conservation objectives. These policies steer tourism and leisure development to an area where it is not possible to rule out the risk of likely significant effect on a European site. More specifically, that is, those European sites where the River Tay and its estuary are a habitat and others where species from them use the estuary. The appropriate assessment has been undertaken in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, which recommends the use of a policy caveat to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of a European site. This is in line with Scottish Government advice. The appropriate assessment recommends wording which should be included and refers to any development in the City Centre. The modification proposed by Scottish Natural Heritage would align the wording of the policy with the recommendations of the appropriate assessment. The planning authority takes no issue with this. I agree that Policies 5 and 6 should be so modified. Lomond Land (15) 2. Policy 6, and the associated text at paragraph 5.34, set a presumption against additional visitor accommodation other than in the City Centre. This cannot affect existing planning permissions so long as they are in force. Lomond Land is concerned by the time it can take to bring developments to fruition in the current economic climate and wants existing permissions to be recognised. Planning permissions are granted for a set period of time and will expire if not begun. That is done to prevent land being held undeveloped. A fresh application can be made to renew a permission, but should circumstances have changed since the initial grant, it could be refused. Such circumstances might include a change in policy. I acknowledge that this can present problems to developers, particularly in uncertain times, but the proposed local development plan looks to the City Centre as the focus for retail, business, leisure and tourist related activities. The development planning for the area moves on and this should not be undermined by unnecessarily allocating land because existing permissions have not begun. With the centre as a focus, there is no need and thus no modification is required. VICO Properties Ltd (16) 3. VICO Properties Ltd take the objection to Policy 6 further, suggesting that the presumption for hotel development should include land near to Kingsway. However revitalisation of the City Centre and the focus on redevelopment of the Central Waterfront provide the opportunity to maximise the economic benefit of visitors to Dundee. This approach will support the integration of public transport and the use of retail and leisure in

18


the City Centre by visitors. The general support for the City Centre should not be undermined by allowing further development outside of the centre. I note from my site inspections that there are existing hotels outside of the central area, including within the Kingsway corridor. There are also several business developments thereabouts which are an important part of the city’s economy. However, these might as well be served by visitor accommodation close to the cultural, social, retail and leisure opportunities of the City Centre. I therefore agree with the planning authority that there is no need to add to the provision along Kingsway or to modify Policy 6 and its associated text in that regard. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modifications be made. 1. In the final sentence of Policy 5 insert the words ‘in the City Centre’ after the words ‘Any development’. The sentence should read: ‘Any development in the City Centre should not have an adverse effect, either alone or in combination with other proposals or projects, on the integrity of any Natura site.’ 2. In the final sentence of Policy 6 insert the words ‘in the City Centre’ after the words ‘Any development’. The sentence should read: ‘Any development in the City Centre should not have an adverse effect, either alone or in combination with other proposals or projects, on the integrity of any Natura site.’

19


Issue 4 Design


Policy 7: High Quality Design (para. 6.1-6.7)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Hugh Begg (53) Scottish Natural Heritage (39) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31)


Promoting High Quality Design

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 7: High Quality Design (para. 6.1-6.7) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): The principle of paragraph 6.7 is supported but a change to the wording to give greater protection to all listed buildings outwith conservation areas is sought. Additional wording to Policy 7 is sought to restrict the use of inappropriate materials such as PVC doors in conservation areas and to add clarity to the Policy requirements. Hugh Begg (53): The principle of paragraph 6.7 is supported but a change to the wording to give greater protection to all listed buildings outwith conservation areas is sought. Additional wording to Policy 7 is sought to add clarity to the Policy requirements. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): The principle of Policy 7 is supported but additional wording is sought to the second paragraph so that sufficient recognition is given to the importance of networks of green space and the potential contribution new proposals can make to enhancing existing green networks. The proposed additional wording would improve consistency with paragraph 9.14 of the Proposed Plan that states that “New development should also avoid fragmentation of the green network”. Requests additional wording of “landscape character” before “site topography” in criterion 1) as there are a number of proposed allocations on greenfield sites outside the existing urban envelope where existing landscape character should be a key design consideration. The term “landscape character” covers elements such as woodland, stone dykes, hedges etc. and its inclusion provides a more comprehensive design criteria list than that presented in criterion 1). Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Support the principles of Policy 7. Suggests that active travel and connections to the surrounding area could be given greater rigour by requiring all developments over £1 million to provide an Outdoor Access Plan consistent with SNH guidance.

20


Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 7: High Quality Design (para. 6.1-6.7) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): i) Remove “category A” from the first sentence of para 6.7. ii) Second paragraph insert “of whatever scale or nature” after “siting of development”. iii) Third paragraph insert “all of” after the word “meet”. iv) Criterion 2 insert “and retain” after “Create”. v) Criterion 3 insert “traditional” in front of “materials”. Hugh Begg (53): i) Remove “category A” from the first sentence of para 6.7. ii) Second paragraph insert “of whatever scale or nature” after “siting of development”. iii) Third paragraph insert “all of” after the word “meet”. iv) Criterion 2 insert “and retain” after “Create”. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) Insert additional wording to the last sentence of the second paragraph of Policy 7 so

that it reads “Proposals should also incorporate new landscape and planting works (appropriate to the local context and the scale and nature of the development) that enhances and links with existing green networks.”

ii) Criterion 1 insert the words “landscape character” before the words “site topography”. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Addition to Policy 7 that all developments over £1 million should submit an Outdoor Access Plan. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 7: High Quality Design (para. 6.1-6.7) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35); Hugh Begg (53): i) Paragraph 6.7 is worded to reflect the statutory requirements for design statements in

terms of Listed Buildings. Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (CD06) states that it is a requirement that design statements accompany a planning application for “local developments where the land to which the application relates is situated within- (f) the curtilage of a category A listed building”. However, the last sentence of paragraph 6.7 of the Proposed Plan states that “A design statement may also be required to accompany a planning application for other forms of development where design sensitivity is considered a critical issue”. Therefore, for other categories of listed building the decision to require a design statement will be taken on a case by case basis and the integrity of listed buildings will always be taken into consideration by the Council. No changes to the wording of paragraph 6.7 are considered to be necessary. ii) The request to include the wording “whatever scale or nature” is not considered necessary as it would not add clarity or improve the understanding of the Policy. The Policy as worded would apply to all development where appropriate and should therefore remain as worded.

iii) The Council considers that Policy 7 as worded is considered to be appropriate and sufficient for its purpose and that the proposed amendment to include “all of” after the word “meet” would not add clarity or improve the understanding of the Policy.

21


iv) The proposed amendment to Criterion 2 to insert “and retain” after “Create” would not add clarity or understanding to Policy 7 as it has been addressed in the first sentence of the second paragraph that states “The design and siting of development should respect the character and amenity of the place”. The Council considers that Policy 7 as worded is appropriate and sufficient for its purpose.

v) The request to include the wording “traditional” is not considered necessary as it would not add clarity to or improve the understanding of the Policy. The Policy as worded sets out that new development should respect the character of the surrounding area regardless of the types of materials used.

No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) Paragraph 6.5 already states that “In seeking to achieve quality places, consideration

needs to be given to incorporating design into new developments and how they will fit in and enhance active travel routes, green infrastructure networks and public transport links.” It is not considered necessary to insert the additional wording to paragraph 2 of Policy 7 as it is integrated into the wording in Criteria 1 and 4 of the Policy. Therefore, it is considered that the Policy as worded is sufficient.

ii) The request for additional wording in Criterion 1 is not considered necessary as it is covered in the second paragraph of Policy 7 which states “The design and siting of development should respect the character and amenity of the place”. The Policy as worded encourages new developments to respect and contribute positively to the existing character of the built and natural environment.

No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): The proposed modification is covered for all developments in paragraph 2 of Policy 7. Active travel is a cross cutting theme that runs throughout the Proposed Plan. The requirement for an Outdoor Access Plan may be appropriately requested as part of the planning application process. Therefore, it is considered unnecessary to request an Outdoor Access Plan under Policy 7 of the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Broughty Ferry Community Council (35); Hugh Begg (53) 1. Policy 7 applies to all development, irrespective of whether it relates to a listed building or a conservation area. The suggestion of further defining the design and siting of development by adding ‘of whatever scale or nature’ does not add anything because the phrase as it is must already apply to development, irrespective of its scale and nature. Likewise, the requirement that proposals should also meet certain design criteria must apply to all of them without the need to spell that out in additional wording. Thus there is no need to modify the policy with the wording proposed. 2. Criterion 2 within Policy 7 seeks to create a sense of identity with new development. The community council suggests that it should also seek to retain identity. Paragraph 2 of the policy says that the design and siting of development should respect the character and

22


amenity of the place, suggesting a response to context will be required. However, by seeking to create a sense of identity, Criterion 2 may allow the existing identity to be overlooked. I therefore consider that ‘create’ should be replaced by ‘contribute to’, thereby acknowledging that other factors will contribute to the identity of a place, including existing built development. 3. Under Criterion 3, materials should complement surroundings. There is no need to qualify that by adding ‘traditional’. That could stifle creative design and use of materials. The community council’s concerns over the use of inappropriate materials in conservation areas is covered by the statutory requirement to have special regard to the character or appearance of such areas, which are designated for their special architectural or historic interest and where traditional materials are more likely to be appropriate. 4. Paragraph 6.7 of the proposed plan explains where a design statement will be required to accompany a planning application. The wording derives from The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, identifying larger developments and the most sensitive designations, including Category A listed buildings. All listed buildings, their curtilages and settings are protected equally by the requirements of Section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. The proposed local development plan text at paragraph 6.7 goes on to say that a design statement may be required where design sensitivity is a critical issue. That would allow the planning authority to assess each case on its merits. In my view, it should not be necessary to require a design statement for all applications, even though that could be a simple document in many circumstances. There will be many cases where design is not necessarily an issue. Thus there is no need to go beyond the requirements of the procedure regulations and the suggested modification is not necessary. Scottish Natural Heritage (39) 5. Within Policy 7, the expectation is that proposals will create and improve links within and beyond the site and incorporate new landscaping and planting works appropriate to the local context. Paragraph 6.5 of the plan includes how development will fit and enhance green infrastructure networks as a consideration in seeking to achieve quality places. The more general consideration of the policy would apply to all development and the paragraph reference to green networks would encourage links and enhancement where the opportunity arises in particular cases. I therefore see no need to add to the wording in the second paragraph of Policy 7. 6. Paragraph 6.5 of the plan expects the design of new development to be based on an understanding of context and response to location in terms of landscape fit. Policy 7 reflects this in the more general expectation that development will be designed and sited to respect the character and amenity of the place. The plan clearly recognises that landscape character is an important consideration. Detailed landscape characteristics will be site-specific and the planning authority will surely be guided by landscape character assessments. I do not consider that a specific reference to landscape character in the criteria at Policy 7 is necessary. 7. Paragraph 9.14 of the plan seeks to avoid fragmentation of the green network and the policy to which it relates seeks to protect open space. These are separate considerations covered by a separate policy. Although related, Policy 7 does not need to change to improve consistency.

23


Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 8. Paragraph 6.5 of the plan includes that consideration needs to be given to how developments will fit in and enhance active travel routes, green infrastructure networks and public transport links. Policy 7 reflects this by expecting proposals to create and improve links within the site and into the surrounding area and to create places for people that are easily navigable, particularly on foot, bicycle and public transport. Specific to housing developments, paragraph 7.10 of the plan expects integration with public transport and active travel networks (although this is not reflected in housing policies). Whilst it may be possible for the planning authority to request an outdoor access plan, consistent with Scottish Natural Heritage guidance, there is nothing in the plan to alert developers to this. Without some consideration, developments could be laid out in isolation from the surrounding networks. However, I consider that the policy wording is sufficient to require that all developments will integrate with the surrounding networks without the need to specifically require an outdoor access plan at any particular scale of development. Reporter’s recommendations: Criterion 2 of Policy 7 be modified by replacing the word ‘Create’ with the words ‘Contribute to’. The criterion should now read: ‘Contribute to a sense of identity by developing a coherent structure of streets, spaces and buildings that are safely accessible, respecting existing building lines where appropriate.’

24


Issue 5 Housing Land Release


Preamble to Quality Housing and Sustainable Communities (para. 7.1-7.3) Policy 8: Housing Land Release (para. 7.4-7.7)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Taylor Wimpey (48) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46) Tony Thomas (57) David Marwick (2) Gladedale Estates Bett Homes (5) H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)* Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14) VICO Properties Ltd (16) W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd (4) (*H & H Properties have made two representations on separate sites via different agents and so have two representation numbered 13 and 23) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

The Release of Land for Housing

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Preamble: Quality Housing and Sustainable Communities (para 7.1–7.3) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): We welcome the phrase “complement the distinct character and identity of the different parts of the City”. We think that this should also apply to new housing estates where recently some effort has been made to reflect local character such as the use of natural stone and slate in the houses, and natural stone in the boundary treatments. This trend should continue and be extended. Policy 8: Housing Land Release (para 7.4-7.7) Gladedale Estates (Bett Homes) (5): The site at Baldragon Farm H70(2) can meet some of the housing land requirement in the short to mid-term, providing high quality housing that can be fully serviced and delivered with limited infrastructure provision. Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46): The case for allocating the whole of the site at Linlathen H71(2) in the first period of the Plan is founded on: a) the absence of locational choice within the city, b) the imbalance between greenfield and brownfield which has an over supply, and c) the continued uncertainty over the delivery of the Western Gateway and the resultant

immediate shortfall in greenfield housing land supply. This site can make good this shortfall immediately.

25


Taylor Wimpey (48): The Proposed Plan is overly dependant and reliant on the delivery of predominately Council owned brownfield land. In doing so, the ability to firstly secure an effective 5 year land supply and, secondly, a generous supply of effective land which provides sufficient flexibility is fundamentally compromised. The inclusion of such a high percentage of brownfield land must be reduced. Together with the removal of the 20% allocation of windfall sites, whose inclusion runs counter to Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and PAN 2/2010 (CD16), additional land must be allocated for housing development to provide choice and flexibility. The land at Strathyre Avenue, Balgillo should be included as a new housing land allocation with an allocation of 26 units. Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): The Proposed Plan is overly dependant and reliant on the delivery of brownfield land and, in particular, Council owned brownfield land. In doing so, and without a known site disposal strategy from the Council, the ability to firstly secure an effective 5 year land supply and, secondly, a generous supply of effective housing land which provides sufficient flexibility is fundamentally compromised. The over reliance on brownfield land is compounded by the inclusion in the Housing Land Supply of a 20% (or 1,220 units) allocation of windfall sites and runs counter to Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and PAN 2/2010 (CD16). Where greenfield land has been identified, it is either, predominantly, within the second phase of the plan or is the Dundee Western Gateway where the timing for the delivery remains unknown. Additional greenfield land requires to be allocated for housing development to provide choice and flexibility. H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)*: The Council are wrong to promote a spatial strategy which relies on past assumptions regarding land release and potential. It must not be assumed that all of the brownfield sites contained in the Dundee Housing Land Audit (CD41) will be developed in the timescales envisaged and that the Western Gateway will deliver housing units as programmed, bearing in mind the delays to development to date. If Dundee Council is intent on supporting growth, supporting an economic recovery and in particular new housing within its administrative area it must allocate additional land in locations where development has been successful in the most recent past - greenfield land on the eastern side of Dundee. Land at North Grange would be an ideal candidate site. Tony Thomas (57): We are not advocating any changes to Policy 8 but rather that further sites be added to Appendix 2. This is on the grounds that the current housing land supply assumptions and allocations are insufficient to enable Dundee to meet its housing demand over the life cycle of the Local Development Plan. These concerns are centred on the deliverability and genuine effectiveness of many of the currently preferred sites in the spatial strategy. This concern includes the fact that there has been considerable doubt over the delivery of significant housing completions in the Western Villages and the fact that major brownfield redevelopment, is at the present time and for the foreseeable future expensive and difficult, and within a narrow market band (in terms of sales). Major allocations at The Waterfront and Whitfield will come forward but the assumptions over build and occupancy rate are far too optimistic and will lead to a plan that does not deliver the requisite number of homes. The land at North Grange Farm at Monifieth is effective, deliverable, attractive and under option to a well known local developer. If allocated, this site can deliver homes in the immediate plan period and relieve pressure at other more complex locations and bring a number of economic benefits to the immediate area and Dundee as a whole.

26


VICO Properties Ltd (16): The Dundee Proposed Local Development Plan is overly dependant and reliant on the delivery of predominately Council owned brownfield land. In doing so, the ability to secure an effective 5 year land supply and also, a generous supply of effective land which provides sufficient flexibility, is fundamentally compromised. The inclusion of such a high percentage of brownfield land must be reduced. Additional land must be allocated for housing development to provide choice and flexibility. The land at Camperdown West should be included as a new housing land allocation for 90 units. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58): To conform to the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25) housing requirement target for the 2 time periods, i.e. 2014-2019 & 2020-2024, sufficient effective housing land supply has to be identified through the Local Development Plan. It is considered that the Proposed Plan places an over reliance on brownfield sites and the Western Gateway such that this will result in a shortfall of land delivery and non-conformity with the TAYplan SDP (CD25) strategic housing requirement. There is no safety net in the policy to facilitate the release of other sites for housing should the identified sites not be developed for housing purposes. There is therefore a good argument for the identification of additional greenfield ‘reserve’ land, so that Dundee City Council can control the locations where additional land might be released in the event of a supply deficiency. David Marwick (2): Brownfield sites make a considerable contribution to meeting housing requirements and in most instances, do not replace existing allocations, but fill the gap until allocated sites can come forward and realised. They often are capable of utilising or enhancing existing services. Brownfield sites in addition to allocated sites should be allowed to come forward for development without restriction to help contribute to the housing land requirement. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Supports the statements in para 7.5 regarding the reuse of brownfield land. However, concern that para 7.7 weakens the position. The sites at Baldragon Farm (H70 (2)) and Linlathen (H71(2)) should only be brought forward if convincing evidence of their need is established and can be accessed by sustainable transport. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Preamble: Quality Housing and Sustainable Communities (para 7.1–7.3) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): "Complement the distinct character and identity of the different parts of the City" should be applied to new housing estates. Policy 8: Housing Land Release (para 7.4-7.7) Gladedale Estates (Bett Homes) (5): The land supply programme should be amended to delete reference to housing development projected post 2020. Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46): Part of the Linlathen site H71 (2) is allocated for housing in the Proposals Map and included in Appendix 2 for the period beyond 2019. The whole site should be allocated for housing in the first 5 year period of the plan, 2014-2019.

27


Taylor Wimpey (48): Additional greenfield land should be allocated in the Proposed Plan through Appendix 2 including land at Strathyre Avenue for a new housing allocation with a capacity for 26 units. Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): Additional greenfield land should be allocated in the Proposed Plan through Appendix 2 including land at South Auchray for a new housing allocation with a capacity for 275 units. H&H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)*: Paragraph 7.7- replace whole of 2nd sentence and whole of 3rd sentence lines 3-8 “However there is no current certainty as to when these sites will deliver new housing. Therefore in order to maintain a 5 year housing land supply, additional greenfield release is proposed on the eastern side of the City to ensure that a range of housing choices is provided for over the period of the Plan.” The fourth line in Policy 8 be changed: “To ensure that an effective 5 year supply of housing land is maintained over the plan period “additional greenfield housing land is to be allocated on the eastern side of the city as identified in Appendix 2” Tony Thomas (57): Would seek to see Paragraph 7.7 read as follows: "Substantial public and private investment in infrastructure provision has been put in place to remove constraints and facilitate development of the housing sites at the Western Gateway. “However it is acknowledged that it will take a number of years before the full allocation at the Western Villages can be completed, and credibly contribute to the Housing Land Supply. Therefore additional Greenfield land is required to ensure that present and future housing demand is met. These are identified at Appendix 2" VICO Properties Ltd (16): Policy 8 should include a mechanism to allow the release of greenfield land where there is a defined shortfall in the effective 5 year housing land supply. Land at Camperdown West should be identified within Appendix 2 for a residential development of 90 units. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58): Policy 8 Housing Land Release and Appendices 1 & 2 to be amended to incorporate a differentiation between: i) Housing Land Allocations 2014 – 2019 to specifically identify the sites to fulfil the 610

per annum requirement or to over allocate as required; ii) Housing Land Allocations 2020 – 2024 to specifically identify the sites to fulfil the 610

per annum requirement or to over allocate as required; iii) When undertaking the calculation involved in the two time periods, any shortfall should

be rectified through identification of additional greenfield housing sites which accord with the TAYplan spatial strategy; and

iv) Include a new part to the Policy to accommodate the identification of appropriate greenfield sites for ‘draw down’ as required.

David Marwick (2): The third paragraph of Policy 8 should be more positive and flexible regarding the release of brownfield sites to allow a greater choice of sites to come forward to help meet the housing land requirement set out within the Development Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): The site at H71 (2) should be removed. A new site between Strathyre Avenue and Balmossie Meadow should be included with a new bridge over the Dighty for pedestrians and buses.

28


Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Preamble: Quality Housing and Sustainable Communities (para. 7.1-7.3) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) The approach set out in paragraph 7.3 would apply to all new housing developments and would be reinforced through the requirements of Policy 7 High Quality Design. There is no requirement to add any further wording to paragraph 7.3 to reflect this requirement. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 8: Housing Land Release (para 7.4-7.7) Gladedale Estates (Bett Homes) (5); Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46); Taylor Wimpey (48); Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): The Housing Land Supply programme has been structured to ensure that it meets the requirements of TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25) and Scottish Planning Policy (CD10). A generous supply of land (average annual build rates of 610 units) has been allocated for the 10 year period of the Proposed Plan. A focus on delivering this from brownfield sites has been pursued including the Strategic Development Area (TAYplan Policy 4 (CD25)) at the Waterfront. Greenfield allocations have been included in line with the identification of Strategic Development Area at the Western Gateway (TAYplan Policy 4 (CD25)). This approach seeks to provide a focus on the regeneration aims of the Council. Significant public and private investment has already taken place in the infrastructure at both the Western Gateway and Waterfront. Consequently the proposed housing requires to be delivered in order for benefits of this significant investment to be realised. However, it is recognised that there is also a need to allow for choice and as such the Plan seeks to identify the direction of greenfield development once progress has been established at the Western Gateway. Therefore, in order to ensure the delivery of the Strategic Development Areas (Western Gateway and Waterfront) is not undermined, the other future Greenfield allocations have been programmed for the second 5 year period of the Proposed Plan. Progress on the Western Gateway sites will be monitored through the Proposed Action Programme (CD36). This will provide an appropriate mechanism to monitor progress of site development along with the annual Housing Land Audit (CD41). If necessary the timing of sites can be brought forward if it is found that progress is not moving forward at the Western Gateway or on other brownfield sites. Support for the Western Gateway was submitted by Inverarity Farms Ltd (03) (CD68) who own the land covered by HP01 and Bett Homes (26) (CD71) the proposed developer of the site. They stated their continued commitment to delivering housing on this site over the period of the Proposed Plan. In addition, I and D Stark (56) (CD72) the owners of the land covered by HP02 stated their continued commitment to delivering housing on this site. It is clear from an examination of completions in the Housing Land Audit (CD41) that Dundee has not had any issues with meeting demand for housing from brownfield allocations. In fact the majority of new housing over the previous plan period (2005 to present) has been met from brownfield sites. Support for the policy approach on the priority on the reuse of brownfield sites was put forward by Bruce R Linton (06)(CD69), Friends of the Earth (31) (CD70) and Fife Council (32) (CD62). Fife Council also highlighted that this approach was in accordance with TAYplan SDP (CD25). It is considered that the brownfield sites being brought forward can continue to deliver the housing requirements over the next 10 year plan period. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

29


H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)*; Tony Thomas (57): The rewording of paragraph 7.7 and Policy 8 requested by these two representations are broadly similar and seek additional greenfield land release on the eastern side of the City. The reasoned justification for the approach to housing land release has been set out in the response to Gladedale Estates (Bett Homes) (5) and Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46) above and would apply to these modifications. It is considered that the requested modifications to add additional greenfield allocations in the east would potentially undermine the delivery of the Western Gateway Strategic Development Area and the housing element of the Waterfront and the wider regeneration aims of the City to which the development of brownfield land is integral. Progress on the Western Gateway sites will be monitored through the Proposed Action Programme (CD36) and Housing Land Audit (CD41). If necessary the timing of the sites already identified in the north and east parts of the City can be brought forward if it is found that progress is not moving forward at the Western Gateway or on other brownfield sites. No modification is proposed to the Plan. VICO Properties Ltd (16): The reasoned justification for the approach to housing land release has been set out in the response to Gladedale Estates (Bett Homes) (5) and Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46) above and would apply to these modifications. The Policy already has a mechanism for releasing greenfield land release over the two 5 year time periods of the Proposed Plan. Progress on the Western Gateway sites will be monitored through the Proposed Action Programme (CD36) and Housing Land Audit (CD41). If necessary the timing of the sites already identified in the north and east parts of the City can be brought forward if it is found that progress is not moving forward at the Western Gateway or on other brownfield sites. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58): The suggested amended wording is unnecessary as the approach provides for a flexible approach to the delivery of land for housing. Appendix 2 does not need to be broken down over the two periods of the Plan as all sites are considered to be effective and can contribute to meeting housing requirements over the full 10 year period of the Plan. The only breakdown is for greenfield sites and the reason for this is set out in response to the modifications above. The progress of development will be monitored through the Proposed Action Programme (CD36) and Housing Land Audit (CD41). If the approach were to be pursued then additional sites would be first of all sought from brownfield sites then greenfield allocations. It is considered that the requested modification is unnecessary and would result in a more complicated and confusing approach to the allocation of housing land. No modification is proposed to the Plan. David Marwick (2): It is considered that Policy 8 provides sufficient emphasis on the priority to be given to Brownfield sites. Appendix 2 also recognises the role that windfall sites make to the Housing Land requirements and that these on the whole are brownfield sites. This allows for a wide choice of sites to come forward. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): It is considered that if new housing development is to proceed in the east then a planned approach is required. The allocation proposed seeks

30


to start development close to the existing urban edge and build around an existing grouping of uses and housing development. Access is already in place to service the site. The site proposed at Strathyre Avenue would only accommodate a small scale development and would have no scope to extend due to the wildlife corridor. This number would not meet the requirement over the second period of the Proposed Plan. The proposed bridge would cut through the wildlife corridor at this location and would not be supported. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Preamble: Quality Housing and Sustainable Communities (para. 7.1-7.3) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 1. I note the planning authority’s statement that this matter is dealt with by Policy 7, and there is no need to duplicate this here. No modification is required. Policy 8: Housing Land Release (para 7.4-7.7) Gladedale Estates (Bett Homes) (5); Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46); Taylor Wimpey (48); Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): 2. The major issue raised here is the balance between the use of brownfield or greenfield sites in delivering the housing land supply. The use of a high proportion of brownfield land is criticised, but this is entirely in line with Scottish Government policy support. Scottish Planning Policy states at paragraph 80 that: ‘Planning authorities should promote the efficient use of land and buildings, directing development towards sites within existing settlements where possible to make effective use of existing infrastructure and service capacity and to reduce energy consumption. Redevelopment of urban and rural brownfield sites is preferred to development on greenfield sites.’ Dundee has a good track record of bringing forward brownfield sites for development. I am satisfied that its focus on bringing forward further brownfield sites is well founded. 3. I have dealt with the question of windfall sites under Issue 6, and found that their inclusion within the projected land supply is in line with emerging Government policy. I acknowledge this is a change in emphasis from previous policy, but is supportive of the council’s intentions through the proposed plan. 4. The greenfield designation in the plan of sites at the Western Gateway is in line with the TAYplan strategy, with which the proposed plan must comply. Infrastructure development has already taken place and it is sensible timing for development to take place here in the first five year period. Sites to the north and east of Dundee will follow. I note the planning authority’s willingness to show flexibility of timing in the event that the expected development does not take place as anticipated. 5. Taking all this into account, I am not persuaded there is a need for any further land allocations at this time, and accordingly no modification is necessary. H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13); Tony Thomas (57): 6. I have dealt with the general issues of housing land delivery and brownfield in

31


particular above, and these are relevant here. There are 500 housing units allocated at the Western Gateway on two developments that already have planning permission, subject to Section 75 obligations, and a further 100 at Western Liff. Sites at Baldragon Farm and Linlathen are allocated for the second period 2020-2024. 7. The planning authority has indicated flexibility in bringing sites forward in the event that development does not take place as quickly as anticipated. In these circumstances I am not satisfied there is any evidence to justify the inclusion of other sites at this stage. No modification is needed. VICO Properties Ltd (16): 8. As the planning authority has pointed out, its reasoned justification in its response to the representations above apply here. The same applies to my own comments above. I have found there is every indication of an adequate land supply at this stage, including the Scottish Planning Policy supported brownfield release. There no need for any modification. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58): 9. I accept the planning authority’s view that Appendix 2 does not need to be broken down into time periods. Apart from the sites being considered effective, part of the land supply will be from windfall sites (see Issue 6) and these by definition cannot be specifically programmed. The planning authority has indicated that it is prepared to be flexible, and that fact that windfall allocations form part of the housing land supply means that sites will come forward that are not specifically allocated in the proposed plan. 10. I am not persuaded there is any need for identification of further greenfield sites at this stage. No modification is required. David Marwick (2): 11. Paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6 of the pre-amble to the policy emphasise the importance of brownfield land. This is also emphasised in the 2,472 brownfield sites listed in Appendix 2. Brownfield sites could also be released as part of windfall sites within the overall land allocation. Brownfield sites not included in the 2012 audit are also listed in Appendix 2. I am satisfied that Policy 8 as drafted gives sufficient emphasis to brownfield housing development and that no modification is needed. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): 12. Site H71(2) has been carefully thought out as part of the planning authority’s overall housing strategy. As the planning authority points out it is close to the urban edge and would relate to existing development. It is also adjacent to, and with good access to, the Linlathen Strategic Development Area as set out in TAYplan. I accept the planning authority’s arguments about the disadvantages of the Strathyre Avenue Site (see also Issue 9). No modification is needed. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

32


Issue 6 Housing Land Allowances


Appendix 1: Housing Land Allowances (page 74)

Reporter: Trevor a Croft

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14) VICO Properties Ltd (16) Taylor Wimpey (48) West End Community Council (36) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Housing Land Allowances – Appendix 1 (page 74)

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Appendix 1: Housing Land Allowances (Page 74) Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14); VICO Properties Ltd (16); Taylor Wimpey (48): The inclusion of windfall sites within the housing land supply is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and should be removed from the allowances. West End Community Council (36): House building targets are a threat to Dundee's greenbelt. It is these areas that would be under pressure to make up any shortfalls in meeting the targets set out in the Plan. Rather than chasing targets a critical evaluation of the merits of each development should be carried out. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Appendix 1: Housing Land Allowances (Page 74) Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14); VICO Properties Ltd (16); Taylor Wimpey (48): Removal of ‘E’ Windfall sites (20%/1220 units) from Appendix 1: Housing Land Allowances. West End Community Council (36): The reference to a house building target (610 units) or any other figure for the number of units built per year should be removed from the Plan. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Appendix 1: Housing Land Allowances (Page 74) Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14); VICO Properties Ltd (16); Taylor Wimpey (48): Previous planning guidance (PAN 38: Housing Land paragraphs 34 and 40 (CD75)) did allow windfall sites to contribute to the margin of flexibility built into development plan allocations. It is acknowledged that the current guidance in PAN 2/2010 (CD16) paragraph 62 advise not to count windfall towards meeting the housing land requirement.

33


However PANs are Scottish Wide guidance rather than policy. There are a number of reasons why it is considered appropriate to continue to include a windfall allowance in the housing land requirement calculation for Dundee. The housing land requirement set by TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25) for Dundee is already very generous at 610 units. This reflects previous annual housing completion rates from the previous 10 year period rather that the GROS projections which would have required the provision of only 100 units per annum over the same period. The previous completion rates (see table 1 below) included high levels of windfall sites reflecting the urban nature of the City and its change from its industrial past. It also reflects the on-going changes to the economy and the regeneration of many parts of the City. These have brought along opportunities for housing that were not possible to identify and include in previous Plans. This process is on-going and those areas undergoing regeneration have been included where known as potential housing allocations in the Proposed Plan. It is considered that opportunities will continue to come along that are not identified at present but may be worthy of support in delivering housing. Table 1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL COMPLETIONS

520 636 824 731 643 372 433 308

WINDFALL SITES

451 457 449 393 385 240 172 220

% ON WINDFALL SITES

86.7 71.9 54.5 53.8 59.9 64.5 39.7 71.4

(Source Dundee Housing Land Audits) (CD41) The 20% windfall allowance was based on an analysis of past completions on sites over the period of the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (2005-2012) (CD40). Table 1 sets out the percentage that windfall sites contributed to the completions yearly since 2005. It is clear from this that windfall sites have contributed a high level to the annual completions rates within Dundee. This is no surprise given the urban nature of the City as outlined above. Given this pattern it is considered appropriate to build in an expectation for windfall sites to contribute to meeting the housing land requirement. The allowance of 20% is considerably less than the past trends have seen. It is considered that this approach allows for flexibility in the provision for new housing and the reality of planning within a dense urban environment which is going through the process of regeneration. Given the generous housing land requirement set by TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25) it is also considered that care has to be taken not to over-allocate for housing land and as such the historic pattern of windfall sites needs to be taken into account. The approach taken has sought to strike a balance between identifying and allocating the sites to deliver the housing land requirement but to also recognise Dundee's position and the contribution windfall sites will make to the delivery of housing over the period of the Plan. It also reflects the Proposed Plan’s strategy of prioritising the redevelopment of brownfield sites over the release of greenfield land. No modification is proposed to the Plan. West End Community Council (36): Dundee does not currently have a greenbelt and the Proposed Plan does not seek to identify one. Therefore, the concern raised in regard to

34


this does not have any relevant policy considerations to address. The house building target (610 units) referred to, is that set out in the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012 (CD25). This Plan was approved by Scottish Ministers in June 2012 and forms the relevant Strategic Development Plan for Dundee. The relevant section in the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012 (CD25) is Policy 5: Housing and the associated Proposal 2: Average Annual Housing Market Area Build Rates. Policy 5 requires Local Development Plans to allocate land which is effective or capable of becoming effective to meet the identified housing land requirement. Proposal 2 sets out what the requirement should be within each housing market area and for Dundee that is equivalent to 610 units. The Proposed Plan is required to be consistent with the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25). The removal of reference to this requirement would result in the Local Development Plan potentially failing to comply with the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25). It would also result in it potentially failing to comply with the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (CD10). The strategy for the provision of land for housing within the Proposed Plan gives priority to meeting it from brownfield sources rather than relying on greenfield sources. This is in line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) guidance. In terms of any shortfall there are other sources of brownfield land that could be considered to meet these requirements. The approach to greenfield land release has been taken to ensure that it is managed in a balanced way to provide for choice but not at the expense of delivering on the regeneration requirements of the City. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14); VICO Properties Ltd (16); Taylor Wimpey (48) 1. Taking the policy background first, it is an integral part of the present planning system that planning permission may be granted for housing developments on sites which are not allocated specifically for that purpose in the current local development plan, if there are other material considerations which justify granting consent. These are generally known as windfall sites because they are ‘unexpected’ and may or may not happen. Many development plans also contain policies which create a presumption in favour of proposals for new housing developments on brownfield sites or within existing built up areas, as is the case here. Such policies give encouragement for development on windfall sites. 2. The development of such sites is likely to contribute to the Scottish Government’s overarching purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. Scottish Planning Policy also confirms the important role which the planning system has in supporting the achievement of sustainable development through its influence on the location of new development in terms of, among other things: • promoting regeneration and the re-use of previously developed land; • reducing the need to travel and prioritise sustainable travel and transport opportunities;

and, • taking account of the capacity of existing infrastructure. 3. Current Scottish Planning Policy does not state that windfall sites should not be assumed to make a contribution to meeting housing needs and demand over the various plan periods. Rather, it states at paragraph 81 that planning authorities are encouraged to use assumptions about the expected output from windfall sites, to inform the settlement strategy. This is consistent with the priority which it states should be given to the re-

35


development of brownfield sites in preference to the development of greenfield land. Any allocation of windfall sites as part of the total housing land supply would obviously require to be clearly justified. 4. There is some ambiguity at paragraph 62 of Planning Advice Note 1/2010 in relation to housing land audits as to whether, or when, windfall sites can count towards meeting the requirement for housing land. However, such sites normally do not form part of the effective housing land supply before permission is granted, but thereafter should be included for assessment in any subsequent housing land audit. It is then that they may form part of the effective housing land supply. All of the houses which are built on such sites will contribute to meeting the overall housing requirement for the area, and will also assist in meeting the assessed housing needs or demand. 5. However, the new Scottish Planning Policy consultation draft, published in April 2013, points clearly to an unambiguous change of emphasis. Paragraph 86 states: “Any assessment of the contribution to the housing supply target which may be expected to be provided by windfall sites should be informed by an urban capacity study or clear evidence of past completions”. There is then a consultation question as to whether authorities should be able to include an allowance for windfall development in their calculations for meeting the housing land requirement. 6. Whilst still a consultation document, and therefore not adopted as firm policy, it demonstrates an acknowledgement by Government of the sense, subject to clear justification, of including windfall sites within the housing land supply allocation. 7. Looking now at the specific circumstances of Dundee, as the planning authority points out above, the housing land requirement set by TAYplan is already very generous, for the reasons set out. The Dundee Local Planning Authority Area is constrained within a fairly tightly drawn boundary. This leaves a relatively small amount of greenfield land. On the other hand the general fabric of the built up area reflects the former industrial past of the city where changes to the economy have lead to a substantial amount of regeneration. Much of this is on former brownfield sites that formed part of that industrial fabric. 8. The planning authority’s analysis set out above, taken from its housing land audits, demonstrates clearly the substantial proportion of windfall sites that has contributed to housing completions since 2005. The 20% allocated in the proposed plan is significantly below this level, and no evidence has been provided which suggest that this level cannot be sustained through the plan period. The figures therefore fulfil the requirement, in paragraph 86 of the consultation draft, for clear evidence of past completions as justification for including windfall sites within the housing land supply allocations. 9. In these circumstances I accept the planning authority’s argument above that this approach has sought to strike a balance between identifying and allocating sites to deliver the housing land requirement and recognising the contribution to be made by windfall sites during the plan period. For all these reasons I consider it appropriate that the planning authority has justified satisfactorily its assumptions regarding the level of house completions from windfall sites which can safely be anticipated as making a contribution to meeting the overall housing requirement for the plan area. I am not therefore persuaded that any modification to the proposed plan is necessary in response to these representations.

36


West End Community Council (36) 10. As the planning authority has stated above, there is no formal greenbelt allocated in the plan around the city. There is a relatively restricted area of undeveloped green land, and this is presumably what the representation refers to as ‘green belt’. Whilst I understand the concerns about housing targets, the provision of these is a fundamental part of the development planning process. To remove these from the plan would be contrary to policy and mean that it could not be approved. The planning authority has expanded above on the background to the figures. There is no basis for me to recommend their removal. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

37


Issue 7 Proposed Housing Sites


Appendix 2: Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Beam Orthodontics (65) Violet Carr (66) Law Property Group (67) H & H Properties Ltd (Armitstead) (23)* David Brown (69) W Baikie (70) Thomas Mitchell (71) The Trustees of Wellburn Home (72) Miss Wagner (73) Arthur Harkins (74) Derek Kelly (75) Katrina Mowinski (76) Christina Gordon (77) Alan Costello (78) June Costello (79) Phyllis Nicoll (80) Roderick Dewar (81) Elizabeth Kane (82) Sebastiana Bruno (83) Sian Roberts (84) H & M Properties (85)

M Ahmad (86) Munsif Ali Mohammed (87) Ed Hunt (88) Martin Will (89) James Whitton (90) William Soutar (91) Frederick McCabe (159) Dr & Mrs James M Duncan (160) Mr & Mrs B Stuart (161) Kieron Brown (162) Krzysztof Domeracki (163) W D Harris (164) West Green Park Residents (165) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Roger Garbett (169) Dennis J Young (166) Nicola Gilray (167) Susan Kidd (168) Hugh Begg (53) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38)

(*H & H Properties have made two representations on separate sites via different agents and so have two representation numbered 13 and 23) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Proposed Housing Sites

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) H03: South Tay Street Beam Orthodontics (65): Concern that the loss of the existing car park at South Tay Street to housing will result in increased parking problems in the surrounding area. H04: Marketgait/South Tay Street Violet Carr (66): Concerns regarding lack of parking, play area and disturbance from noise.

38


H06: Roseangle, Peterson House Law Property Group (67): As the owner and occupier of 25 and 27 Roseangle DD1 4LS (Peterson Hall and Roseangle House respectively) I do not wish the proposed 10 homes at Peterson House 25 Roseangle (H06) to go ahead. H13: Monifieth Road, Armitstead H & H Properties Ltd (Armitstead) (23)*: Working within the guidelines of the site planning brief (CD44), and the policy requirements of the approved Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40) a scheme has been prepared for the site which proposes the redevelopment of the site to accommodate 26 residential units. David Brown (69): With reference to the proposed housing at Site H13 a question is raised whether the proposal for 10 homes means the building of 10 new houses on the site in addition to any conversion of Armitstead house into flats/town houses or the provision of 10 new homes including the conversion of Armitstead into flats/town houses. In addition, the ground plan shown in the recent notification (12/00670/LPNN (CD59)) is different from that shown in the local development plan for the site H13. These comments are minor and the local plan with view to the brief is commendable, but clarification may prevent future neighbourhood disputes. H19: Princes Street Phase 2 W Baikie (70): Does not consider H19 a suitable location for 20 new houses. Concerned that construction would have a detrimental affect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing, overlooking and suggests it would devalue neighbouring properties. Development would also remove an attractive sloping grass area bordered by trees on a main route in and out of Dundee. H21: 224/232 Hilltown Thomas Mitchell (71): Supports the inclusion of site H21 provided there is suitable parking arrangements included in any plans. H23: Stewarts Lane/Liff Road The Trustees of Wellburn Home (72): The Trustees welcome the proposal to develop H23 for residential use. However concerned that there is a very complex natural underground water system in the area and suggest a full investigation of the ground conditions is carried out by an appropriately qualified specialist. If necessary request a Section 75 agreement is put in place to protect Trustees and others in the area who may potentially be affected by the intensification of development and ground works. H25: Angus Street Miss Wagner (73); Arthur Harkins (74); Derek Kelly (75); Katrina Mowinski (76); Christina Gordon (77); Alan Costello (78); June Costello (79); Phyllis Nicoll (80); Roderick Dewar (81): Object to the inclusion of H25 Angus Street as a housing site. The development of housing on this site will result in the loss of green surface, loss of privacy to houses, over-looking into existing houses, increased congestion and loss of parking to residents due to overspill parking, detrimentally effect the newsagent through increased parking.

39


H28: Former Downfield Primary School (Annexe) East School Road Elizabeth Kane (82): Support in principle but notes that the site planning brief (CD80) for H28 requires updating and raises issues such as road safety and offers suggested changes when updating takes place. H33: Site 5 Whitfield Sebastiana Bruno (83): Concerned about the loss of green space in Whitfield area to build new houses and in particular in relation to H33. H34: Site 6 Whitfield Sian Roberts (84): Concerned about the loss of trees and green space which is one of the positive aspects of the area. Understands the need for housing in the area. However, hopes that cycle paths, walkways and community green space is provided for. H39: Maxwelltown Multis H & M Properties (85); M Ahmad (86); Munsif Ali Mohammed (87): Concerned regarding the loss of the car park opposite the Hilltown shops which is within the boundary line for H39. Requests that the car park remains as its removal would have a detrimental effect on the small businesses in the area. H42: Former Mossgiel Primary School Phase 2 Ed Hunt (88); Martin Will (89): Objects to any more building on Mossgiel School grounds as further development will only make flooding problems worse. H43: Land at Earn Crescent James Whitton (90): Seeks better linkages between current houses in the area and those in the new development. Asks to be kept informed of all future developments concerning site H43. H48: Land at Dens Road William Soutar (91): This comment relates to H48 rather than H46. Comment regarding the state of a chimney on adjacent land. Requests that this is addressed in the details of the potential development of the site. H60: Lochee Primary School Frederick McCabe (159): The former janitor’s house at Donald Street should be removed from the allocation of the site at H60. The house has been purchased from the Council and does not form part of the school grounds. It is, therefore, not available as part of the redevelopment of the site. H64: Parkview, Blackness Road Dr & Mrs James M Duncan (160): No objection to development however, raises some concerns regarding the boundary of H64 in relation to neighbouring houses. Wish to be

40


included in future dialogue as development of the site progresses. Mr & Mrs B Stuart (161): Suggest over development and raise concerns for the proposed development (H64) as development site backs onto their property. Main concerns include noise, overlooking, loss of sunlight, increasing volume of traffic and parking issues. Wish to be kept informed of development and be included in any meetings in relation to it. H65: Charleston Primary School Kieron Brown (162): The School House at Charleston Primary School should be removed from the allocation of the site at H65. The house has been purchased from the Council and does not form part of the school grounds. It is therefore not available as part of the redevelopment of the site. H68: Finavon Street Krzysztof Domeracki (163): Concerned about lack of car parking spaces in the area. H69: Western Gateway, Liff (Phase 2) W D Harris (164): The owners of Braeside wish to present the opportunity for a consolidated, integrated and modern housing development on site H69 which incorporates Braeside. West Green Park Residents (165): Seeks clarification on site ownership and raises some concerns about development of H69. This includes potential flooding problems, access to the site, information on how sewage will be dealt with, assurances that a full environmental assessment is carried out, request opportunity to engage with potential developers in relation to community facilities. Highlights the issue of schools which has been raised on innumerable occasions. Also urge that public transport is maintained and preferably improved if additional housing built. H71(2): Linlathen, Arbroath Road Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Accepts that this site, in part of the last remaining greenfield area in eastern Dundee, may be the least worst option in this location. However, it is pointed out that in the Main Issues Report (MIR) (see attachment ‘MIR Greenfield options’) that the planning authority favoured no further development in this greenfield area. Indeed, the subsequent responses in the following consultation supported this option (see attachment ‘MIR greenfield responses’). We are therefore puzzled why the planning authority has changed its mind. Roger Garbett (169): Objects to the inclusion of H71(2) in respect of the greenfield nature of the site. Dennis J Young (166): Notes proposal for 150 houses instead of the much higher figure being sought by local builders. Also notes that development of H71 is not in the initial plan period and this is just as well as representation highlights that the road system is not coping with present volume of traffic at peak times and road improvements would help reduce the problem.

41


Nicola Gilray (167); Susan Kidd (168): Welcome the proposal to restrict further housing on H71 to 150 houses. Concerned that development will impact on drainage and flooding, traffic congestion, capacity of schools and public transport. Hugh Begg (53): No explanation has been provided for the allocation H71(2) and there would appear to be a tension between that and the Council's repeated support for sustainable transport policies. Furthermore, the site lacks defensible boundaries other than fencing and there is also insufficient information on flood risk and drainage capacity, inadequate safe access (cars, service vehicles, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists), a high level of car dependency contrary to sustainable transport objectives and the loss of high quality agricultural land. Inclusion within the Plan presents a clear signal that, contrary to the Structure Plan, the Main Issues Report and subsequent consultation, the Council is supportive of further development to the east of the current built up area. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act (2009) prescribes a new responsibility for Scottish Ministers, SEPA, Scottish Water and local authorities to exercise their flood risk related functions with a view to reducing overall flood risk. In line with this, the protection of future development against flood risk is not just a responsibility for SEPA as is implied with the current wording. The cornerstone of sustainable flood management is the avoidance in the first instance and the Local Development Plan has a crucial role to play in ensuring that, wherever possible, unnecessary risks are avoided. In line with Policy 41 of the Proposed Plan and Scottish Planning Policy (CD10), mitigation measures to reduce flood risk may not be appropriate and as such the capacity of the site may be compromised. This should be recognised in the Proposed Plan as detailed above. We would highlight that we have specific concerns regarding the capacities proposed at sites H02 - Railyards; H41 - Central Waterfront and H55 - Land at Barns of Claverhouse Road. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) H03: South Tay Street Beam Orthodontics (65): Remove housing allocation H03 from the Proposed Plan. H04: Marketgait/South Tay Street Violet Carr (66): Remove housing allocation H04 from the Proposed Plan H06: Roseangle, Peterson House Law Property Group (67): As the owner and occupier of 25 and 27 Roseangle DD1 4LS (Peterson Hall and Roseangle House respectively) I do not wish the proposed 10 homes at Peterson House 25 Roseangle to go ahead. H13: Monifieth Road, Armitstead H & H Properties Ltd (Armitstead) (23)*: The capacity for this site should be changed from 10 to approximately 26 dwelling units.

42


David Brown (69): None requested. H19: Princes Street Phase 2 W Baikie (70): Remove housing allocation H19 from the Proposed Plan H21: 224/232 Hilltown Thomas Mitchell (71): Suitable parking arrangements need to be included in any proposal. H23: Stewarts Lane/Liff Road The Trustees of Wellburn Home (72): The requirement for a proper investigation of the underground water system should be undertaken as part of any development of the site. H25: Angus Street Miss Wagner (73); Arthur Harkins (74); Derek Kelly (75); Katrina Mowinski (76); Christina Gordon (77); Alan Costello (78); June Costello (79); Phyllis Nicoll (80); Roderick Dewar (81): Remove housing allocation H25 from the Proposed Plan H28: Former Downfield Primary School (Annexe) East School Road Elizabeth Kane (82): Updating of site planning brief for H28 is required and traffic issues taken into account in the development of the site. H33: Site 5 Whitfield Sebastiana Bruno (83): Concerned that the existing greenspace should be safeguarded as part of any development of sites in the Whitfield Area. H34: Site 6 Whitfield Sian Roberts (84): Would like to see retention of greenspace and existing trees and that cycle paths, walkways and community greenspace are provided in the development of the area. H39: Maxwelltown Multis H & M Properties (85); M Ahmad (86); Munsif Ali Mohammed (87): Requests that the current car park remains. Amend boundary of allocation H39 to omit car park or retain car park within proposed development. H42: Former Mossgiel Primary School Phase 2 Ed Hunt (88); Martin Will (89): Remove housing allocation H42 from the Proposed Plan. H43: Land at earn Crescent James Whitton (90): Seeks better linkages between current houses and Earn Crescent in plans for new development.

43


H48: Land at Dens Road William Soutar (91): That the existing chimney adjacent to the allocated site should be removed as part of any future development of the site as it is considered to be an unwelcome visual feature in the area as well as dangerous. H60: Lochee Primary School Frederick McCabe (159): Amend the Proposals Map and Site Plan for H60 to exclude the former janitor’s house which is now in separate ownership. H64: Parkview, Blackness Road Dr & Mrs James M Duncan (160): Seeks that any development of the site upgrades the boundary between the site and neighbouring houses. That any development will not impede light getting into garden ground and would not encroach on privacy. Mr & Mrs B Stuart (161): That the development of the site will not result in over development, noise, overlooking (directly affecting privacy), loss of sunlight, increasing volume of traffic onto Blackness Road causing major issues for all junctions and parking problems. H65: Charleston Primary School Kieron Brown (162): Amend boundary on Proposals Map and Site Plan for H65 to exclude the former janitor’s house which is now in separate ownership. H68: Finavon Street Krzysztof Domeracki (163): That an appropriate level of car parking should be provided. H69: Western Gateway, Liff (Phase 2) W D Harris (164): Amend boundary on Proposals Map and Site Plan to include Braeside as part of development site allocated as H69. West Green Park Residents (165): No modification sought to the plan but seeks clarification of a range of issues including, site ownership, potential flooding problems, access to the site, information on how sewage will be dealt with and assurances that a full environmental assessment is carried out. Request for opportunity to engage with potential developers in relation to community facilities, access to schools and that public transport is maintained and preferably improved if additional housing built. H71(2): Linlathen, Arbroath Road Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Concerns over the proposed greenfield housing site H71 Roger Garbett (169): Remove housing allocation H71(2) from the Proposed Plan. Dennis J Young (166): No modification proposed but concerns regarding impact of development at H71 (2).

44


Nicola Gilray (167); Susan Kidd (168): No modification proposed but concerns regarding impact of development at H71 (2). Hugh Begg (53): Delete Housing Site H71 (2) from the Proposed Plan where 150 houses are proposed albeit outwith the Plan period. Footnote (page77) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): The text which reads 'Sites where SEPA have advised that a Flood Risk Assessment will be required' Should be changed to state: 'Sites where a Flood Risk Assessment will be required to inform the finalised site layout such that no development takes place within the 1:200 year flood plain. Where specific sites are found to be at significant risk of flooding, the predicted capacities noted above may not be achievable in full.’ Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) H03: South Tay Street Beam Orthodontics (65): Concerns are noted however, there is sufficient parking provision throughout the City Centre to accommodate the removal of this car park. The development of this site provides the opportunity to create a high quality development which would positively contribute to the townscape character of the Westport area. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H04: Marketgait/South Tay Street Violet Carr (66): It is considered that the development of housing is acceptable, in principle, given the character and residential nature of the area. The concerns raised in terms of the lack of parking, play area and disturbance from noise are noted. However, it is considered that these are not of sufficient weight to warrant this site being unsuitable for housing in principle. The parking and play area requirements would be addressed through an application for planning permission. It is unlikely that a residential development at this location would cause disturbance to existing residents in terms of noise. A site planning brief Tay Street Lane (CD76) was prepared for this area in 2008 and included consultation with the local community. The brief set out the context for the development of the area including additional residential accommodation. Various elements of the brief are now complete with others such as new housing supported through the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H06: Roseangle, Peterson House Law Property Group (67): It is assumed that the comments are in relation to the potential residential capacity rather than the allocation. As such is considered that the two sites should remain allocated for residential development especially as there has been interest in the past for residential development (Planning Application References: 09/00154/FUL Refurbishment of Former Student Residences into Residential flats (CD56) &

45


08/00614/FUL Demolition of Existing Buildings and Erection of 26 dwellings (CD57)). The details regarding site capacity can be discussed through the planning application process. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H13: Monifieth Road, Armitstead H & H Properties Ltd (Armitstead) (23)*: As stated in the Development Sites Assessment Document (CD38) the allocation of 10 houses is an indicative site capacity only. The achievement of good design is the most important consideration rather than fitting a particular number of dwellings into the site. The Site Planning Brief (CD44) for this allocation requires the retention of the existing house and that the land in front of the main elevation (south) is not developed. As a result there are limitations to the number of units that can be developed on the site. It is considered that 10 can be accommodated but that does not preclude a developer bringing forward proposals for a higher number of units in accordance with the Site Planning Brief and this being supported. No modification is proposed to the Plan. David Brown (69): The capacity figure of 10 is for the entire site including the conversion of the main house. This figure is only indicative and may vary depending on the layout that comes forward. The location map provided with the neighbour notification letter (12/00670/LPNN (CD59)) and the Proposed Plan have the same boundary. There is a difference with the map provided in the Development Sites Assessment Document (CD38). However, this included an additional area that was removed during the assessment process. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H19: Princes Street Phase 2 W Baikie (70): In line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) the Proposed Plan gives priority to the reuse of brownfield land within the existing urban area. In terms of the surrounding environment and nature of the site there is no reason why a residential use would not be acceptable in principle. In relation to the comments regarding the development of Princes Street Phase 2 and the potential detrimental affect on the neighbouring residential properties in terms of: physical impact; overshadowing; and overlooking these concerns will be considered during the planning application process when a planning application comes forward for this site. That development would devalue neighbouring properties is not a material planning consideration. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H21: 224/232 Hilltown Thomas Mitchell (71): As part of any future development of the site car parking provision will require to be provided in line with the requirements of Policy 8 and Appendix 3 of the Proposed Plan. This will ensure that suitable parking arrangements are incorporated. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

46


H23: Stewarts Lane/Liff Road The Trustees of Wellburn Home (72): The support for allocation H23 is welcomed. The concerns raised regarding the potential issues relating to the complex underground water system are noted. The development of the site will require to take these matters into consideration through investigation measures. It would be for the consideration of any proposals through the determination of a planning application to decide the appropriate method to be used to ensure that nearby residents are not detrimentally affected. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H25: Angus Street Miss Wagner (73); Arthur Harkins (74); Derek Kelly (75); Katrina Mowinski (76); Christina Gordon (77); Alan Costello (78); June Costello (79); Phyllis Nicoll (80); Roderick Dewar (81): The site at Angus Street is in Council ownership and is identified in the Lochee Physical Regeneration Framework (CD43) as a housing site and included in the Housing Land Audit 2012 (CD41) as a site with other Council Approval. The site immediately to the west has already been developed by the Council for two wheelchair accessible homes. This site provides a further opportunity to develop housing in a prominent site well located to services and facilities. Given the number of houses proposed it is considered that there will not be any significant impact on the parking and traffic movements in the area. The other issues relate to the layout and design of houses and would be addressed through the consideration of any future planning application. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H28: Former Downfield Primary School (Annexe) East School Road Elizabeth Kane (82): The support for H28 in principle is welcomed. The issues regarding the updating of the existing Site Brief are noted including the suggested changes. It is intended to review and update existing Site Planning Briefs once the Proposed Plan is adopted. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H33: Site 5 Whitfield Sebastiana Bruno (83): The concerns regarding the loss of greenspace in Whitfield, as a result of new build housing is noted. The sites being allocated are those identified in the Council’s approved Whitfield Planning Framework (CD46) and are also in the Housing Land Audit 2012 (CD41). The proposed new build sites are part of the regeneration of the Whitfield area. The Framework includes proposals for the provision of greenspace and how these form part of the overall development of the area to ensure satisfactory levels of open space are provided for both existing and future residents. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H34: Site 6 Whitfield Sian Roberts (84): The concerns regarding the loss of greenspace and trees in Whitfield as a result of new build housing and in particular with site H34 are noted. The sites being

47


allocated are those identified in the Council’s approved Whitfield Planning Framework (CD46) and are also in the Housing Land Audit 2012 (CD41). The proposed new build sites are part of the regeneration of the Whitfield area. The Framework includes proposals for the provision of greenspace and landscaping and how these form part of the overall development of the area to ensure satisfactory levels of open space, amenity and active travel networks are provided for both existing and future residents. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H39: Maxwelltown Multis H & M Properties (85); M Ahmad (86); Munsif Ali Mohammed (87): It is the intention of the Council to provide adequate car parking within the area in which the site is located in line with the aims of the approved Hilltown Physical Regeneration Framework (CD45). This recognises the importance of car parking for the area including provision for local businesses. It is proposed that boundary for the proposed allocations remains as set out in the Proposals Map. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H42: Former Mossgiel Primary School Phase 2 Ed Hunt (88); Martin Will (89): In line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) the Proposed Plan gives priority to the reuse of brownfield land within the existing urban area. In terms of the surrounding environment and nature of the site at H42 there is no reason why a residential use would not be acceptable in principle. Part of this former school site has already been developed for housing in accordance with the approved Site Planning Brief for the entire area (CD77) The remainder of the site (proposed allocation) has been assessed as suitable for further residential development. The existing flooding issue lies outwith the site to the north, and is unrelated to the development of housing on this site. The first phase of housing was developed with appropriate flood measures put in place and a similar approach would be required for Phase 2. Interested parties including the Council, SEPA etc are currently working on a solution to the existing flooding issue in the area. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H43: Land at Earn Crescent James Whitton (90): The site at H43 is within Council ownership as is the site to the north. As part of the development of this large site, a site planning brief is likely to be prepared which will consider the detailed layout and linkages into the surrounding area. There will be the opportunity to comment on any site brief that is prepared and to make representation to any future planning application covering the site. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H48: Land at Dens Road William Soutar (91): The comment regarding the concerns of a large chimney on a land adjacent to site H48 is noted. Whilst noting the concerns they do not impact on the suitability of H48 to be allocated as a site for residential development. The issue of the

48


chimney and safety concerns would need to be addressed through other formal channels rather than the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H60: Lochee Primary School and H65: Charleston Primary School Frederick McCabe (159); Kieron Brown (162): Both of these requested changes relate to the inclusion of former janitors houses at H60 and H65 in the proposed housing allocations on the Proposals Map. In drafting the site boundaries it was unknown at the time that both these properties were in separate ownership from the Council (both are former school sites). As they are in separate ownership and are occupied houses it would not be necessary to include them in the development of either of the sites. Whilst it is not considered necessary to amend the boundaries to resolve the concerns raised if the Reporter is minded to support the proposed modification the Council considers that it would not undermine the deliverability of the allocation or the Proposed Plan and Proposals Map. No modification is proposed to the Plan H64: Parkview, Blackness Road Dr & Mrs James M Duncan (160): It is noted that no objection in principle to the allocation of H64 for housing is being made. The detailed issues regarding the boundary and other matters are noted. These would be most appropriately considered through the consideration and determination of any future application for planning permission. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Mr & Mrs B Stuart (161): The concerns raised to the development of the site are noted. The matters raised are detailed in their nature and would be more appropriately addressed through an application for planning permission where an assessment of the potential impacts could be considered. It is noted that no objection to the allocation for housing is made or a request for the site to be removed. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H68: Finavon Street Krzysztof Domeracki (163): The concern about the lack of parking provision in the area surrounding H68 is noted. The proposal for housing in the area will need to meet the parking requirements set out in the Proposed Plan in Appendix 3. This should ensure that adequate parking provision is provided as part of the development and that no detrimental impact will be had on the surrounding area. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H69: Western Gateway, Liff (Phase 2) W D Harris (164): Given the size and location of the site put forward at Braeside it is considered that it is not necessary to include it in the proposed allocation. The allocation is of sufficient size to accommodate the number of units proposed and can be accessed

49


and serviced. The inclusion of this additional area would not bring any direct benefits to the proposed allocations over those which exist at present. It would be for the owner to speak to the future developer of the site to investigate the potential to include it as part of the development. No modification is proposed to the Plan. West Green Park Residents (165): The comments raised by the West Green Park Residents are varied in number and scope. Whilst having concerns no request for the allocation to be removed from the Proposed Plan has been made. Many of the questions raised have been addressed through the Development Sites Assessment Document (CD38) and the Environmental Report (CD33). Many of the remaining points will need to be addressed by the future developer of the site as part of the planning application process. There will be the opportunity for residents to comment on the future detailed proposals for the site when they come forward. No modification is proposed to the Plan. H71(2): Linlathen, Arbroath Road Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): The policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to support housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Once development in the Western Gateway is progressing there will be the opportunity for additional greenfield land to be released in the second five year period of the Plan. It is considered that given the location of this site, with existing access, the western part of this site should be identified for housing release over the second five year period of the Proposed Plan. This provides early direction as to where future growth in the east should commence. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Roger Garbett (169): In line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) the priority of the Proposed Plan is the reuse of brownfield land within the existing urban area. This site is part of a range of greenfield sites identified to the north and east of the City for the second 5 year period of the Plan. This is to ensure that a range of housing choices is provided over the period of the Plan without undermining the investment to facilitate development at the Western Gateway. Progress on the release of housing land will be monitored through the Housing Land Audit (CD41) and the Proposed Action Programme (CD36). No modification is proposed to the Plan. Dennis J Young (166): Concerns raised are noted. A transport assessment will be required as part of any planning application to demonstrate that the proposed development can be accommodated without having a detrimental impact on the surrounding road network. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Nicola Gilray (167); Susan Kidd (168): The concerns raised in terms of the potential impact on drainage and flooding, traffic congestion, capacity of schools and public transport have been considered in principle in the assessment of the site. None of these present any issues that would prevent development of the site for housing in principle. A

50


more detailed assessment in relation to the actual scale and layout of any proposed housing development will be carried out in the consideration of any future planning application. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Hugh Begg (53): In line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) the priority of the Proposed Plan is the reuse of brownfield land within the existing urban area. This site is part of a range of greenfield sites identified to the north and east of the City for the second 5 year period of the Plan. This is to ensure that a range of housing choices is provided over the period of the Plan without undermining the investment to facilitate development at the Western Gateway. Progress on the release of housing land will be monitored through the Housing Land Audit (CD41) and the Proposed Action Programme (CD36). No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): It is accepted that the Proposed Plan has a crucial role to play in ensuring that unnecessary risks are avoided. This is set out in the Policies within Chapter 9 of the Proposed Plan. The point in question is an advisory footnote rather than a Policy. It is considered that the current wording proposed is sufficient to cover the matters of concern with regard to the housing allocations. The wording in the Proposed Plan was provided by SEPA in their pre-consultation response and was considered to be adequate to cover the concerns raised. It is inappropriate to include the suggested words “to inform the finalised site layout such that no development takes place within the 1:200 year flood plain.” This would be a policy statement rather than an advisory foot note. The suggested words “Where specific sites are found to be at significant risk of flooding, the predicted capacities noted above may not be achievable in full” are unnecessary as this would be established through the Flood Risk Assessment carried out for those sites already identified. The concerns regarding the proposed capacities at the following housing sites; H02 Railyards, H41 Central Waterfront and H55 Land at Barns of Claverhouse are noted. However, the Proposed Plan already identifies that these sites will require a Flood Risk Assessment. In conclusion it is considered that the wording is overly prescriptive for a footnote and that all these concerns would be addressed fully in any Flood Risk Assessment that is carried out. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) H03: South Tay Street Beam Orthodontics (65) 1. The car park in question is a formal pay and display. It is well landscaped and fits well into the general street scene. The change of use to housing would however fit well into the urban landscape, providing an opportunity to design a high quality streetscape. The planning authority considers there is adequate alternative parking in the area, and I have no firm evidence to contradict this. No modification is required.

51


H04: Marketgait/South Tay Street Violet Carr (66) 2. This site is within the area covered by the Tay Street Lane planning brief (CD76), and covers the northern part of that site. Housing development here would build on recent improvements in the area that appear from my site inspection to have attracted significant investment. Although the overall uses in the area are mixed residential and commercial there is a strong residential emphasis. 3. The planning brief provides urban design guidance, and I see no reason why the concerns outlined cannot be properly addressed when a planning application is considered. There is an opportunity for a high quality development that will contribute to the physical and social fabric of the area. No modification is needed. H06: Roseangle, Peterson House Law Property Group (67) 4. This representation states simply that it does not want the proposed 10 homes on site HO6 to go ahead. It does not provide any justification on which I can base any consideration of the issue. The site is effectively infill within a predominantly residential area, and I find no justification for any modification. H13: Monifieth Road, Armitstead H & H Properties Ltd (Armitstead) (23); David Brown (69) 5. Differences between the proposed plan and the development sites assessment document have been explained by the planning authority. This could be a tricky site to develop in terms of the design challenges incorporating new development alongside the conversion of Armitstead House into flats or town houses. The need for a significant amount of enabling development to support this is understood. The planning authority has proposed a figure of 10 houses for the whole site, and I believe it is better to err on the side of caution as to what could be achieved on the site at this stage. The change to a higher figure may turn out to be impracticable when designs are considered in detail. I am satisfied that when detailed plans are prepared, if higher numbers are otherwise justified and supported by good design, this could be taken account of at the planning application stage. No modification is needed. H19: Princes Street Phase 2 W Baikie (70) 6. From my site inspection it is not immediately apparent that this site is brownfield land. It is laid out under grass with trees along some of the edges. Visually it is an attractive open area alongside a main route into Dundee. 7. That said it appears to have been sensible to use short term landscaping as a way of utilising a brownfield site until ready for subsequent use. The site slopes down to the south, away from houses on the north side of Princes Street, and the issues raised in the

52


representation can be addressed during design and should not cause any problems. In any case these would be addressed when a planning application is submitted. Views from existing houses would be affected somewhat, but there would still be visibility over the tops of any new houses. Residential amenity would not be affected compared to generally accepted levels within built up inner city areas. No modification is needed. H21: 224/232 Hilltown Thomas Mitchell (71) 8. This representation is supportive of the development and merely wishes to ensure adequate parking arrangements are provided when development goes ahead. As the planning authority points out this is provided for in the proposed plan through the requirements set out in Policy 8 and Appendix 3. No modification is needed. H23: Stewarts Lane/Liff Road The Trustees of Wellburn Home (72) 9. This representation is also supportive. It relates to site conditions, notably underground water courses. I agree with the planning authority that these should be dealt with during site investigations, and that any method of dealing with them would be considered when a planning application is submitted. There is no need for any further reference in the proposed plan, so no modification is needed. H25: Angus Street Miss Wagner (73); Arthur Harkins (74); Derek Kelly (75); Katrina Mowinski (76); Christina Gordon (77); Alan Costello (78); June Costello (79); Phyllis Nicoll (80); Roderick Dewar (81) 10. I note that the proposed housing use of this site is well established through the Lochee Physical Regeneration Framework (CD43). It is currently predominantly under grass and is effectively an infill site within the wider urban framework. Whilst the concerns expressed are understood there is no reason why these cannot be addressed when detailed plans for the site are considered, and a planning application brought forward. The proposed eight houses is modest and unlikely to cause significant problems. As far as the newsagents shop, on the south side of Liff Road opposite the site, is concerned I would have thought it likely it would benefit from any new housing on the site. No modification is needed. H28: Former Downfield Primary School (Annexe) East School Road Elizabeth Kane (82) 11. Again this representation is supportive. I accept the planning authority’s view that updating the site brief can be carried out when the proposed plan is adopted. This does not need any reference in the plan and no modification is needed.

53


H33: Site 5 Whitfield Sebastiana Bruno (83) 12. I noted at my site inspection there is considerable open ground in this area, but it does not all form part of formal provision and does not always sit well with existing development. I see from the council that housing on the proposed site is established through the Whitfield Planning Framework (CD46) and forms part of the wider regeneration of the area. As these proposals include the provision of green space and landscaping I am satisfied that no further reference is needed in the proposed plan. No modification is needed. H34: Site 6 Whitfield Sian Roberts (84) 13. As above I noted at my site inspection there is considerable open ground in this area, but it does not all form part of formal provision and does not always sit well with existing development, although in this respect site H34 is larger and more visually and physically cohesive than some others. Despite this, I see from the council that housing on the proposed site is established through the Whitfield Planning Framework (CD46) and would form part of the wider regeneration of the area. As these proposals include the provision of green space and landscaping, and that these will provide a sound framework for the future development of the area, I am satisfied that no further reference is needed in the proposed plan. Therefore no modification is needed. H39: Maxwelltown Multis H & M Properties (85); M Ahmad (86); Munsif Ali Mohammed (87) 14. This is another proposed housing area that is subject to designation within a Physical Regeneration Framework, in this case Hilltown (CD45). This recognises the importance of car parking within the area, and provision for local businesses. This would be addressed when detailed plans are drawn up, and I do not consider the concerns justify redrawing the designation boundary. No modification is needed. H42: Former Mossgiel Primary School Phase 2 Ed Hunt (88); Martin Will (89) 15. These representations express justified concerns about flooding that has its origins outside the development site. From later submissions this appears to be related, at least in part, to the capacity of the existing off-site drainage system. From my site inspection, the first part of the proposed development of the wider former school site has been carried out in a satisfactory manner. I note the planning authority says flood measures were incorporated. I see no reason why this should not be the case on the rest of the site. 16. There are clearly issues here that must be resolved. Part of the problem seems to be a lack of confidence in relevant authorities, but this does not justify removal of the site from the proposed plan. Clearly work is required by the planning authority, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and others when detailed plans are prepared and the development brought forward, but this does not affect the proposed plan. No modification is required.

54


H43: Land at Earn Crescent James Whitton (90) 17. This is a large site with a capacity for some 70 houses. I note that a site brief will be prepared for this that will consider the overall layout and need for access links within the area. There will be an opportunity for public comment at that time. There is no need for reference to this in the proposed plan, and no modification is necessary. H48: Land at Dens Road William Soutar (91) 18. This representation concerns the large chimney on land adjacent to the site. I agree with the planning authority that it does not affect the suitability of the site, and that concerns should be addressed through channels other than the proposed plan. No modification is needed. H60: Lochee Primary School and H65: Charleston Primary School Frederick McCabe (159); Kieron Brown (162) 19. Both these representations concern private houses which are former janitor’s residencies, that have been incorporated into the proposed sites inadvertently. Whilst the planning authority says this does not affect the deliverability of the plan, it would be happy for them to be removed. These would be sensible modifications that avoid any doubt on the part of the occupiers of those properties. H64: Parkview, Blackness Road Dr & Mrs James M Duncan (160); Mr & Mrs B Stuart (161) 20. Neither of these representations relate to the principle of the site’s designation for houses. Much of the site is already developed and it is likely that a planning brief would be required. This should include addressing the questions raised. I agree with the planning authority that these matters should be finalised when a planning application is made. From my site inspection I see no difficulties in addressing these matters. No modification is required. H68: Finavon Street Krzysztof Domeracki (163) 21. From my site inspection the size of this site is clear, and there is great scope at the design stage to address the issues raised. As the planning authority points out, the necessary standards are set out in appendix 3 of the proposed plan, and there is no need for any further reference. No modification is needed.

55


H69: Western Gateway, Liff (Phase 2) W D Harris (164) 22. The present land allocation has been reached through due planning process, with an assessment of potential sites and selection from those considered, in order to meet the housing land requirement. This does not include any land allocation at Braeside, and from my site inspection I have no reason to believe that it has any special benefits to warrant inclusion at this time. As the planning authority points out it is open for the owner to come forward when detailed development is being considered, with a view to bringing the site forward as windfall within the overall plan policies. No modification is needed. West Green Park Residents (165) 23. As the planning authority points out all the matters raised are ones that would normally be considered when a detailed planning application has been brought forward. I note that the strategic environmental assessment environmental report (CD33) has already considered some of these issues, and I find none that should be raised in the proposed plan. No modification is needed. H71(2): Linlathen, Arbroath Road Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 24. The main issues report is published to set out a range of possible options within the plan area and seek consultation responses. Whilst the planning authority may favour particular sites the whole point of consultations is to raise issues for further consideration. It is not unusual for sites to be removed or added after the main issues report consultation. This appears to have happened here. 25. In this case the site is scheduled for release after 2020. If expected schedules are maintained, a second Dundee Local development Plan should be adopted, or at least in the later stages of consideration, by then. This would present an opportunity to reassess any relevant matter at that time. I am not persuaded that any modification is necessary. Roger Garbett (169) 26. The proposed plan already contains a high proportion of brownfield sites compared to others, and these have some degree of priority. It would be unusual for such plans to contain no greenfield sites, and this fact in itself does not provide justification for its removal from the proposed plan. As pointed out above, there will be an opportunity for a reassessment when the next plan is prepared, before the anticipated time set out for development of the site. Dennis J Young (166) 27. This representation makes comments rather than seeking any modifications. I note the comment on housing capacity for the site. This is an indicative number. It is not unusual for developers to propose increased numbers and these could be argued for at the time a planning application comes forward. The plan allocation secures the principle of the site, and the capacity figures gives a base line around which actual numbers can be negotiated. No modification is required.

56


Nicola Gilray (167); Susan Kidd (168) 28. I note the planning authority’s comments that the issues raised are not ones of principle, but would normally be considered when a planning application is brought forward. I agree with this, and no modification is needed. Hugh Begg (53) 29. As pointed out above, Dundee already has a higher proportion of brownfield land allocated for housing than in most local development plans. Indeed many concerns expressed elsewhere suggest the proportion is too high, and that more greenfield land should be released. The greenfield sites allocated have been through a careful selection process and, it would be usual practice to have a range of such sites in different parts of the city. 30. TAYplan designates a strategic development area immediately west of the site, with good interlinking access. Such juxtaposition seems sensible at first sight. I do not have any evidence that provides me with justification for removing the site from the proposed plan. I find no need for any modification. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38) 31. I agree with the planning authority that the proposed footnote reads as a policy rather than a footnote. I note the Linlathen site is not one where the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has raised specific concerns. Where a footnote says a flood risk assessment will be required this should normally raise concerns that potential flooding should be taken into account, with an expectation that special measures should be required. When flood risk is an issue other policies and guidance elsewhere, such as Scottish Planning Policy paragraphs 199-211, come into play, and must be taken account of when any development is planned. The present footnote warning is adequate and no modification is needed. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modifications. 1. Site H60: Lochee Primary School: remove the former janitor’s house from within the designated area of the site. 2. Site H65: Charleston Primary School: remove the former janitor’s house from within the designated area of the site.

57


Issue 8 Housing Land Release – Proposed Housing Sites H55 and H56, Mill O’Mains


Appendix 2: Proposed Housing Sites: H55 and H56 Mill O’Mains (pages 75-77)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): David Calcraft (92) Steve Loftus (93) Dawn Kelly (94) Tracey Dagen (95) James Hogg (96) Denise Duffy (97) D & M Tidcombe (98) Inez Andrews (99) Raymond Knox (100) Ian & Georgia Torano (101) Robert & Katherine Anderson (102) Gillian Peters (103) Anne-Louise Cuneen (104) Dougie & Jacqueline Christie (105) Stephen Keir (106) Gillian Boland (107) Kyle Finnan (108) Maureen Dye (109) Colin Finnan (110) Charlene Aberdein (111) Euan Stewart (112) Pauline Hay (113) Gordon Hunter (114) Megan Hunter (115) Alison Hunter (116) Ellen Grant (117) Garry Gebrant (118) Neil Kennedy (119) Edith Anderson (120) Lynda Anderson (121) Kenneth Borland (122) Duncan McDonald (123) Joyce Peters (124) Brenda Cosgrove (125)

David Pitt (126) Steve Ross (127) Elizabeth & Michael Bryce (128) Isabel McCafferty (129) Kendal Bebbington (130) Kim Conacher (131) David & June Reid (132) Euan Cameron (133) Tracy Dolan (134) Gerald Dolan (135) Graeme Robertson (136) C McIntyre (137) Catriona Robertson (138) Arlene Coutts (139) Maureen Saunders (140) M Spark (141) J Bremner (142) Margaret Holt (143) Dorothy Campbell (144) Mill O'Mains Tenants’ & Residents’ Association (145) Harry Morrison (146) Caroline Canter (147) E Hall (148) Gillian Doak (149) Keith Hazle (150) Gordon & Lana Marron (151) Wilma Barbour (152) D Hewon (153) E Howel (154) M Godfrey (155) Jessie Morrison (156) J Campbell (157) Jean Donaldson (158)


Proposed Housing Sites: H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse Mill O’Mains H56: Land at Hebrides Drive Mill O’Mains

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77)

58


Proposed Housing Sites H55 and H56 Mill O’Mains H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse, Mill O’Mains David Calcraft (92): Against the inclusion of H55 as a site for housing for the following reasons; the site is within a designated wildlife corridor, development would be detrimental to the wildlife using the corridor, bats nest on the site, the ground is likely to be contaminated, site is within SEPA’s ‘at risk of flooding’ designation and buildings insurance is likely to be refused as a result, concern over public safety due to increase in cars, loss of open space provision. H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse and H56: Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O’Mains Steve Loftus (93): Against the inclusion of H55 and H56 for housing due to the resultant loss of green space and the loss of a football pitch which is well used and a vital resource for the community. Dawn Kelly (94); Tracey Dagen (95); James Hogg (96); Denise Duffy (97); D & M Tidcombe (98); Inez Andrews (99); Raymond Knox (100); Ian & Georgia Torano (101); Robert & Katherine Anderson (102); Gillian Peters (103); Anne-Louise Cuneen (104); Dougie & Jacqueline Christie (105); Stephen Keir (106); Gillian Boland (107); Kyle Finnan (108); Maureen Dye (109); Colin Finnan (110); Charlene Aberdein (111); Euan Stewart (112); Pauline Hay (113); Gordon Hunter (114); Megan Hunter (115); Alison Hunter (116); Ellen Grant (117); Garry Gebrant (118); Neil Kennedy (119); Edith Anderson (120); Lynda Anderson (121); Kenneth Borland (122); Duncan McDonald (123); Joyce Peters (124); Brenda Cosgrove (125); David Pitt (126); Steve Ross (127); Elizabeth & Michael Bryce (128); Isabel McCafferty (129); Kendal Bebbington (130); Kim Conacher (131); David & June Reid (132); Euan Cameron (133); Tracy Dolan (134); Gerald Dolan (135); Graeme Robertson (136); C McIntyre (137); Catriona Robertson (138); Arlene Coutts (139); Maureen Saunders (140); M Spark (141); J Bremner (142); Margaret Holt (143); Dorothy Campbell (144); Mill O'Mains Tenants & Residents’ Association (145); Harry Morrison (146); Caroline Canter (147); E Hall (148); Gillian Doak (149); Keith Hazle (150); Gordon & Lana Marron (151); Wilma Barbour (152): Concerns raised to the inclusion of H55 and H56 for housing for the following reasons; i) the sites are within a designated wildlife corridor and their development for housing would be detrimental to existing wildlife, ii) the loss of the local park to housing as it is well used for various activities by the local communities, iii) the loss of car parking, iv) the loss of trees, v) concern over stability/width of bridge, vi) the existing primary school is at full capacity and could not accommodate additional housing, vii) the land to be built on is potentially contaminated, viii) concern over location of the SUDS pond, ix) the development would increase traffic and concerns over public safety, x) the loss of open space would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of local communities, xi) there would be overlooking of boundaries and loss of privacy. H56: Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O’Mains D Hewon (153); E Howel (154); M Godfrey (155), Mill O'Mains Tenants & Residents’ Association (156); J Campbell (157); Jean Donaldson (158): Concerned with the inclusion of H56 for the following reasons; the site is within the Dighty Wildlife Corridor, would result in loss of open space, the site contains a well used community centre, the site is well used by a lot of football teams, site is possibly contaminated as previous landfill, loss of parkland and cycle path that a lot of people use to keep healthy, loss of bat habitats, on a

59


flood plain, against Council policy to protect Dighty Wildlife Corridor and local parks, loss of area used for health and wellbeing is against Government guidance. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Proposed Housing Sites H55 and H56 Mill O’Mains H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse, Mill O’Mains David Calcraft (92): Remove the housing allocation H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse from the plan. H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse and H56: Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O’Mains Steve Loftus (93): Remove the housing allocations H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse and H56: Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O’Mains from the plan. Dawn Kelly (94); Tracey Dagen (95); James Hogg (96); Denise Duffy (97); D & M Tidcombe (98); Inez Andrews (99); Raymond Knox (100); Ian & Georgia Torano (101); Robert & Katherine Anderson (102); Gillian Peters (103); Anne-Louise Cuneen (104); Dougie & Jacqueline Christie (105); Stephen Keir (106); Gillian Boland (107); Kyle Finnan (108); Maureen Dye (109); Colin Finnan (110); Charlene Aberdein (111); Euan Stewart (112); Pauline Hay (113); Gordon Hunter (114); Megan Hunter (115); Alison Hunter (116); Ellen Grant (117); Garry Gebrant (118); Neil Kennedy (119); Edith Anderson (120); Lynda Anderson (121); Kenneth Borland (122); Duncan McDonald (123); Joyce Peters (124); Brenda Cosgrove (125); David Pitt (126); Steve Ross (127); Elizabeth & Michael Bryce (128); Isabel McCafferty (129); Kendal Bebbington (130); Kim Conacher (131); David & June Reid (132); Euan Cameron (133); Tracy Dolan (134); Gerald Dolan (135); Graeme Robertson (136); C McIntyre (137); Catriona Robertson (138); Arlene Coutts (139); Maureen Saunders (140); M Spark (141); J Bremner (142); Margaret Holt (143); Dorothy Campbell (144); Mill O'Mains Tenants and Residents Association (145); Harry Morrison (146); Caroline Canter (147); E Hall (148); Gillian Doak (149); Keith Hazle (150); Gordon & Lana Marron (151); Wilma Barbour (152): Remove the housing allocations H55: Land at Barns of Claverhouse and H56: Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O’Mains from the plan. H56: Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O’Mains D Hewon (153); E Howel (154); M Godfrey (155); Mill O'Mains Tenants & Residents’ Association (156); J Campbell (157); Jean Donaldson (158): Remove the housing allocation H56: Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O’Mains from the plan. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Proposed Housing Sites H55 and H56 Mill O’Mains David Calcraft (92); Steve Loftus (93); Dawn Kelly (94); Tracey Dagen (95); James Hogg (96); Denise Duffy (97); D & M Tidcombe (98); Inez Andrews (99); Raymond Knox (100); Ian & Georgia Torano (101); Robert & Katherine Anderson (102); Gillian Peters (103);

60


Anne-Louise Cuneen (104); Dougie & Jacqueline Christie (105); Stephen Keir (106); Gillian Boland (107); Kyle Finnan (108); Maureen Dye (109); Colin Finnan (110); Charlene Aberdein (111); Euan Stewart (112); Pauline Hay (113); Gordon Hunter (114); Megan Hunter (115); Alison Hunter (116); Ellen Grant (117); Garry Gebrant (118); Neil Kennedy (119); Edith Anderson (120); Lynda Anderson (121); Kenneth Borland (122); Duncan McDonald (123); Joyce Peters (124); Brenda Cosgrove (125); David Pitt (126); Steve Ross (127); Elizabeth & Michael Bryce (128); Isabel McCafferty (129); Kendal Bebbington (130); Kim Conacher (131); David & June Reid (132); Euan Cameron (133); Tracy Dolan (134); Gerald Dolan (135); Graeme Robertson (136); C McIntyre (137); Catriona Robertson (138); Arlene Coutts (139); Maureen Saunders (140); M Spark (141); J Bremner (142); Margaret Holt (143); Dorothy Campbell (144); Mill O'Mains Tenants’ & Residents’ Association (145); Harry Morrison (146); Caroline Canter (147); E Hall (148); Gillian Doak (149); Keith Hazle (150); Gordon & Lana Marron (151); Wilma Barbour (152); D Hewon (153); E Howel (154); M Godfrey (155); Mill O'Mains Tenants’ & Residents’ Association (156); J Campbell (157); Jean Donaldson (158): Sites H55 Land at Barns of Claverhouse and H56 Land at Hebrides Drive, Mill O Mains area contained within the Mill O’Mains Masterplan (CD60). The Masterplan produced by HTA on behalf of Home Scotland was adopted in 2009 as supplementary planning guidance to the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005. It was also approved by the Council as a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications. In preparing the Masterplan as supplementary planning guidance, extensive public consultation was undertaken by both Home Scotland and the Council. Similar concerns to those being raised currently were raised to these sites during that consultation process. Amendments to the Masterplan were made by Home Scotland in response to the some of the concerns raised. In addition, it was concluded that the remaining concerns were not significant enough to warrant exclusion of this site from the Masterplan. It was also recognised that in order to achieve the benefits proposed in the Masterplan for the area the development of a limited amount of housing on areas currently identified as open space would be necessary. The regeneration of Mill O’Mains is now well underway with phase 1 complete and phase 2 underway. Phase 3 is programmed to come forward for planning permission later this year. Home Scotland (59) indicated in their comments on the Proposed Plan that they remain committed to the regeneration of Mill O'Mains and support the development of sites H55 and H56. They also stated that housing provision on these sites can be successfully provided along with the football pitch being retained. The Mill O’Mains Masterplan (CD60) includes the retention of the football pitch at this location as part of the regeneration proposals. The other detailed matters raised regarding sites H55 and H56 which, were addressed in the preparation of the Masterplan, are commented on as follows. Site H55 is adjacent to the Wildlife Corridor and whilst the development of the site would result in the loss of a strip of the corridor along its northern edge it is considered that it would not reduce the extent of the corridor at this location to undermine the integrity of the corridor as a whole. Mitigation measures would be put in place to address any concerns about the proximity of the Wildlife Corridor at the detailed planning application stage. The appraisal of the site in the Development Sites Assessment Document (CD38) stated that whilst there would be loss of open space as result of both these developments it is considered that a satisfactory level of open space provision would remain and this provision could be improved. It is considered that the surrounding road network can accommodate the development and that traffic calming measures would be put in place to mitigate any increase in traffic as result of the new development. In addition, it is considered that the detailed issues including regarding stability/width of bridge, contaminated land, siting of SUDS pond, 'rat run'/shortcuts and, overlooking of boundaries would be considered and addressed through the consideration of planning applications for each of these sites.

61


The development of H55 brings with it the potential opportunity to provide a road link between Barns of Claverhouse and Hebrides Drive. This link would be particularly beneficial in terms of public transport movements for residents in the immediate and wider areas. This potential is highlighted in the approved Mill O’Mains Master Plan (CD60). The need for further investigation to establish the potential suitability of this link route is stated and will form part of the later phases of the development. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Proposed Housing Sites H55 and H56 Mill O’Mains David Calcraft (92); Steve Loftus (93); Dawn Kelly (94); Tracey Dagen (95); James Hogg (96); Denise Duffy (97); D & M Tidcombe (98); Inez Andrews (99); Raymond Knox (100); Ian & Georgia Torano (101); Robert & Katherine Anderson (102); Gillian Peters (103); Anne-Louise Cuneen (104); Dougie & Jacqueline Christie (105); Stephen Keir (106); Gillian Boland (107); Kyle Finnan (108); Maureen Dye (109); Colin Finnan (110); Charlene Aberdein (111); Euan Stewart (112); Pauline Hay (113); Gordon Hunter (114); Megan Hunter (115); Alison Hunter (116); Ellen Grant (117); Garry Gebrant (118); Neil Kennedy (119); Edith Anderson (120); Lynda Anderson (121); Kenneth Borland (122); Duncan McDonald (123); Joyce Peters (124); Brenda Cosgrove (125); David Pitt (126); Steve Ross (127); Elizabeth & Michael Bryce (128); Isabel McCafferty (129); Kendal Bebbington (130); Kim Conacher (131); David & June Reid (132); Euan Cameron (133); Tracy Dolan (134); Gerald Dolan (135); Graeme Robertson (136); C McIntyre (137); Catriona Robertson (138); Arlene Coutts (139); Maureen Saunders (140); M Spark (141); J Bremner (142); Margaret Holt (143); Dorothy Campbell (144); Mill O'Mains Tenants’ & Residents’ Association (145); Harry Morrison (146); Caroline Canter (147); E Hall (148); Gillian Doak (149); Keith Hazle (150); Gordon & Lana Marron (151); Wilma Barbour (152); D Hewon (153); E Howel (154); M Godfrey (155); Mill O'Mains Tenants’ & Residents’ Association (156); J Campbell (157); Jean Donaldson (158): 1. The concerns expressed in representations about the potential loss of green space are entirely understandable. At first sight, without knowledge of the background to these proposals, they appear a sensible reaction to proposals that will result in the loss of some green space. 2. The planning authority has however explained at length above the background to the project, and produced relevant plans as core documents. These explain the logic behind the proposals for the two sites. 3. I note particularly that the wider area of Mill O’Mains, including land at Barns of Claverhouse, was subject to a master planning exercise resulting in the publication of the Mill O’Mains Community Regeneration Masterplan in October 2008. This was subsequently revised in May 2009. It was then adopted as supplementary planning guidance to the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005. It therefore has its basis in the statutory development as far back as that date. Although the masterplan itself would then have been non-statutory it was approved by the planning authority as a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications.

62


4. Moreover, it is clear from my site inspections that a large amount of regeneration work has already been carried out, including much new housing development, which appears, visually at least, to have had a dramatic effect on the character of the Mill O’Mains area. It is having the effect of changing the area from one considered unsafe and suffering from stigma, to quote the master plan, to one considered a desirable place to live within Dundee. I am satisfied this demonstrates that the masterplan is an effective blueprint for transforming the area. 5. I have studied the masterplan (CD60) carefully. I note that the overall proposal drawing on page 14 includes both Sites H55 and H56, although not labelled as such at that time. H55 is located on part of the open space that includes the football pitch. H56 includes a block of dilapidated looking flats that would have to be demolished to make way for new housing, in accordance with the masterplan. 6. In looking at the Development Sites Assessment Document (CD38) I had concerns that the boundary shown for Site H56 at Hebrides Drive differs from that eventually shown in the proposed plan. In response to a further information request the planning authority has confirmed that the latter shows the correct boundary, and that no sports facilities will be affected by the proposal. The only open space affected will therefore be a small area of maintained grass around the rear of the existing flats. Similarly the football pitch on Site H55 could be adjusted so that it is retained for public use as at present. 7. The masterplan shows a potential housing layout for both areas, and also refers to the opportunity for opening a transport link between the two sites, with benefits especially for public transport. Both the layout and any such road improvements would be a matter for any subsequent detailed planning application, and as such are not for my consideration here. 8. The planning authority also notes that the substance of the representations against the inclusion of the two sites is similar to that of those made during the preparation of the masterplan. The planning authority says that serious consideration was given to the issues raised at that time. It concluded that although there would be some loss of green space, and what it describes as a minor incursion into the green corridor, mitigation would ensure no undue adverse effect on wildlife. I have no reason to doubt this, and am satisfied that it could be effective. 9. I have considered all these matters carefully. Given the planning background to the area, the fact the sites are well established in the masterplan adopted as supplementary planning guidance, and the obvious success of the masterplan in bringing about the regeneration of the area, I am not persuaded there is merit in deleting them from the proposed plan. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

63


Issue 9 Additional Housing Sites


Appendix 2: Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Additional Housing Sites


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)* Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14) VICO Properties Ltd (16) Balmossie Developments Limited (25) Taylor Wimpey (48) Tony Thomas (57) Stewart Milne Homes (58) Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46) David Marwick (2) W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd (4) Bruce R Linton Properties (6) Inverarity Farms (3) (*H&H Properties have made two representations on separate sites via different agents and so have two representation numbered 13 and 23) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Appendix 2: Proposed Housing Sites (Pages 75-77) Additional Housing Sites

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Additional Sites H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)*: If Dundee Council is intent on supporting growth, supporting an economic recovery and in particular new housing within its administrative area it must allocate additional land in locations where development has been successful in the most recent past- greenfield land on the eastern side of Dundee. Land at North Grange would be an ideal candidate site. Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): There is an unreasonable over-reliance on brownfield sites (compounded by the inclusion of 20% of the housing land supply as windfall), and particularly Council owned brownfield sites where there is no evidence of their effectiveness as required by PAN 2/2010 (CD16).- There is insufficient effective greenfield land identification for the plan period.- Additional greenfield land requires to be identified to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility and choice.- Land at South Auchray is suitable and appropriate for development. VICO Properties Ltd (16): There is an unreasonable over-reliance on brownfield sites (compounded by the inclusion of 20% of the housing land supply as windfall), and particularly Council owned brownfield sites where there is no evidence of their

64


effectiveness as required by PAN 2/2010 (CD16).- There is insufficient effective greenfield land identification for the plan period.- Additional greenfield land requires to be identified to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility and choice.- Land at Camperdown West is suitable and appropriate for residential development. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): A well planned residential extension to the existing Balmossie Village environment can be accommodated and will enhance the recent settlement and its overall appearance with minimal disruption whilst, creating a more appropriate urban edge and expanding the local green infrastructure. There are no prohibitive landscape designations and the proposed development will have no adverse landscape impact. It is considered that this is a better and more deliverable option than that proposed by housing allocation H71(2) Taylor Wimpey (48): The housing land allocations identified within Appendix 2 are over-reliant upon brownfield land and, in particular, Council owned brownfield land. The limited greenfield land releases are either non effective or their delivery is predominantly anticipated as commencing in the second phase of the plan at the earliest. To ensure choice as required by Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and to afford the best opportunity of securing the build rates set out within TAYplan SDP (CD25), land which is of a scale that does not undermine the TAYplan SDP (CD25) spatial strategy or the key principles set out within the Proposed Plan must be identified and included for residential purposes. The land at Strathyre Avenue, Balgillo is well placed to deliver a modest number of family sized homes within the first part of the Proposed Plan period. Tony Thomas (57): Strongly contend that the current housing land supply assumptions and allocations are insufficient to enable Dundee to meet its housing demand over the life cycle of the Local Development Plan. These concerns are centred on the deliverability and genuine effectiveness of many of the currently preferred sites in the spatial strategy. The site proposed at North Grange is effective, deliverable, attractive and under option to a well known local developer. If allocated, this site can deliver homes in the immediate plan period and relieve pressure at other more complex locations and bring a number of economic benefits to the immediate area and Dundee as a whole. Stewart Milne Homes (58): Rather than an over reliance on brownfield land, an integrated approach to land use allocations and policies is therefore required in this emerging Proposed Plan in order to meet the objectives of sustainable economic development. This can be achieved by reinforcing the existing settlement pattern in a sustainable way through further appropriate greenfield release. This approach can be realised at the opportunity at Village V, Ballumbie Road. In addition, the proposal at Ballumbie Golf and Housing would also fund the improvements to the associated Golf Course. Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46): The Pitkerro House site has been continued as 'open countryside' and not included as a housing site as originally sought. Its inclusion as a housing site within the plan period is now sought with entry in Appendix 2 and on the Proposals Map. With a commitment from the landowner and house builder interest, development can take place in the short term in response to the city's needs. The case for the site is founded on a) its ability to provide choice within the Dundee Housing Market area, b) its own credentials as a housing site in a mature landscaped setting with access to all facilities and, c) the shortage of fully effective housing within the city, acknowledging the immediate shortfall in delivery from the Dundee Western Gateway and the unviability of much of the established brownfield supply.

65


David Marwick (2): Residential use at the Clepington Road site would make effective use of a brownfield site within a predominantly residential urban area, utilising existing infrastructure, with direct access to Clepington Road and the surrounding public transport network. Regarding alternative uses, it would also be appropriate to consider retail at this location. Our client believes either small scale retail units and/or a small scale food store serving local needs would be appropriate. W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd (4): In requesting a site specific land allocation at Pitkerro Mill we are looking to provide comfort to potential developers that the principle will be supported by the Council as Planning Authority, and the only difference from the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 position would be the exclusion of Drumsturdy Pond from the allocation - to ensure any future planning permission can be delivered. Bruce R Linton Properties (6): Support the statement in Policy 8 that “Housing land release on brownfield sites, in addition to the allocations set out in Appendix 2, may be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it will improve the tenure mix in an area where existing choice is limited and would make a positive contribution to the regeneration objectives of the area.” However the site at Mid Craigie Road should be allocated in the Proposed Plan for residential development and the site should be identified in Appendix 2. This would provide further certainty on the location and direction of growth, which is a stated national policy objective for development planning within Scottish Planning Policy (CD10). Inverarity Farms (3): Fully committed to the development of the South Gray Village site but considers that the area to the west of the proposed South Gray Village would be suitable for residential development. The development of these sites would contribute to the retention of Dundee's population over the plan period and into the longer term. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Additional Sites H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)*: In Appendix 2 under Greenfield Sites North Grange should be included as an allocation for 289 units and termed H72 Tony Thomas (57): That the site at North Grange Farm be added as an additional greenfield site for the first 5 year period of the Plan with a capacity of between 275-300. This would be phased with 125 units in the first 5 years and the remainder in the second 5 year period. Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): Introduction of land at South Auchray in addition/replacement of the sites identified within Appendix 2 - capacity of 275 residential units VICO Properties Ltd (16): Introduction of land at Camperdown West in addition/replacement of the sites identified within Appendix 2 - capacity of 90 residential units. Balmossie Developments Limited (25): i) That the proposed housing site H71(2) Linlathen, Arbroath Road be deleted from the Dundee Local Development Plan. ii) That the strategic

66


development opportunity at Balmossie be recognised as a proposed housing allocation for approximately 100 houses in the Dundee Local Development Plan. iii) That the proposed Balmossie housing allocation be identified for release in the first 5 year period, i.e. 2014–2019; or iv) If there is found to be no immediate strategic requirement, the proposed Balmossie allocation be identified for release in the second 5-year period, i.e. 2020-2024; or v) If not required in either the first or second 5-year period, the proposed Balmossie allocation is recognised as a preferred direction for growth for further LDP review or as a ‘draw down’ site should the need arise. Taylor Wimpey (48): That the land at Strathyre Drive, Balgillo should allocated for 26 units and be included in Appendix 2 in addition/replacement of the existing sites. Stewart Milne Homes (58): That opportunity at Village V Ballumbie Road be recognised as a proposed housing allocation for approximately 55 houses and the opportunity at Ballumbie Golf and Housing site be allocated for 50 houses. Also that i) the proposed housing allocations be identified for release in the first 5 year period, i.e. 2014 – 2019; or ii) If there is found to be no immediate strategic requirement, the proposed housing allocations be identified for release in the second 5-year period, i.e. 2020-2024; or iii) If not required in either the first or second 5-year period, the proposed allocations are recognised as a preferred directions for growth for further LDP review or as ‘draw down’ sites should the need arise. Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46): That the entire 14.5 hectare site at Pitkerro House be allocated for housing and included in Appendix 2 for development within the period of the plan. David Marwick (2): The site at 119 Clepington Road be allocated within the Local Development Plan for residential and/or an alternative use. W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd (4): Request that land to west of Pitkerro Mill is included in Appendix 2 and allocated as a residential housing site. Bruce R Linton Properties (6): The land at the former Stewart's Cream of the Barley site at Mid Craigie Road, Dundee, should be allocated in the Local Development Plan for residential development (65 houses) and identified in Appendix 2. Inverarity Farms (3): It is considered that by allocating the additional area to the west of South Gray Village, (HP01 in Appendix 2) an effective supply of land for housing and good quality mixed housing can be provided. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Additional Sites H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13)*; Tony Thomas (57): The policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites and bring forward housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Other greenfield sites that could come forward once the Western Gateway has progressed in the second five year period of the Plan have been identified. This site given its location is not supported by the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site continues to be

67


allocated as Open Countryside. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): The policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites and bring forward housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Other greenfield sites that could come forward once the Western Gateway has progressed in the second five year period of the Plan have been identified. This site at South Auchray given its location is not supported by the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site continues to be allocated as Open Countryside. No modification is proposed to the Plan. VICO Properties Ltd (16): The policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites and bring forward housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Other greenfield sites that could come forward once the Western Gateway has progressed in the second five year period of the Plan have been identified. This site to the west of Camperdown is located on a greenfield site and it is considered that it is not a priority location for meeting the identified housing land requirements. In addition, given its location it could undermine the progress of the sites at the Western Gateway. It is recommended that this site is not allocated in the Proposed Plan for housing development. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): The policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites and bring forward housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Other greenfield sites that could come forward once the Western Gateway has progressed in the second five year period of the Plan have been identified. This site at Balmossie Village given its location is not supported by the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site continues to be allocated as Open Countryside. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Taylor Wimpey (48): The policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites and bring forward housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Other greenfield sites that could come forward once the Western Gateway has progressed in the second five year period of the Plan have been identified. This site given its location is not supported by the Proposed Plan. In relation to the allocation of land at Strathyre Drive the development of this site could potentially provide a small scale extension to the existing site immediately to the west. However, with priority to be given to the Western Gateway it is considered that it is not necessary to allocate it in the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site continues to be allocated as Open Countryside. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Stewart Milne Homes (58): In relation to the requested housing allocations at Ballumbie Road for 55 houses and Ballumbie Golf and housing site for 50 houses the policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites and

68


bring forward housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Other greenfield sites that could come forward once the Western Gateway has progressed in the second five year period of the Plan have been identified. These sites at Ballumbie Road and Ballumbie Golf course given their locations are not supported by the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site continues to be allocated as Open Countryside. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Linlathen Developments (Tayside) Ltd (46): The policy approach of the Proposed Plan is to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites and bring forward housing development at the Western Gateway over the first five year period of the Plan. Other greenfield sites that could come forward once the Western Gateway has progressed in the second five year period of the Plan have been identified. This site at Pitkerro House given its location is not supported by the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site continues to be allocated as Open Countryside. No modification is proposed to the Plan. David Marwick (2): In line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) the Proposed Plan gives priority to the reuse of brownfield land within the existing urban area and focuses the limited greenfield land release to the Strategic Development Area (CD25) at the Western Gateway. To ensure the strategy is delivered, the supply of brownfield housing land will be carefully managed to ensure new development is targeted to maximise benefit. 119 Clepington Road currently operates as a small scale retail/trade park. It does not benefit from any allocation within the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). It is considered that this location is not a priority for new residential development with a large scale site for over 100 houses approved immediately to the east. In addition, it is not proposed to include this location within the retail hierarchy of the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site should not be allocated for any specific purpose in the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd (4): This site already has the benefit of planning permission (06/00892/FUL (CD52) approved in January 2008. Planning application 13/00026/FUL (CD53) for extension of time to the previous approval is currently under consideration. It is not considered necessary to include this site as an allocation in the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Bruce R Linton Properties (6): The support for Policy 8 is welcomed. The Stewart's Cream of the Barley site is currently allocated as a General Economic Development area in the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). Given its proximity to the Port of Dundee and connections to the trunk road network it is considered that it could have a role to play in supporting businesses in connection with the development of the renewable sector. The proposal to allocate the site for residential development would not accord with the policy approach for housing development set out in the Proposed Plan. It is recommended that this site continues to be allocated for employment purposes (Classes 4, 5 and 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997) (CD07). No modification is proposed to the Plan.

69


Inverarity Farms (3): It is considered that sufficient land has been allocated at the Western Gateway to deliver the requirements set out in the TAYplan Strategic Development Area (Western Gateway) (CD25). The infrastructure improvements both already carried out and designed for future provision do not take in to account this additional site. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Appendix 2 Proposed Housing Sites (pages 75-77) Additional Sites H & H Properties Ltd (North Grange) (13); Tony Thomas (57): 1. TAYplan strategic development plan sets the overall pattern of development for Dundee, with emphasis on the Western Gateway, Riverside and, on the east side of the city, Linlathen. This is reflected on the proposed local development plan, which must comply with the strategic plan. 2. I have considered wider matters of housing land release under Issue 5, including brownfield release and windfall sites. I have found the overall land supply proposals to be satisfactory. 3. The first stages of development on greenfield land focus on the Western Gateway, where allocations for 600 housing units either have planning permission, subject to completing Section 75 obligations, or are programmed for the first phase of the plan. This is supported by potential further development on greenfield sites within the built up area. 4. Whilst I acknowledge the site at North Grange is suitable for development, taken in isolation, and could be delivered, it is located on the eastern extremity of Dundee, unrelated to any other development within the city. The site is two kilometres farther east than the proposed development sites at Linlathen, which accord with TAYplan. It has a loose relationship with the Angus Gateway commercial development across the district boundary, but no other justification. If further sites were required on the eastern side a more logical development pattern would be to concentrate on expanding existing development more closely related to the main urban area. I find no justification for modifying the proposed plan. Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): 5. I have considered matters relating to housing land release under Issue 5, as stated above. These found that I was content with the overall land supply figures, including the extensive use of brownfield land and of windfall sites. 6. My response above also shows the proposed pattern of development at the Western Gateway, particularly with regard to the first period of the plan to 2020. Thereafter greenfield applications come into play at Linlathen to the east of the city, and at Baldragon Farm, to the east of Clatto Country Park and within the wider vicinity of South Auchray, the subject of this representation. 7. I have found no established likelihood of a housing land shortfall in the first period of

70


the plan, and find no justification for additional site allocation at this stage. The planning authority has indicated elsewhere (see Issue 5) a degree of flexibility should a shortfall occur. If that should be the case it would be open to a developer to bring forward a planning application for South Auchray to fill any potential shortfall, in accordance with wider plan policies. I find no need for any modification. VICO Properties Ltd (16): 8. I have outlined above the position I have taken in relation to the housing land supply and lack of justification for further housing land releases. The proposed site referred to in this representation is part of land allocated as a leisure park under proposed Policy 5. It sits at the eastern end of Camperdown Park and appears to be land formerly used as a recreation ground and now largely under open grass. To the east lie recreation and commercial uses including a cinema complex and hotel. 9. For the reasons set out above in relation to other representations I find no justification for further land release at this time, and no need for any modification. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): 10. I have outlined above the position I have taken in relation to the housing land supply and lack of justification for further housing land releases. I accept that this particular site would relate well to existing development at Balmossie, albeit that it is somewhat isolated from the main development of the city at its eastern edge. 11. I have found no convincing arguments as to why it should be preferred to site H71(2), allocated for development during the second plan period 2020-2024. That site is adjacent to the TAYplan designated strategic development area, with good access between the two. 12. For the reasons set out above I find no justification for any modification. Taylor Wimpey (48): 13. I have outlined above the position I have taken in relation to the housing land supply and lack of justification for further housing land releases. I accept, however, that this particular site would relate well to existing development at Strathyre Avenue, rounding this off and providing a firm edge to any development. An allocation for 26 houses would also have minimal impact on the housing land supply figures. 14. The principal argument against development at the eastern side of the city at this time is possible prejudice to development at the Western Gateway. However, of all the proposed sites put forward on the eastern edge of the city, apart from being small in scale, this is the most logical in terms of its relationship to existing development, and its reasonable proximity and access to the Linlathen strategic development area. This was emphasised by my observations at my site inspections. The fact it would also round off the Strathyre Avenue development, is acknowledged by the council. 15. Exceptionally, therefore, and to provide a small element of choice without prejudicing the Western Gateway development, I find the allocation of the site at the eastern end of Strathyre Avenue for 26 houses to be justified. The proposed plan should be modified accordingly.

71


Stewart Milne Homes (58): 16. I have outlined above the position I have taken in relation to the housing land supply and lack of justification for further housing land releases. This does not need repeating here. The proposed sites at Ballumbie would provide 105 houses, and this would be of a scale that could potentially prejudice other greenfield release at this time. The need to fund improvements at Ballumbie golf course does not provide any justification. 17. I note the representation seeks longer term allocation in the event of the sites not being allocated in the first two periods of the plan. However there will be subsequent reviews of the plan well before that period, and that would be the time to reconsider such allocations, if there is a justification for such further housing land release. At present there is no need for any modification. David Marwick (2): 18. From my site inspection I found this proposed site to be currently operating as a small scale retail and trading site, appearing to provide a valuable service to the general public and business. In the event there should be a future change in circumstances it would be open to a developer to come forward with proposals for a change of use within the general policies of the plan. At the present time I have found no justification for any modification. W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd (4): 19. This proposed site is allocated in the existing adopted local plan review as site H68A. I note it has planning permission for development, and that this is now being considered for renewal. It is a small site, and its continuing allocation will not be prejudicial to housing delivery elsewhere. My site inspection showed it to be a logical site for development. As it has planning permission I see no sound reason for its exclusion from the proposed plan. The plan should be modified as requested, excluding Drumsturdy Pond, which should be open space. Bruce R Linton Properties (6): 20. The site referred to here is a large commercial site, formerly in use for Stuart’s Cream of the Barley whisky. Apart from the relative proximity to the Eastern Cemetery it is a primarily commercial area. I note the planning authority’s wish to keep it allocated for employment purposes. Any development for housing would be for a relatively high number of units, which could prejudice allocations elsewhere. However, with the emphasis on new industrial development, particularly related to energy, I find no substantiated arguments for changing the employment use. No modification is required. Inverarity Farms (3): 21. This representation seeks to develop land in addition to that already allocated and granted planning permission at the Western Gateway. Existing sites with planning permission already provide for 500 houses, with a further 100 allocated at site H69 nearby. The planning authority notes that the recent infrastructure provision, seen at my site inspection, does not provide for the substantially increased area of land.

72


22. No satisfactory justification has been provided for this increased area, and I am not persuaded that any modification is necessary. Reporter’s recommendations: The following recommendations: 1. Designate land at the eastern end of Strathyre Avenue for 26 houses, as indicated in the plans attached to representation 48. 2. Designate site H68A of the Adopted Local Plan Review for housing, but excluding Drumsturdy Pond. The exact site boundaries to take into account the existing planning permission 06/00892/FUL, as approved under appeal reference P/PPA/180/217, excluding the pond.

73


Issue 10 Design of New Housing


Policy 9: Design of New Housing (para.7.8 -7.10) Appendix 3: Design of New Housing (pages 78-80)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Balmossie Developments Ltd (25) Stewart Milne Homes (58) Homes for Scotland (47) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) Hugh Begg (53) Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14) Persimmon Homes East Scotland (45) Homes Scotland (59) Stagecoach (24) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Design of New Housing

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 9: Design of New Housing (para 7.8-7.9) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58); Homes for Scotland (47): It is considered that the overly prescriptive Policy 9 and Appendix 3 will fail to provide the flexibility required to achieve the objectives for achieving better place design, which is already controlled through national policy. Both Policy 9 and Appendix 3 should be deleted from the Proposed Plan and replaced by a new policy on house types and master planning. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): This representation welcomes the reference to energy efficiency in paragraph 7.9 in relation to Policy 9 Design of New Housing. Suggests cross-references to this and relevant paragraphs in chapter 9 or incorporating relevant parts of chapter 9 in chapter 7 to avoid the matter being overlooked. Hugh Begg (53): The aims and objectives of Policy 9 are to be warmly welcomed in their own right and as a marked improvement on the adopted Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). The prefatory text to each makes it quite clear what the Council has in mind. The proposed adjustments are offered in order that developers are in no doubt what is required of them by the planning authority. Appendix 3: Design of New Housing (pages 78-80) Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): The standards for new housing are too prescriptive for a housing market which should be supported in meeting market need and demand. This is particularly relevant in relation to minimum floor areas, house type percentage mix and

74


minimum garden sizes. Clarification of the approach to gardens for mid terrace houses is required. Persimmon Homes East Scotland (45): We feel that generally the standards are too prescriptive for a housing market which should be supported in meeting market need and demand. That is not to say there is no place for minimum standards to ensure an acceptable standard of life for those living in the property but we feel these standards go beyond that. By setting overly prescriptive standards from the outset there is a lack of flexibility for developers to tailor development to meet the demands of each particular site. There are particular concerns in relation to House Types, Amenity Garden Ground and the statement “The provision for mid-terrace houses may be relaxed”. Home Scotland (59): Relaxation of the housing requirements for social housing is sought in terms of House Type and Amenity/Garden Ground. Stagecoach (24): The standards for new housing as set out in Appendix 3 should not be prescriptive and that each development should be assessed on its own merits. The redevelopment of brownfield sites should be considered with these standards as guidance and that positive recognition should be taken into account of the redevelopment of the brownfield site. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): In delivering quality housing it is suggested that the garden ground dimensions should comply with the greenfield site requirements and that a minimum garden size of 160 sq metres be provided for a single house. This would be consistent with House Type requirements for small sites which are more generous than the larger site requirements. The definitions of brownfield and greenfield in the online glossary should be amended to those as contained in the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). The Glossary should also make it clear that garden ground is not brownfield land in terms of Policy 12 of the Proposed Plan and should have a separate definition. In addition, the defined Central Broughty Ferry area in Appendix 3 and as indicated on the Proposals Map should be applied throughout the Proposed Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Appendix 3 on Housing Design makes no mention of energy efficiency or incorporation of renewables. There is a requirement for storage provision for cycles, which is welcome. Hugh Begg (53): It should be made clear what precisely the boundaries of Central Broughty Ferry are and what is intended by "Broughty Ferry". Specifically reference should be made to Central Broughty Ferry. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 9: Design of New Housing (para 7.8-7.9) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58); Homes for Scotland (47): Policy 9 and Appendix 3 to be replaced by a new policy on house types and master planning, encouraging a master plan led approach to new development which encourages the integration of smaller units in appropriate locations as part of mixed used sustainable developments. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Cross reference or incorporate elements of chapter 9 on energy efficiency with chapter 7 in relation to Design of New Housing.

75


Hugh Begg (53): Changes (underlined and struck through) to wording of Policy 9 Policy 9: Design of New Housing The design and layout of new housing developments in Dundee should be will be supported only where they are of a high quality and contribute to creating the making of places that build on, and enhance, the distinct character and identity of the different parts of the City. Within each Conservation Area guidance on its distinct character is described in the relevant Appraisal. All new housing developments will require to conform to the guidance on the Design of New Housing set out in Appendix 3. Small scale housing development for of less than 5 units and the formation of new residential accommodation through the conversion of existing residential accommodation or change of use will be supported only where the proposal meets all the following criteria: 1) need to ensure that the design and layout respects and enhances the character of adjoining properties and the surrounding area; and does not have a detrimental impact on parking. 2) it does not result in a significant loss of private/useable garden ground, and 3) it does not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact including overshadowing or overlooking; and 4) it does not have an adverse affect on the previously available level of car parking provision whether on street or off street, and on traffic movements; and 5) it is consistent with the all other policies of the Plan. Appendix 3: Design of New Housing (pages 78-80) Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14): The following modifications to Appendix 3 are sought; i) a 1 bed property with a set minimum floor area c.40 sqm should be identified as an acceptable house type at least in the City Centre and Inner city zones. ii) that the house type percentage mix proposed be removed to ensure an appropriate level of flexibility can be applied to each housing proposal. iii) the minimum garden sizes should be reduced or alternatively be dealt with more flexibly. iv) define in more detail what is meant by the statement, “The provision for mid-terrace houses may be relaxed.” Persimmon Homes East Scotland (45): The following modifications to Appendix 3 are sought; i) propose that a 1 bed property with a set minimum floor area c.40 sq.m should be an acceptable house type at least in the City Centre and Inner city zones, ii) request that the house type minimum percentage mix proposed be removed, iii) propose that the minimum garden sizes should be reduced or alternatively be dealt with more flexibly to allow developers to take account of individual site characteristics, and iv) would like the Council to expand in more detail the statement, “The provision for mid-terrace houses may be relaxed”. Home Scotland (59): The following modifications to Appendix 3 are sought; i) request that the minimum floor area of 100 sq m alternative is not applied to affordable housing, ii) that there is flexibility in the percentage requirement for bedroom numbers in the Inner City/Central Broughty Ferry Area and the Suburban Area, iii) that the requirement for 140 sq m garden ground in the suburban area be removed for affordable housing and iv) that a relaxation given of the 120 sq metre gardens for special needs and amenity housing,

76


which, could be agreed on a case by case basis. Stagecoach (24): Our client seeks flexibility within the Proposed Standards set out in Appendix 3 for new residential developments. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Request that the garden ground dimensions for sites of less than 5 should comply with greenfield site requirements and that a minimum garden size of 160 sq metres be provided for a single house. The definitions of brownfield and greenfield in the online glossary should be amended to those as contained in the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). The Glossary should also make it clear that garden ground is not brownfield land in terms of Policy 12 of the Proposed Plan and should have a separate definition. The defined Central Broughty Ferry area in Appendix 3 and as indicated on the Proposals Map should be applied throughout the Proposed Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Energy efficiency requirements and renewables should be included in a new Sustainable Construction Guide which developers are required to utilise both for new build and restoration/conversion of existing stock. Hugh Begg (53): Central Broughty Ferry requires to be defined in the plan and the land to the east of Brook Street including parts of Castle Street, The Esplanade, and Rugby Terrace should be identified as "suburban". Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 9: Design of New Housing (para 7.8-7.9) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58); Homes for Scotland (47): Policy 9 and Appendix 3 seek to promote the development of well designed, energy/resource efficient, good quality housing in sustainable locations as a key objective of the Plan in line with the aims of Scottish Planning Policy. The approach being taken builds on the success of the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40) and responds to the issues raised during its operation. The approach proposed does not preclude the preparation of a Master Plan for new developments. A Master Planning approach and Site Planning Briefs have been used alongside the standards of the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). A recent successful example has been in Mill O Mains (CD60). This approach has allowed for smaller units in appropriate locations to be developed where this has been justified through the Master Planning/Site brief process. The standards themselves also have flexibility built into them for house types and garden sizes as well as recognising that flats may require different treatment. The standards are also varied to the different areas across the city from the city centre to the suburban areas. It is considered that the approach proposed provides flexibility and can deliver good quality housing developments. In addition, the proposed policy approach and standards does not preclude the use of Master Plans and Site briefs for large scale or significant sites and the variations of these standards when justified through these processes. In addition, Policy 9 and Appendix 3 will also be informed and complemented by Policy 7: on High Quality Design. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): The points raised are covered in Chapter 9 Sustainable Natural and Built Environment and in particular Policy 29. As indicated reference is made to energy efficiency in paragraph 7.8 in connection with new housing. As the Proposed

77


Plan is to be read and applied as a whole it is not considered necessary to repeat elements in different sections. It is considered that the issue is addressed adequately by the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Hugh Begg (53): The proposed changes would result in a significant alteration to the purpose of this policy. The aim of the policy is to seek to achieve high quality design in new houses and housing developments. This is achieved through both Policy 9 and associated Appendix 3. In addition, Policy 7 also sets the principles that need to be taken into account to secure high quality design and ensure that new development builds positively on the character of the existing area. The various modifications proposed are commented on as follows: The suggested wording “will be supported only where they are of” and “the making” brings in a negative tone to what is meant to be a positive policy and does not improve the clarity of the preamble into the criteria of the policy. These changes are not supported. The inclusion of the sentence “Within each Conservation Area guidance on its distinct character is described in the relevant Appraisal” is unnecessary and does not bring any clarity or improve the understanding of the Policy. It only provides guidance on where to find information on each of the conservation areas. Paragraph 9.33 provides the advice regarding Conservation Area Appraisals. This additional wording is not required and only clutters up the policy. The suggested rewording of the final paragraph of Policy 9 as set out in detail in the Modifications Sought section above is considered to be unnecessary. The wording as proposed when taken alongside the requirements of Policy 7 provides sufficient criteria to consider the all relevant matters in terms of the design of new housing. It is considered that the inclusion of additional detailed and prescriptive criteria is unnecessary. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Appendix 3: Design of New Housing (pages 78-80) Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14); Persimmon Homes East Scotland (45): The standards set out for new housing are broken down into three areas of the City (City Centre, Inner City and Suburban) and seek to reflect the character of the urban environment of each of these areas. In addition, they are broken down into houses and flats and also into sites of more or less than 5 units. The standards set out build on those of the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40) which were successfully implemented over the period of this Plan (2005 to present). Over the past 10 years it has been the policy of the City Council to improve its housing stock by addressing the oversupply of poor quality and small 1 bedroomed property, primarily flats. This has been successful and the quality of the housing stock improved. The Housing Demand Needs Assessment (CD42) for the city identified the need over the plan period as being for 3 and 3+ bedroomed properties. The proposed approach to the standards is predicated on meeting the identified needs of the City in order to meet need and provide choice. The following addresses the individual points raised i) In terms of minimum floor area the proposals for a 40 sq m house type in the City Centre and Inner City, it is considered that this would create extremely small flats/houses. These would not be of the high quality in terms of space standards and would not be of equivalent quality to existing properties in Dundee. The minimum of 60 sq m is considered to be a reasonable size and can provide a quality of accommodation within Dundee as sought by Scottish Planning Policy without being excessive. ii) The

78


House Type percentage mix is predicated on delivering the need identified in the Housing Needs Demand Assessment (CD42) for Dundee for 3 and 3+ bedroom properties. The percentage is varied across the sectors and is set at a level to deliver the identified need but allow for flexibility when developing new sites. It also ensures that a range of house types is provided for in new sites. The approach also allows for the number of bedrooms to be reduced but the total floor area maintained. Again this allows for flexibility of house types but retaining quality in space standards. iii) the garden ground sizes have been varied across the three identified zones and given flexibility to provide for a range within developments to take account of site layout constraints or opportunities. Flexibility is also provided for sites of 5 or less and for flats balconies are alternative options. In addition, recognition is given to brownfield sites being potentially more restricted with a lower requirement than for greenfield sites. The minimum figure is given to ensure that quality is maintained across all new developments. iv) The reference to mid - terrace properties is recognition that in order to achieve workable layouts the standards may have to be relaxed. It is difficult to prescribe what relaxation may be required in all circumstances. Therefore the approach sets out a provision for developers to demonstrate what relaxation would be appropriate in particular circumstances. However, as indicated above there will be the opportunity in master plans and site briefs to demonstrate why relaxations to the standards should be allowed. For the reasons set out against each criterion it is considered that the proposed modifications would not be supported as they would undermine the approach to new housing and fail to achieve the quality of housing required within the City. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Home Scotland (59): The approach to the standards is to seek to deliver high quality housing across all tenures. The standards already provide a reduced requirement for social housing in terms of car parking provision recognising that these properties tend to have a lower requirement for car parking. The minimum floor area and garden ground requirements however, do not merit a standard lower than that for other tenures. In terms of particular needs housing (special needs/amenity housing) Policy 13 provides the context for the consideration of these types of proposals. This allows for the relaxations sought dependant on the particular characteristics of the needs of the residents involved. This would therefore allow for the case by case consideration of proposals as requested. In general terms the provision of a master plan or a site brief can be used to justify relaxations to the standards for particular developments and this would apply to proposals for social rented accommodation. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Stagecoach (24): The modification sought is not specific to the individual standards but more a general request for the opportunity to relax the standards. As outlined above it would be for any developer to justify a relaxation and the grounds for that request. This approach can refer to Policy 7 and use either a master plan or site brief as part of this process and to set out reasons for a particular site. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): The amenity/garden ground requirements for sites of 5 or more and for less than 5 units in the suburban area are the same. There is therefore no difference between them. The only difference in the suburban area is between brownfield and greenfield sites which recognise that brownfield sites may be

79


more constrained in their development. The application of a minimum of 160 sq m for a single house regardless of whether it is greenfield or brownfield is considered to be overly onerous and would not reflect that issues that may be faced in the development on a brownfield site. It is considered that the proposed standards allows for flexibility for brownfield sites including for single houses. The definitions in the separate online glossary are considered to be appropriate and that there is no requirement for a separate garden ground definition. The Central Broughty Ferry area that applies to Housing Standards in Appendix 3 would also apply to any other Policy reference to this area, including Policy 6. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): The support for the inclusion of storage for cycles is welcomed. Para 7.8 of the Plan does highlight that promotion of energy/resource efficient housing. Rather than setting out standards for this the requirements are covered in the Sustainable Natural and Built Environment Chapter under Policy 29, 30 and 31. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Hugh Begg (53): Central Broughty Ferry is referred to on page 79 of the Proposed Plan alongside the Inner City Standards. The boundary between the housing areas of the City Centre, Inner City, Broughty Ferry and Suburban Area are indicated on the Proposals Map as a Red boundary. However, it is noted the description in the Key on the Proposals Map has failed to make reference to Central Broughty Ferry along with the Inner City. This is a simple drafting error on the Proposals Map and it would be made clearer if Central Broughty Ferry was added into the Key for this boundary definition. The request that the area east of Brook Street including parts of Castle Street, The Esplanade, and Rugby Terrace should be identified as "suburban" is not supported. The boundary as proposed on the proposals map is the same as that of the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). The areas requested to be excluded are considered to be part of Central Broughty Ferry. They are densely developed and in terms of character similar to the rest of Central Broughty Ferry than the suburban areas to the north and west. The boundary of Central Broughty Ferry as proposed in the Proposed Plan is considered to be appropriate and should not be amended. Apart from the minor amendment to the Proposals Plan no modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Balmossie Developments Limited (25); Strategic Land (Scotland) Ltd (14); Persimmon Homes East Scotland (45); Homes Scotland (59); Stagecoach (24); Stewart Milne Homes (58); Homes for Scotland (47) 1. Policy 9 expects the design and layout of new housing to be of high quality and contribute to creating places that build on and enhance the distinct character and identity of their location. The policy requires conformity with the guidance at Appendix 3, which sets out minimum standards for accommodation, car parking, cycle provision, garden ground and privacy separation for houses and flats in different parts of the city. Minimum standards are set to provide a decent standard of accommodation appropriate to people’s expectations. That does not imply that the policy is too prescriptive. Rather, it allows a great deal of flexibility, provided that the minimum standards are achieved. Importantly, in

80


my view, the use of minimum standards does not preclude a masterplanning approach allowing a variation on standards where justified. Thus it would be possible to comply with the design and siting advice at a national level in Creating Places and Designing Streets. 2. I agree with the planning authority that a 40 sqm house type in the City Centre and Inner City would create extremely small dwellings and that the minimum of 60 sqm would be reasonable. The house type percentage mix reflects the need for larger properties in Dundee identified in the housing needs and demand assessment, which notes that the growth in single and couple households is unlikely to translate straightforwardly into demand for smaller properties. The percentage mix is varied across the sectors and is set at a level to deliver the identified need but allow for flexibility when developing new sites. It also ensures that a range of house types is provided in new sites. Garden ground sizes have been varied across the three identified zones and given flexibility to provide for a range within developments to take account of site layout constraints or opportunities. Flexibility is provided for sites of 5 or less dwellings and balconies are an alternative for flats. In addition, recognition is given to brownfield sites being potentially more restricted with a lower requirement than elsewhere. The reference to mid-terrace properties is recognition that in order to achieve workable layouts the standards may have to be relaxed, depending on site specific circumstances. The extent of relaxation envisaged reduces some of the standards to the status of guidelines. Nevertheless, if properly applied, that flexibility provides scope for successful siting and design on varied sites. The policy does not therefore need to be replaced. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 3. The important concerns raised should be considered at the siting and design stages of housing development. In addition, Policy 29 makes it a requirement for all newly built development, including housing, to contribute to carbon emissions reduction. At the same time, Appendix 3 on the design of new housing supports recycling, electric cars and bicycle use. As noted by Friends of the Earth Tayside, the national aspirations for energy efficiency in buildings are achieved through Building Standards Regulations. I consider that it is sufficient to include the low and zero carbon technology in a separate policy from design because the plan must be applied as a whole to new housing development. I also consider that the need to address climate change is a clear commitment in the plan, which will encourage planners and decision makers to expect energy efficient design to be considered at the siting and design stage. Thus there is no need to add to policy 9. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35); Hugh Begg (53) 4. Subject to Policy 9, Appendix 3 sets out guidance on the design of all new housing development. Different standards are set for different areas. It is therefore important that these areas are clearly defined. The planning authority acknowledges in its response that Central Broughty Ferry must be referenced in the key to the proposals map. 5. The boundary is marked on the map. It includes Castle Street, The Esplanade and Rugby Terrace to the east of Brook Street and to the south of the railway line. Areas beyond Central Broughty Ferry are classified as suburban in Appendix 3 and by the key on the proposals map, which groups it with the City Centre boundary as relevant to Appendix 3 of the proposed plan. The plan does not define what is or what is not suburban. In my experience, urban areas are built up areas distinct from the countryside. They tend to be densely developed, with mixed use and well used streets. Suburban areas are low density parts of the urban area. They tend to be on the edge of the town or

81


city, away from business areas. They are characterised by space, larger housing, wide streets, peace, quiet and trees. In towns of any size and age, the distinction between the two is often blurred by development somewhere between the truly suburban and the city blocks. 6. At my inspection of Broughty Ferry, I saw some business use in the area east of Brook Street including parts of Castle Street, The Esplanade, and Rugby Terrace and most properties are built up to the back of the highway footpath. On balance, I consider that the designation as Central Broughty Ferry is appropriate to these relatively quiet streets. This area also includes terraced housing on a relatively small scale. The lower standards for such areas would be appropriate here. 7. I note that this boundary continues the line from the adopted 2005 local plan. That does not mean it should automatically be continued, but it does reinforce my conclusion that no modification is needed. 8. Mr Begg proposes changes to the wording of Policy 9 to remove ambiguity; to align text with other policies aimed at a similar outcome; to strengthen the planning authority’s commitment to quality housing and sustainable development; and to ensure that it is clear that all criteria must be met. However, in general terms, the additional wording changes little and clutters the policy. It is sufficient to say that development should be of a high quality, while creating rather than making places is consistent with the latest Scottish policy statement on architecture and place for Scotland. There is equally no need to duplicate other policy provisions or make reference to them. Thus the reference to conservation areas is already included at paragraph 9.33 of the plan and protection is secured by statute. The plan is to be read as a whole and all relevant policies will apply. 9. I note that Policy 9 does not include the detailed criteria on residential amenity which the planning authority sees as necessary for householder development, conversions to housing and the development of garden ground for housing. However, Policy 9 relates to the design of new housing with standards set out at Appendix 3 requiring appropriate space standards, separation and parking provision. I note also that building standards deal with noise between properties. I therefore see no reason to include further criteria in this policy. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modification 1. Additional wording to be added to the key of the proposals map to include Central Broughty Ferry in the descriptor for the red-lined inner city/suburban boundary.

82


Issue 11 Other Housing Development


Policy 10: Householder Development (para 7.11) Policy 11: Formation of New Residential Accommodation (para 7.12) Policy 12: Development in Garden Ground for New Housing (para 7.13-7.14)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) Hugh Begg (53) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Other Housing Development

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 10: Householder Development (para 7.11) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Changes to existing housing should also provide an opportunity to incorporate improvements to energy efficiency and the possibility of micro renewables. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Support Policy 10 in principle but consider that the word ‘existing’ in criterion 4 may not be adequate. Applicants have claimed that areas which in the past may have been used for off-street parking, but which have not been so used in more recent times, can no longer be defined as ‘existing’ parking provision. To close this possible loophole it is suggested that the words ‘previously available’ replaces the word ‘existing’. The word ‘effect’ should replace ‘affect’ in the text in criterion 3 and 4. Hugh Begg (53): The aims and objectives of Policy 10 are to be warmly welcomed in their own right and as a marked improvement on the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). The prefatory text to each makes it quite clear what the Council has in mind. The proposed adjustments are offered in order that developers are in no doubt what is required of them by the planning authority. Policy 11: Formation of New Residential Accommodation (para 7.12) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Support Policy 11 in principle but consider that the word ‘existing’ in criterion 4 may not be adequate. Applicants have claimed that areas which in the past may have been used for off-street parking, but which have not been so used in more recent times, can no longer be defined as ‘existing’ parking provision. To close this possible loophole it is suggested that the words ‘previously available’ replaces the word ‘existing’. The word ‘effect’ should replace ‘affect’ in the text in criterion 3. Hugh Begg (53): The aims and objectives of Policy 11 are to be warmly welcomed in their own right and as a marked improvement on the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005

83


(CD40). The prefatory text to each makes it quite clear what the Council has in mind. The proposed adjustments are offered in order that developers are in no doubt what is required of them by the planning authority. Policy 12: Development in Garden Ground for New Housing (para 7.13-7.14) Hugh Begg (53): The aims and objectives of Policy 12 are to be warmly welcomed in their own right and as a marked improvement on the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). The prefatory text to each makes it quite clear what the Council has in mind. The proposed adjustments are offered in order that developers are in no doubt what is required of them by the planning authority. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 10: Householder Development (para 7.11) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): No specific modification is detailed in the comment to either the preamble or the policy. A general recognition appears to be sought that changes to existing housing should also provide an opportunity to incorporate improvements to energy efficiency and the possibility of micro renewables. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): To close a possible loophole, it is suggested that ‘previously available’ replaces ‘existing’. Thus the revised wording should be as follows. ‘4) does not have a significant adverse effect on the previously available level of car parking provision.’ .The word ‘effect’ should replace ‘affect’ in the text in criterion 3 and 4. Hugh Begg (53): 'Proposed changes (underlined and struck through) to wording in Policy 10 Policy 10: Householder Development Householder development will be supported only where it the proposal meets all of the following criteria: 1) it does not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the

house and the surrounding area by virtue of size, design and materials; and 2) it does not result in a significant loss of private/ useable garden ground; and 3) it does not have a detrimental affect effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of

physical impac , overshadowing or overlooking; and 4) it does not have an adverse affect on the existing previously available level of car

parking provision whether on street or off street, and on traffic movements; and 5) it is consistent with the all other policies of the Plan." Policy 11: Formation of New Residential Accommodation (para 7.12) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Delete criterion 3 of Policy 11 and change to: "it will not have a detrimental effect on the environmental quality enjoyed by residents by virtue of the loss of amenity/garden ground, the loss of on street parking provision, the loss of previously available off street parking provision, and increased traffic movements;" Hugh Begg (53): Proposed changes (underlined/struck through)-to wording of Policy 11

84


Policy 11: Formation of New Residential Accommodation The creation of new residential accommodation through the development of existing roof/basement space or the subdivision of existing residential accommodation or change of use will be supported only where the proposal meets all of the following criteria: 1) the requirements for the design of new small scale housing (Policy 9) are met; and 2) all new dwellings created will have a quality surrounding environment with main living

areas being located on a principal elevation; and 3) the proposed development will not have a detrimental affect effect on the

environmental quality enjoyed by existing residents by virtue of the loss of amenity/garden ground, or the loss of the previously available level of either off or on street parking provision, or on increased traffic movements; and

4) where the change of use is consistent with all other policies of the Plan. Policy 12: Development in Garden Ground for New Housing (para 7.13-7.14) Hugh Begg (53): Proposed changes (underlined/struck through)-to wording of Policy 12 Development of Garden Ground for New Housing: The development of garden ground for new houses will be supported only where the proposal meets all of the following criteria: 1) the proposed development meets the requirements for the design of new small scale housing (Policy 9 and Appendix 3); and 2) no new building is proposed in front of the principal elevation of the existing house; and 3) the curtilages of the existing house and the proposed house both maintain the prevailing density of the surrounding area; and 4) the development will not result in a significant loss of private /useable garden ground; and 5) the development will not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking; and 6) the development will not have an adverse affect on the previously available level of either on street or off street car parking provision, or on increased traffic movements; and 7) the development is consistent with all other policies of the Plan. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 10: Householder Development (para 7.11) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): The Policy seeks to set out the criteria for the consideration of householder developments. It does not in any way preclude the opportunity to incorporate improvements to energy efficiency or micro-renewables. Proposals for energy efficiency and micro-renewables will be supported where they comply with the Policy criteria and in some cases will be exempt from consideration due to permitted development rights. Improvements to energy efficiency such as interior insulation are outwith the scope of the Proposed Plan and would be dealt with by the Building Standards. The Proposed Plan as a whole seeks to support energy efficiency and the possibility of micro renewables and it is considered that there is no need to amend the wording of the preamble or Policy 10. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): The change proposed to include the phrase ‘previously available’ is not supported. The criterion as worded allows for the consideration of the loss of both on and off street parking. To use the term previously available would be problematic in terms of interpretation and application. An area previously used for

85


parking may have been put to another acceptable use and could not realistically be considered as currently available. The criterion as worded allows for sufficient scope to ensure that all available parking both on and off street is taken into account in the determination of the application. In response to the request to change the word ‘affect’ to ‘effect’ the Council has no issue with this wording change. Apart from minor wording change no modification is proposed to the Plan. Hugh Begg (53): The proposed change “only where the proposal meets all of the following criteria” is not considered necessary as the use of the word ‘and’ at the end of each criteria is used to achieve the same ends. The replacement of the word “affect” with “effect” would add clarity and is considered to be an acceptable minor change. The proposed introduction of the phrase previously available into criterion three and the other minor wording changes to it are not supported. The reasons are the same as set out as in the response to Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) on the same issue outlined above. Criterion 5 is considered to be unnecessary as all policies of plan are required to be taken into account when considering proposed developments. Apart from the minor wording change no modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 11: Formation of New Residential Accommodation (para 7.12) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): The change proposed to include the phrase previously available is not supported. The criterion as worded allows for the consideration of the loss of both on and off street parking. To use the term previously available would be problematic in terms of interpretation and application. An area previously used for parking may have been put to another acceptable use and could not realistically be considered as currently available. The criterion as worded allows for sufficient scope to ensure that all available parking both on and off street is taken into account in the determination of the application. In response to the request to change the word ‘affect’ to ‘effect’ the Council has no issue with this wording change. Apart from minor wording change no modification is proposed to the Plan. Hugh Begg (53): The proposed change “only where the proposal meets all of the following criteria” is not considered necessary as the use of the word ‘and’ at the end of each criteria is used to achieve the same ends. The replacement of the word “would” with “will” in criterion 2 is considered to be unnecessary as it would not add clarity. The introduction of the phrase “the proposed development” at the start of criterion 3 is not supported as it does not add any clarity to the wording. The replacement of the word “affect” with “effect” would add clarity and is considered to be an acceptable minor change. The proposed introduction of the phrase previously available into criterion 3 and the other minor wording changes proposed to this criterion are not supported. The reasons for this are the same as set out as in the response to Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) on the same issue in terms of Policy 11. Apart form the minor wording change no modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 12: Development in Garden Ground for New Housing (para 7.13-7.14) Hugh Begg (53): Policy 12 reflects the experience gained from the operation of a similar policy within the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). In monitoring the use

86


of that policy it was concluded that whilst it had successfully achieved its aims there needed to be improved clarity in relation to some of the criterion contained within it. Proposed Policy 12 has been developed from that experience and it is considered to be sufficient to achieve the necessary consideration of proposals for the development of housing in garden ground. The tone of the Policy is positive to development as long as the criteria are met. The modifications proposed offers a strengthening of the policy by placing further restrictions on development which makes for a more negative tone. The following addresses each of the proposed modifications in turn. The change in the preamble of the policy to include the word "only" is considered to be unnecessary and fails to acknowledge that there may be other material considerations which apply to specific development proposals. In addition, the introduction of the word "all" is considered unnecessary as the proposed policy includes that word ‘and’ at the end of each criterion to require compliance with all of the criteria. The proposed change to Criterion 1 would allow the policy to be applied to any development within garden ground, not just housing and therefore departs from the aim of the policy. This change is not supported. The change to Criterion 3 to reword it to “the curtilages of the existing house and the proposed house both maintain” has no effect on the aim of this criterion and does not add clarity and is therefore considered to be unnecessary. The change to Criterion 4 to reword to, “the development will not result in a significant loss of private /useable garden ground”, would reduce the clarity of the policy by using the undefined term "significant". The policy as existing has sought to provide a measurable criterion and therefore the proposed wording change is not supported. The additional proposed Criterion 5 “the development will not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking”, may have some merit and could add some clarity in terms of design in addition, to criterion 1. The Council would not have an issue with the insertion of this wording as proposed. The proposed wording changes to Criterion 6 “the development will not have an adverse affect on the previously available level of either on street or off street car parking provision, or on increased traffic movements” are the same as considered in terms of Policy 10 and Policy 11 above. The proposed wording is not supported for the same reasons as outlined in the consideration under Policy 10 and 11. The proposed additional Criterion 7 “the development is consistent with all other policies of the Plan” is unnecessary as all policies of plan are required to be taken into account when considering proposed developments. With the exception of the introduction of the wording to Criterion 5 no modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 10: Householder Development (para 7.11) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 1. Climate change is one of the cross cutting themes outlined in Figure 6, ensuring high energy resource efficiency and low/zero carbon energy generation technologies are incorporated within development. This is translated into Policy 29 which requires new buildings to include the installation and operation of zero carbon generating technologies. These could include the use of micro generation technologies. There is no need for additional reference to this in Policy 10.

87


Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 2. I agree with the planning authority that the change to ‘previously available’ in the context of parking would be problematic. Without a clear definition there would be uncertainty as to what is actually meant. The reference to existing parking makes clear what is being referred to. No change is necessary. 3. The planning authority accepts the proposed change from ‘affect’ to ‘effect’ in Criteria 3 and 4. This is correct, as ‘affect’ is normally a verb, whereas what is needed here is the noun ‘effect’, being the result of the action. Hugh Begg (53) 4. I accept the planning authority’s view that the use of the word ‘and’ at the end of Clause 3 means the clauses are all inclusive. It is not therefore necessary to state the proposal meets all the criteria. Matters relating to affect/effect and existing parking are dealt with above. No further change is required. 5. The representation requests a further Criterion 5 regarding consistency with other plan policies. The planning authority rejects the proposal. However, this is inconsistent as a similar criterion is used at Criterion 4 in Policy 11. For consistency it would therefore be sensible to add the same criterion for Policy 10. See also in relation to Policy 12 below. Policy 11: Formation of New Residential Accommodation (para 7.12) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 6. For the reasons given above, ‘existing’ is correct in relation to the level of parking, and no modification is necessary. Also for the reasons given above ‘affect’ in Criterion 3 should be replaced by ‘effect’. Hugh Begg (53) 7. For the reasons set out above, it is not necessary to state the proposal meets all the criteria. The planning authority states that replacing ‘would’ with ‘will’ does not improve clarity. That may be the case, but as ‘will’ is used in Criterion 3 it would be sensible to have consistency across the criteria. This modification will provide for that. 8. For the reasons given above, the insertion of ‘previous levels’ of parking is not appropriate for Criterion 3. In Criterion 4 ‘where’ should be deleted, as it repeats ‘where’ in the first paragraph of the policy. Policy 12: Development in Garden Ground for New Housing (para 7.13-7.14) Hugh Begg (53) 9. I accept the planning authority’s point that the inclusion of the word ‘only’ would give the impression that other material considerations may not apply. It should not therefore be included. ‘All’ is unnecessary because, as explained above, the use of the word ‘and’ at the end of each criterion makes them all inclusive.

88


10. The use of the word ‘proposed’ in Criterion 1 will bring it into line with other criteria. It is not necessary to say as an alternative ‘proposed development’ for the planning authority’s reason that it could potentially include development other than housing. 11. The proposed rewording of Criterion 3 does not make a significant difference to the meaning. As the planning authority considers this change unnecessary, I am content to accept this. 12. I agree with the planning authority that the introduction of ‘significant’ into Criterion 4 could reduce clarity. Whilst I accept the use of the word ‘significant’ is widespread in general planning parlance to describe the impact of development proposals, it is not necessary in this case. 13. I accept the planning authority’s view that the proposed modification providing a new Criterion 5 has merit in providing protection to neighbouring properties. It should be accepted. 14. For the reasons set out above, I do not accept the proposed change to ‘previously available’ levels of parking. 15. The planning authority states that reference to other plan policies is unnecessary. The plan should be read as a whole, so all policies should be taken into account, and the modification is not necessary. See also regarding Policy 10 above. Reporter’s recommendations: The following changes: 1. In Policy 10 Criteria 3 and 4 delete ‘affect’ and replace with ‘effect’. Criterion 3 should now read: ‘does not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing and overlooking.’ Criterion 4 should now read: ‘does not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of parking provision.’ 2. In Policy 10 add a new final Criterion 5 to read: ‘the development is consistent with all other policies of the Plan.’ 3. In Policy 11 Criterion 3 delete ‘affect’ and replace with ‘effect’. The criterion now reads: ‘it will not have a detrimental effect on the environmental quality enjoyed by existing residents….’ 4. In Policy 11 Criterion 2 delete ‘would’ and replace with ‘will’. The criterion now reads: ‘all new dwellings created will have a quality surrounding environment…..’ 5. In Policy 11 Criterion 4 delete ‘where’ at the beginning. The criterion now reads: ‘the change of use is consistent with other policies of the Plan.’

89


6. In Policy 12 Criterion 1 insert ‘proposed’ between ‘the’ and ‘new’. The criterion now reads: ‘the proposed new house/s meet/s the requirements for the design….’ 7. In Policy 12 add a new Criterion 5 to read: ‘the development will not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking; and’

90


Issue 12 Facilities in Residential Areas


Policy 16: Small Scale Commercial Uses in Residential Areas (para. 7.19-7.23) Policy 17: Community Facilities (para 7.24-7.26) Policy 19: Funding of On and Off Site Infrastructure Provision (para. 7.28-7.29).


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25) Scottish Natural Heritage (39) TACTRAN (41) Homes for Scotland (47) Stewart Milne Homes (58)


Facilities in Residential Areas

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 16: Small Scale Commercial Uses in Residential Areas (para. 7.19-7.23) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Developers should indicate in their applications (eg H71) where such commercial services and facilities will be located in their proposed housing development, so that future/prospective residents have this information. Policy 17: Community Facilities (para 7.24-7.26) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Developers of housing estates (such as H71) should indicate in their applications where relevant community facilities (health provision/schools) will be conveniently located so that future/prospective residents have this information. Policy 19: Funding of On and Off Site Infrastructure Provision (para. 7.28-7.29) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): It is proposed that Policy 19 should set out in greater clarity the extent to which developer contributions will be required in line with the advice in Circular 1/2010 Planning Agreements (CD78). It is recommended that this can be done through the preparation of supplementary guidance. Stewart Milne Homes (58): It is proposed that Policy 19 should set out in greater clarity the extent to which developer contributions will be required in line with Circular 1/2010 Planning Agreements (CD78). It is recommended that this can be done through the preparation of supplementary guidance. Homes for Scotland (47): That the proposed policy approach should be aligned with the advice set out in Circular 1/2010 Planning Agreements (CD78).

91


Scottish Natural Heritage (39): To ensure the inclusion of green networks as a key component of infrastructure provision additional wording should be inserted in paragraph 7.28. TACTRAN (41): Supports policy 19 in general and would support a further specific statement in the supporting text in relation to strategic transport infrastructure and projects. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 16: Small Scale Commercial Uses in Residential Areas (para. 7.19-7.23) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): First paragraph of Policy 16 - The planning authority should ‘require’ not just ‘support’. Policy 17: Community Facilities (para 7.24-7.26) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 17 should require developers of housing estates (such as H71) to indicate in their applications where relevant community facilities (health provision/schools) will be conveniently located. Policy 19: Funding of On and Off Site Infrastructure Provision (para. 7.28-7.29) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): Policy 19 should set out in greater clarity and through further supplementary guidance, the extent to which developer contributions will be required so that potential developers can have a reasonable expectation of the likely financial implications of development in order to assess proposals and their viability. Stewart Milne Homes (58): Policy 19 should set out in greater clarity and through further supplementary guidance, the extent to which developer contributions will be required so that potential developers can have a reasonable expectation of the likely financial implications of development in order to assess proposals and their viability. Homes for Scotland (47): Recommend using the policy wording from the East Ayrshire Local Plan Inquiry as a model policy 19 as follows: "Where a development of 4 or more houses, either on its own, or in association with existing developments, will place additional demands on community facilities or infrastructure that would necessitate new facilities or exacerbate deficiencies in existing provision, the council will require the developer to meet or contribute to the cost of providing or improving such infrastructure or facilities. Contributions will relate to the development concerned, including in nature, scale and kind. Where these cannot be secured by planning conditions or other appropriate means, the council will expect developers to complete a section 75 or other legal agreement. Contributions sought under this policy will be waived or reduced only in exceptional circumstances – for example, where a developer demonstrates that a development would have exceptional development costs, would bring particular economic, social or other benefits, or is ‘enabling development’ as defined in the plan” Scottish Natural Heritage (39): In the first sentence of paragraph 7.28 insert the words 'green infrastructure' before the words 'open space'. TACTRAN (41): Supports and seeks a specific statement in supporting text that i) contributions for strategic transport infrastructure will be sought where necessary and ii)

92


contributions towards major schemes in Dundee and where relevant support for cross boundary schemes and infrastructure which generate benefits for the City and iii) developer contributions to "kick-start" bus services to be sought where necessary. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 16: Small Scale Commercial Uses in Residential Areas (para. 7.19-7.23) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): The suggested change would place a much stronger emphasis on the approach to encouraging small scale uses within residential areas than that currently being promoted by this policy. It would, in the case of new developments, actually require commercial services and facilities to be provided for all developments regardless of scale or circumstance. In terms of existing areas it would place a requirement that could not necessarily be achieved or desirable. It is considered that to use the word "require" in place of the word "support” would result in an overly onerous policy and would not deliver the intended outcome. The approach proposed is positive and allows for the appropriate level of provision to be sought in terms of each new proposal for housing and where a small scale commercial use is being proposed in an existing residential area. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 17: Community Facilities (para 7.24-7.26) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Dundee City Council is supportive of, and encourages master planning (Masterplans and Site Briefs) for significant sites and areas undergoing regeneration. Therefore, the need for and potential location of community facilities would generally be considered and identified through this process. However, this Policy would apply to the development of significant housing sites to establish whether there is the need or opportunity to include community facilities. Tactran (41)(CD61) supported the policy approach as proposed to community facilities. Accordingly, there is no need to add to the wording of the policy to address the issues raised in the representation. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 19: Funding of On and Off Site Infrastructure Provision (para. 7.28-7.29) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58); Homes for Scotland (47): The Proposed Plan considers that where development would necessitate new infrastructure or exacerbate deficiencies in existing provision it is not unreasonable to expect the developer to make a contribution to infrastructure provision or improvement both on site and off site. The Proposed Plan in the preamble (para 7.28-7.29) sets out clearly the types of infrastructure to be considered and recognises that in the current economic climate a flexible and creative approach to front funding of infrastructure may be required. The Council has already carried out creative approaches to funding infrastructure. The approach is also not limited to housing developments but for all major new developments. It is considered that a flexible approach that deals with each development as it arises is appropriate and that Policy 19 as drafted will allow this to be delivered. It is considered that Supplementary Guidance is not required on this matter as each development and the associated infrastructure provision can be adequately dealt with on a case by case basis. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

93


Scottish Natural Heritage (39): It is considered that provision can be made for the funding of green infrastructure provision under the Policy approach, including the preamble, as written. Accordingly, it is considered that there is no need to amend the wording to para 7.28 as requested. No modification is proposed to the Plan. TACTRAN (41): The preamble and the policy already provide sufficient detail and scope for the areas highlighted in the representation to be covered. The additional wording proposed is considered to be unnecessary. The policy as worded is considered to provide sufficient basis for pursuing and agreeing innovative approaches to the funding of infrastructure. The suggested cross boundary reference is considered unnecessary and could be problematic and difficult to implement. Significant cross boundary matters should be considered through TACTRAN. Point iii) is already covered in the Proposed Plan through Policy 54 (1). It is considered that the revised wording would not improve the policy approach of the plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 16: Small Scale Commercial Uses in Residential Areas (para. 7.19-7.23) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 1. There is a difference in emphasis here between what the respondent seems to be wanting and what it actually asks for in its proposed modification. What it appears to be asking for is information at the time of a planning application as to where facilities would be located within housing developments. This is not the same as requiring such facilities to be provided, which would be the outcome of the proposed modification. 2. Any application for full planning permission should indicate where various aspects of that development would be located within the overall site. That does not have to be stated in the local development plan. I agree with the planning authority that a requirement for such facilities in all developments may not be desirable or achievable. No modification is required. Policy 17: Community Facilities (para 7.24-7.26) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 3. As just stated above, applications for full planning permission should indicate where facilities will be provided. In the case of larger more complex developments, such as that likely to occur on Site H71, a planning brief and/or masterplan could help provide this information. There is no need for any modification. Policy 19: Funding of On and Off Site Infrastructure Provision (para. 7.28-7.29) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Stewart Milne Homes (58); Homes for Scotland (47) 4. These representations do not raise any objections to the principles of the policy, but seek further clarification in terms of the level of support that will be sought by the planning

94


authority. This would normally be achieved through a Section 75 planning obligation (formerly agreement) with the planning authority. 5. Circular 1/2010, which dealt with planning agreements, and is referred to in representations, has now been replace by Circular 3/2012 Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements. It notes that Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, states that planning obligations may contain the extent to which it requires the payment of monies or provision of infrastructure. 6. The circular as a whole makes clear that developer contributions are to be expected to pay for necessary infrastructure provision where this is directly related to the development proposed. Paragraph 32 says that in drafting development plans, planning authorities should work with parties to undertake a robust assessment of infrastructure requirements, funding implications and timescales involved. This does not appear to have been done. 7. The paragraph continues that broad principles should be set out in local development plans and that the methods and exact levels of contributions should be included in statutory supplementary guidance. The planning authority’s view set out above is contrary to this approach. 8. I do not consider proposed paragraph 7.28 provides sufficient indication of what is being sought. Also some indication of this should be provided in supplementary planning guidance, as indicated in the circular. Paragraph 7.29 shows a flexible approach on the part of the planning authority, but there is no indication for developers as to what will be expected of them other than the vague outline that contributions will be required. Paragraph 16 of Scottish Planning Policy states clearly that these issues should be addressed in development plans and not left to be resolved through the development management process. 9. It is now normal practice for matters such as this to be considered in statutory planning guidance that forms part of the development plan. This should have a policy root in the local development plan itself. This view is supported in Tayside Strategic Development Plan, TAYplan, with which the proposed local development plan must accord. 10. TAYplan states, on page 22: “Achieving the policy aims of this plan requires Local Development Plans to establish a mechanism(s), which may require new financial models, to ensure that these contributions are achieved and a thorough understanding of infrastructure, services and amenity capacity issues….. This offers certainty to land owners, developers and local authorities about the likely developer contributions and the nature of requirements for sites from the outset.” Strategic Policy 8: Delivering the Strategic Plan reads: “To ensure that quality is designed-in to development and places developer contributions shall be sought for new development (sic): to mitigate any adverse impacts on infrastructure, services and amenities brought about by development including contributions towards schools, affordable housing, transport infrastructure and facilities (including for rail, walking, cycling and public transport), and other community facilities in accordance with the Scottish Government Circular 1/2010 (now 3/2012).” 11. It is now too late in the development plan process to carry out discussions with developers, as this would delay unreasonably adoption of the plan. The situation can be resolved however by modifying the preamble paragraph 7.29 and the policy to refer to

95


developer contributions and provide a local development plan basis for their preparation. This will include a consultation process before final adoption by the planning authority. This will ensure compliance with Scottish Planning Policy, Circular 3/2012, and TAYplan. Scottish Natural Heritage (39) 12. This proposed modification is simply a reminder of the importance of green infrastructure. The modification can be made without prejudicing the plan in any way. TACTRAN (41) 13. This representation is effectively dealt with above, and my proposed modifications 1 and 2 below. I note from the planning authority that support for bus services is contained in Policy 54 (1). No further modification is required. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modifications: 1. In paragraph 7.29 add a new final sentence as follows: ‘Supplementary planning guidance will be prepared to ensure land owners, developers and the local authority have certainty about the likely level of developer contributions and the nature of requirements for sites from the outset.’ 2. In Policy 19 add to the policy: ‘Supplementary planning guidance will be prepared to ensure land owners, developers and the local authority have certainty about the likely level of developer contributions and the nature of requirements for sites from the outset. The principles that guide the preparation of the Developer Contributions: Supplementary Guidance are:

• fair and proportionate developer contributions for all developments on sites allocated in either the Dundee Local Development Plan or in terms of windfall development;

• developer contributions will be sought where a need for new or improved services, facilities or infrastructure has been identified that relates directly to the proposed development;

• flexibility in approach to ensure that development can be brought forward in difficult economic circumstances while ensuring that the development has no net detriment; and

• facilitate informed decision making by those involved in the development process, allowing potential financial implications to be factored into development appraisals prior to commercial decisions and actions being undertaken.’

3. In the first sentence of paragraph 7.28, between ‘open’ and ‘space’ add ‘green and’. The sentence should read: ‘Infrastructure provision, for example, roads, schools, open and green space, street lighting and drainage……’

96


Issue 13 City Centre Retail


Preamble to Town Centres and Shopping (Paras 8.2-8.7 Figure 7 – Dundee’s Main Shopping Centres) Policy 20: City Centre Retail Frontages (Para 8.7)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Legal & General Property Ltd (8) Land Securities (7) National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

Retail - Town Centres and Shopping.

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Preamble to Town Centres and Shopping (Paras 8.2-8.6 & Figure 7 - Dundee’s Main Shopping Centres) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): Supports in principle the identified town centre shopping hierarchy referred to in paragraph 8.2 and the approach in paragraph 8.6 to shopping provision. Concerns are raised that the statements in paragraph 8.6 and 8.7 are not based on robust evidence. It is felt that there is a lack of an up to date evidence base setting out the long term qualitative and quantitative assessment of the retail needs of the City. In addition, in terms of paragraph 8.7 there is concern that due to the lack of a robust evidence base it could potentially be misleading in that it could be taken as the basis for an inappropriate restrictive policy, and could have negative consequences. Finally, paragraph 8.7 refers to the internet shopping patterns. It is considered that the Proposed Plan should be based on more robust assumptions on how special forms of trading including, internet shopping, may impact on existing retail floorspace and the need for additional floorspace over the Plan period. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): The Gallagher Retail Park also known as the City Centre Retail Park provides an integral role to the City Centre in terms of providing retail opportunities that cannot be defined within the currently defined City Centre. It would be appropriate and logical to include: the East Whale Lane/Marketgait; the Gallagher Retail Park; the Gallagher Retail Park extension and the gas holder site within the City Centre boundary. This would strengthen the role of the City Centre in competition with Aberdeen, contribute to the Waterfront renaissance and remove an artificial unrealistic distinction in retail policy terms. Policy 20: City Centre Retail Frontages (and Para 8.7) Land Securities (7): Express support for the retail hierarchy and Policy 20 particularly in relation to c) City Centre Extending and Upgrading Shopping Provision and the reference to the Overgate. Suggest developing Supplementary Guidance to set out the relationship between City Centre retail and Waterfront especially regarding the role of Union Street

97


and Whitehall Street. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): It is pointed out that the retailing policies of the Proposed Plan are based upon the core documents of the Colliers Retail Study (CD30) and the TAYplan Retail Framework Final Report March 2009 (CD28) by Roderick MacLean Associates. It is considered that there are discrepancies between the two Retail Studies, their dated nature (Colliers is 2006 and TAYplan 2009 but relying upon Colliers data) and the need to properly assess rather than simply speculate upon the implications of the economic down-turn National Grid and Scotia Gas Networks commissioned their own in depth December 2012 capacity assessment by Hargest Planning (SD01) It identifies the "capacity" for additional floorspace in 2012, 2014 and 2019. It should be noted that the period 2014-2019 is the first Plan period. It is argued that table 9A demonstrates a minimum requirement for some 3600 sqm gross (38,750 sq ft.) convenience floorspace or some 1600 sqm net (17,400 sqft) convenience floorspace in Inner East which when augmented by new population growth in the Waterfront (H41) and the wider catchment area of this City Centre Retail location justifies the establishment of a medium sized supermarket in Inner East. Table 9B demonstrates a substantial expenditure surplus and therefore capacity or need for additional general comparison goods floorspace by 2019 at both the Inner East and Dundee City Wide Levels. The Hargest Planning Retail Capacity Assessment December 2012 (Tables 1-9) (SD01) demonstrates that a medium sized supermarket and some 6,500 sqm (70,000 sqft) gross non-food general comparison floorspace can be located on The Gas Holder Site by reason of the available expenditure capacity limited impact upon the network of centres. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Preamble to Town Centres and Shopping (Paras8.2-8.7 & Figure 7 - Dundee’s Main Shopping Centres) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): That the wording and policies of the Proposed Plan should be based upon a robust and up to date assessment of the retail needs of the City. That the assumptions for special forms of trading including internet shopping should be more robust and set out how these will impact upon existing and future retail floorspace. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): Figure 7 should be amended to include: the East Whale Lane/Marketgait Car Park; Gallagher Retail Park; Gallagher Retail Park Extension and the Gas Holder Site within the City Centre boundary. Policy 20: City Centre Retail Frontages (Page 41 and Para 8.7) Land Securities (7): Suggest developing Supplementary Guidance to set out the relation between City Centre retail and Waterfront especially regarding role of Union Street and Whitehall Street. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): Change paragraph 8.7. Delete "Since the economic down turn there has been little growth in available retail expenditure and it is likely this position will take some time to improve" and replace with "Despite the economic down turn there has been some growth in available retail expenditure and its position will improve over the Plan period."

98


Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Preamble to Town Centres and Shopping (Paras 8.2-8.7 & Figure 7 - Dundee’s Main Shopping Centres) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): The support for the approach to the retail hierarchy is welcomed. In relation to the evidence base the Town Centres and Shopping chapter builds on the Dundee City Region Retail Study (December 2006) prepared by Colliers CRE (CD30). In addition, a further retail study was carried out to help inform the preparation of the TAYplan Main Issues Report (CD27) -The TAYplan Retail Framework 2009 (CD28). In addition, to these studies an annual retail study of all retail and non-retail premises in shopping areas throughout the City is carried out and the findings produced in the Dundee City Council Retail Booklet (CD74). These documents were also used as the basis for the Main Issues Report (CD39) stage in the preparation of the Proposed Plan and in the preparation of the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25). Whilst, these studies were carried out in 2005/6 and 2009 respectively it is considered that they still provide a sufficiently robust and relevant evidence base from which to take forward the approach to retailing in the Proposed Plan. In doing so it is recognised that the economic situation has changed since the 2006 Study was undertaken and this is highlighted in the study carried out in 2009 Study. Therefore, while these studies have been used as a basis to the approach set out in the Proposed Plan adjustments to the assumptions and findings have been made to reflect the current and likely future economic climate. The approach of the Proposed Plan is not negative but realistic given the current economic climate and the likelihood for growth in the short to medium term. The Proposed Plan takes a positive view of future retail development in the City through Policy 20(c) with proposed extensions to retailing within the City Centre at the Overgate Centre and the Wellgate Centre. In addition, the potential for further out of centre retail provision is identified at the Stack and an extension to Gallagher Retail Park. The effects of internet shopping are difficult to predict but will have an impact on future shopping provision. Rather than making unrealistic assumptions on what may or may not happen, the Proposed Plan recognises that this needs to be kept under consideration. As indicated above an annual review of shopping provision will monitor the changes over the period of the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): The City Centre is the region's main shopping destination, an important role that is recognised in TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012 (CD25). The Proposed Plan (CD31) reflects this and the complementary role of the district centres and commercial centres as part of the shopping hierarchy within the City as shown on Figure 7 page 39. The City Centre boundary as defined in the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40) was reviewed in preparing the Proposed Plan and only minor changes to the western edge were considered to be required. The suggested change to include an extensive area of land to the east of the City Centre, as currently defined, would substantially change the scale of the City Centre. The area in question includes the new leisure centre and multi storey car park at East Whale Lane, the Gallagher Retail Park, the extension to Gallagher Retail Park and the Gas Holder site. This area is separated from the City Centre by the Marketgait dual carriageway inner ring road. The Marketgait Ring Road is considered to mark a clear and functional boundary by which to define the City Centre. The proposed boundary (in the representation) follows the line of the Inner Ring Road for most of its length. As currently defined, the area within the City Centre boundary includes the historic street layout and a range of key mainstream City

99


Centre uses, whose physical closeness and easy pedestrian links allow for convenient interaction. The nature of the area to the east of the existing City Centre is clearly different from that within it. The Gallagher Retail Park when it was approved was considered to be adjacent to an edge of centre car park and could provide linked trips to the City Centre. The extension to the Retail Park and the Gas Holder site is even farther away again, diminishing the prospect for linkages. As a result, the area to the east of the Marketgait Inner Ring Road is at best an edge-of-centre location as defined, and there is no justification for including it within the City Centre boundary. The main focus for the City Centre at this time is to ensure that the vitality and viability of the existing shopping areas is maintained. The current pressure on existing shopping areas in the City Centre is acknowledged by Kennedy & Co in their review of retail (SD02) where they highlight the Wellgate and Murraygate are in need of investment. It is considered important to ensure that any out of centre development does attract investment away from these areas and therefore undermine the existing shopping provision in the City Centre. Priority must therefore be given to focusing investment to the existing City Centre rather than expanding it in size. In addition, there is the need to prioritise the integration of the Waterfront Development into the existing shopping area. The suggested change would potentially undermine this by diverting the focus to the east of the Centre. For these reasons the suggested change to the proposed boundary is considered to be inappropriate. No modification to the plan is proposed. Policy 20: City Centre Retail Frontages (Para 8.7) Land Securities (7): Support for the retail hierarchy is welcomed. The relationship between the City Centre and the Waterfront is already set out in Policy 20 (c). This highlights that the Waterfront Master Plan (CD47) includes a limited element of small scale shopping floorspace which should be complementary in nature to the City Centre provision. Paragraph 8.11 of the Proposed Plan acknowledges that as the Waterfront develops there will be the potential for Union Street, Castle Street and Exchange Street to further develop as they will become key pedestrian links between the City Centre and the Waterfront. Further design guidance as part of the Master Planning process is being developed and will continue to be prepared as the Waterfront proposals progress. In recognition of the future importance of the links between the City Centre and the Waterfront the physical environment of these links is currently being improved with the improvements to Union Street and Whitehall Street complete and Whitehall Crescent underway. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include the requirement for Supplementary Guidance in the Proposed Plan for this particular matter as it is already being progressed through the Waterfront Master Planning process. No modification is proposed to the Plan. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): Paragraph 8.7 reflects the findings of the TAYplan Retail Framework 2009 (CD28) which updated the previous Dundee City Region Retail Study 2006 (CD30). The TAYplan Retail Framework 2009 (CD28) highlighted that the economic downturn had largely called a halt to investment in non-food retail property development and comparison retailer demand in many sectors. In addition, the TAYplan Retail Framework (CD28) suggested that non food retail property expenditure had dropped significantly and it was impossible to predict when the recession would end. This view is reinforced in the report by Kennedy & Co “Review of Retailing in Dundee” (SD02). Paragraph 4.1 of the Report states that “the retail park market nationally has been subject to a great deal of change and uncertainty due to the wider economic conditions including

100


the demise of major well known retailers”. The TAYplan study (CD28) concluded that the strategy of continuing to direct the main redevelopment opportunities to the City Centre was consistent with the major multiple retailers requirements in general and remained an appropriate approach. Since 2009 there has been little sign of a change to the conclusions reached in the 2009 Study. Whilst, no further detailed study work has been done since 2009 the continued closure of certain retail chains including those in the High Street reflects the general economic climate of limited growth as noted in the study by Kennedy and Co paragraph 4.1 (SD02) as detailed above. The Proposed Plan does not take a negative response to this current situation. In fact, it seeks to identify opportunities to extend the retail provision in the City Centre at the Overgate and Wellgate through Policy 20 and to identify scope at The Stack (Policy 22) and Gallagher Retail Park (Policy 25) for edge of centre retail opportunities. Therefore, the approach in the Proposed Plan is not negative but sets out a proportionate approach to accommodating new retail proposals whilst ensuring that existing centres are not undermined in terms of their vitality and viability. The Retail Study 2012 carried out for Hargest Planning (SD01) sets out the potential capacity for additional floorspace for both convenience and comparison goods (page 8 paragraph 4.3). It is considered the assumptions upon which this is based are particularly optimistic given the current and likely economic climate over the 5 year period of the Proposed Plan. It is considered that any actual growth will still be limited and take longer to come to fruition than that set out in the assessment. In fact, the Kennedy and Co Report (SD02) recognises the need for expenditure to be focused to the existing City Centre (Murraygate, Wellgate and the extension to the Overgate in paragraph 3.3 and 3.4). It also recognises the need for future investment at Kingsway East and West. The delivery on the potential investment in the City Centre, Stack and Gallagher Extension will take some time to be progressed. It will be necessary to assess the take-up of these schemes and the impact on existing shopping provision. It is considered that the proposals at The Stack and Gallagher Retail Park extension and in the City Centre should be pursued rather than additional land being allocated particularly of the significant scale proposed by the representation. DD One (17) (CD65) in their representation set out their support for the Council’s approach as the retail strategy promotes the City Centre as first choice location for the development of new shopping provision within the City and further develops Dundee’s regional shopping role. The approach of the Proposed Plan to new retail opportunities is sufficient for the approach proposed and that wording is appropriate. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Preamble to Town Centres and Shopping (Paras8.2-8.7 Figure 7 – Dundee’s Main Shopping Centres) Legal & General Property Ltd (8) 1. The planning authority has explained how the retail studies of 2006 and 2009 are augmented by the annual retail study. The proposed plan recognises the need to monitor changes annually over the plan period. No clear and robust assessment of the impact of internet shopping is available, so that too will need to be monitored. Regular review would be an appropriate response to dynamic market conditions. I do not consider this policy to be over-restrictive. A positive approach is taken at Part c) of Policy 20, which supports new shopping floorspace.

101


National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) 2. On the east side, the city centre boundary extends to the Marketgait inner ring road dual carriageway, which is a clear and functional boundary. It encloses the historic streets and traditional uses of the City Centre, where there is close physical proximity and pedestrian movement is relatively easy. Whilst within walking distance, the route to Gallagher Retail Park and surrounding sites is not easy. The obvious pedestrian draw is along High Street and Murraygate, between the two major shopping centres at Overgate and Wellgate. There is no clear route to the retail park, which is in the opposite direction from the bus station. It also has its own car park. This can be useful for linked trips to the centre, but with limited parking times and no clear route that will be limited. Extending the retail park any further than proposed would reduce this potential for linkages by making it more of a destination in its own right. There is also no useful link with the Central Waterfront, indicating to me that there would be a negative effect on the renaissance there if the City Centre were extended eastwards. Therefore, the suggested additional sites should not be included in the City Centre and no consequential amendments to the text will be necessary. 3. Given the current uncertainty over future retail spending, I consider that a cautious approach would be appropriate to protect the vitality and viability of the City Centre. Even so, the plan includes opportunities to extend retail provision. These should be given time to develop before adding new sites. Policy 20: City Centre Retail Frontages (and Para 8.7) Land Securities (7) 4. Land Securities suggest supplementary guidance be developed to set out the relationship between the City Centre and Waterfront. In retail terms, this relationship is set out at Policy 20(c) by reference to the Waterfront Masterplan. Paragraph 8.11 illuminates this further by considering the role of the secondary streets linking the City Centre and the Waterfront. Further design guidance would best be incorporated in the waterfront masterplanning. Therefore, further supplementary planning guidance is not needed. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) 5. The representation makes a case for a medium sized supermarket at Inner East Dundee based on predicted expenditure surplus. The gas holder site could accommodate this along with some non-food comparison goods floorspace. In relation to this, the change sought is to provide a more optimistic tone to the text at paragraph 8.7. The planning authority’s studies are dated, but they say that there is little sign of any change to their conclusions. The report by Hargest Planning may well be an indicator of improving circumstances. However, there is no certainty of this either. I am satisfied that the wording within the proposed plan remains relevant and appropriate at the moment. I am also reassured that the proposed plan contains policies to permit additional retail space both within the City Centre, District centres and at the Gallagher Retail Park. Thus there is scope for additional shops if growth improves and there should be no reason to adopt a restrictive approach if the evidence at the time supports new development. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

102


Issue 14 New Retail Proposals


Policy 22: The Stack Policy 25: Gallagher Retail Park Extension (Para 8.25)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Legal & General Property Ltd (8) T J Morris Ltd (49) National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) ASDA Stores Ltd (27) M Astin (9) Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:


Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 22: The Stack Legal & General Property Ltd (8): A Masterplan, to be prepared by the owners of the Stack, will not have any status as a development plan document or as an evidence base document supporting the Local Plan. Reference to this Masterplan should be deleted from the policy and supporting text. In Policy 22, there is also a need to ensure that any development at the Stack is of an appropriate scale having regard to the role, function and accessibility of Lochee District Centre and its position within the identified shopping centre hierarchy, so that the scale of development that is allowed does not have a significant adverse impact not just on Lochee District Centre but also on other centres including the City Centre, other District Centres and the Commercial Centres. ASDA Stores Limited (27): The site is not well suited to retail use. No evidence has been provided since the Main Issues Report as to why retail uses are now considered suitable. T J Morris Ltd (49): Supports the redevelopment of The Stack. It is recognised that the future success of The Stack site is integral to the continued vibrancy of the neighbouring Lochee District Centre and vice versa. Lochee High Street offers the more traditional shopping and service-based environment for the surrounding population. The Stack can complement this by offering larger format spaces for retail, leisure and other uses that support rather than compete with the High Street. The significant advantage offered by The Stack is the relative proximity to an established District Centre. Connectivity in terms of distance is already strong. The fact that T J Morris Ltd also has ownership of the former Tesco property on Methven Street will mean that this connectivity can be enhanced over time to effectively integrate The Stack with Lochee High Street from a user perspective. Consequently, the definiton of Lochee District Centre should be extended to include The Stack. In terms of proximity, linked trips, future complementarity, and the drive forward towards a common agenda for the whole of Lochee makes sense. Given that the former Tesco foodstore at Methven Street and its surrounding pedestrian network is already part of the District Centre designation, The Stack and the land ownership is integral to future

103


decisions about (re)development and land use in Lochee. The extension of the Lochee District Centre boundary makes perfect sense and would align with the proposed Masterplan (Policy 22) to be prepared in conjunction with Dundee City Council and the local community. The Stack offers a “ready made” opportunity to complement one of the City’s established shopping and trading environments as well as the wider regeneration and economic development of Lochee. Policy 25: Gallagher Retail Park Extension (Para 8.25) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): Questions the evidence base of paragraph 8.25 regarding the City's future household goods retail floorspace requirement. In the absence of evidence there is a risk that this proposed allocation could threaten the household goods shopping role of existing commercial centres such as Kingsway East Retail Park. M Astin (9); Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52): Questions the necessity for another retail park. Should focus on revitalising existing vacant units. Positioning outlets further out of the City Centre is bound to reduce their use by customers because of the walking distance involved; there has to be some other reason for going there. Most people want to wander around Murraygate, High Street and Reform Street. It’s not clear where the bus station would be relocated? This should be specified because it affects many people travelling to Dundee from outlying areas such as North Fife, Perth, Forfar, Kirriemuir, Newtyle etc. and it is convenient for Wellgate and Murraygate. A bus station won't benefit users unless it's centrally positioned. The best place for a bus station is adjacent to the railway station so they can easily transfer between connections. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): Requests an additional policy for the Gas Holder site, Dock Street. Consequential changes should be made elsewhere to the Proposed Plan and to the Proposal Map. There would be no change to Appendix 4 - Goods Range Restrictions as this would not apply to the Gas Holder Site. This is a 5 hectare site in need of remediation and redevelopment with a poor appearance and a negative impact. It has a prominent location; its redevelopment would form part of the Waterfront renaissance and provide improved facilities for Waterfront residents. Redevelopment for employment use is not economically viable due to the cost of remediation works. The DTZ Land Values Report (SD3) demonstrates that a higher value retail use is the only viable proposal for this site. The site is allocated as a Principal Economic Development Area with alleged potential for development for renewable energy engineering. However it has no ready accessibility to the Docks and lies outwith the Enterprise Zone which will further deter investor interest as will the clearance and remediation costs. The Dundee City Region Retail Study 2006 (CD30) recognises the development potential of the Gas Holder Site. Discrepancies between the Colliers Retail Study (CD30) and TAYplan Retail Framework Final Report (CD28) are highlighted. In view of these discrepancies, their dated nature (Colliers is 2006 and TAYplan 2009 but relying upon Colliers data) and the need to properly assess rather than simply speculate upon the implications of the economic down-turn, National Grid and Scotia Gas Networks commissioned an in depth 2012 capacity assessment by Hargest Planning (SD01). The Hargest Planning Retail Capacity Assessment December 2012 (SD01) demonstrates that a medium sized supermarket and some 6,500sqm (70,000 sq ft.) gross non-food general comparison floorspace can be located on the Gas Holder Site with by reason of the available expenditure capacity limited impact upon the network of centres. The proposed supermarket at the Gas Holder Site would: relieve the deficiency of provision in Inner East; complement the Central Area; strengthen the offer at the City Centre Retail Park; maintain a long-established retailing strategy endorsed in the former Dundee Local Plan and

104


promote sustainable linked shopping trips to the City Centre/Retail Park. A development site should be made available at East Dock Street of the scale and nature of the Gas Holder Site that adds to the retail diversity of the City and accommodates new vibrant retailers to the City. The Gas Holder Site has the prominence, scale and adjacency to a successful retail park to attract the new retailers that a city the size of Dundee is expected to have. Kennedy and Co (SD02) has identified interest in the Gas Holder Site specifically from two major food retailers. An unusually strong retailer interest has been expressed in the Gas Holder Site during the first five year period of the Plan 2014-2019. Dock Street requires a foodstore/non food retailing to: provide greater food choice within Dundee close to the City Centre and to the Waterfront Renaissance; to provide critical mass to support and complement the existing Retail Warehouse provision and to generate impetus for the success of the Gallagher City Centre Retail Park as a retail destination. The Gas Holder Site has the ability to offer a high quality retailing location which is well located to complement and enhance the offer of the City Centre and Dundee as a regional retailing centre. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 22: The Stack Legal & General Property Ltd (8): Delete the reference to a Masterplan and include additional wording to the policy to ensure that any development is of an appropriate scale having regard to the role, function and accessibility of Lochee District Centre and its position within the identified shopping hierarchy. ASDA Stores Ltd (27): Change policy approach to reflect that retail use is not suited to this location. T J Morris Ltd (49): The boundary of Lochee District Centre (as shown in Figure 7, Appendix 6 and the Proposals Map) should be extended to include The Stack. Policy 25: Gallagher Retail Park Extension (Para 8.25) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): There is no clear evidence that this site is needed to meet future household goods retail floorspace requirements and could therefore threaten the household goods role of existing commercial centres such as Kingsway East. M Astin (9); Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52): Justify necessity for another retail park and specify where the bus station will be relocated to. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): Insert a new policy: “Policy x The Gas Holder Site, Dock Street, Dundee.” Suggested inclusions to the policy are as follows: “Site Allocated for: Some 11,150 sqm (120,000 sqft) Gross Class 1 Retail Floorspace including Supermarket with up to 2,100 sqm (22,500 sqft) Net Convenience Floorspace. Site to accommodate relocated Bus Depot; Gas Holder Removal and Remediation; Improved Access and Environmental Improvements. The City Council supports the redevelopment of the Gas Holder Site for a supermarket and non-food retailing. A MasterPlan be prepared by the site owners for approval by the City Council to establish the layout and development potential of the site."

105


Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 22: The Stack Legal & General Property Ltd (8): The Masterplan is to be produced by the owners of the Stack in conjunction with the Council and it is then intended to approve the Masterplan once it has been agreed and formally submitted. This approach is in line with other Masterplans such as at Mill O’Mains (CD60). This will also allow it to be linked with the Lochee Regeneration Framework document (CD43) and will form the basis for the regeneration of the wider Lochee area. A draft of the Masterplan is currently being prepared by the owners and will be submitted to the Council in due course. The Masterplan will set out the intended scale, role and function of the Stack and how it relates physically to Lochee High Street. This will be in line with Policy 22 which will ensure it plays a complementary role to the District Centre. In addition, Policy 22 already requires an assessment of the potential impact on the existing shopping provision in the District Centre. In order to prevent sporadic development and to ensure that the redevelopment of the Stack has a complementary role to the regeneration of the District Centre the requirement of a Masterplan will be maintained. No modification is proposed to the Plan. ASDA Stores Ltd (27): The policy approach to regenerate The Stack is to encourage a mixture of uses, including retail development of an appropriate scale and type. At the time of the Main Issues Report a planning application (Planning Ref 05/00915/FUL) (CD58) had already been approved for retail uses of 4645sqm in The Stack. The policy as worded in the Proposed Plan seeks to reflect that position and therefore includes the potential for retail use. A planning application for two retail units within the site has now been approved (Planning Ref.12/00374/FULL Change of use from Leisure to Class 1 Retail) (CD54). This is currently being implemented with a store scheduled to open in April 2013 and there is other retailer interest. No modification is proposed to the Plan. T J Morris Ltd (49): The District Centre boundary as proposed reflects the main shopping area of Lochee and has been defined in the Proposed Plan to tie in with the area set out by the Lochee Physical Regeneration Framework document (CD43). The request to extend the boundary to include The Stack would significantly increase the physical area covered by the District Centre. The Stack was formerly a leisure park adjacent to the District Centre. Its layout reflects this with large areas of car parking and large scale leisure units. To include such a large area in the District Centre which is undergoing regeneration of its core retail area would undermine the objectives for the District Centre (as set out in the Lochee Physical Regeneration Framework document) (CD43). If the area covered by The Stack were to be included in the District Centre there would be few policy restrictions on the scale and type of retailing that could be accommodated. This could potentially draw significant levels of new or existing trade away from the redeveloping core area of the district centre and undermine its long term vitality and viability. The proposed approach to have The Stack as a mixed use area complementary to the District Centre allows for the consideration of new proposals to be undertaken assessing the potential impact on the existing District Centre. It is considered that the master planning approach to an edge of centre location strikes an appropriate balance between delivering the regeneration of an important District Centre whilst allowing for the regeneration of the former leisure park at The Stack. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

106


Policy 25: Gallagher Retail Park Extension (Para 8.25) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): The proposed extension to Gallagher Retail Park is carried forward from the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005 (CD40). The scope for additional bulky household goods floor space over the Proposed Plan period will be less than that forecast in the Dundee City Region Retail Study 2006 (CD30). This position reflects the more updated findings of the TAYplan Retail Framework 2009 (CD28). The approach of the Proposed Plan is to positively plan for appropriate additional retail floorspace within the City. Therefore, some scope has been built in to accommodate the potential expansion of bulky household goods floor space. This is limited, however, to an extension to the existing Gallagher Retail Park. It is considered that this approach provides a balance to retaining the focus of bulky household goods at Kingsway West and East but allow for the potential of some limited expansion if necessary at an established retail park. No modification proposed to the Plan. M Astin (9); Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52): The Proposed Plan is not allocating a new retail park but instead seeks to extend the existing Gallagher Retail Park which is within walking distance of the City Centre. The extension of the existing retail park has the scope to complement and enhance the attraction of the existing retail park. It provides for future demand for out of centre retailing in a planned and logical extension to the existing commercial centre. To avoid undermining the retail strategy, the site will be subject to goods range restrictions to ensure that it operates as a focus for retail warehousing trading primarily in bulky household goods. It is noted that the question is raised of where the “bus station” would be relocated. The site proposed for the extension to the Gallagher Retail Park is a “bus depot” operated by Travel Dundee for the storage and maintenance of their bus fleet. There is no public access to this facility and there are no passenger facilities available at this location. The current bus station for the City is based in Seagate/Trades Land and would be unaffected by this proposed allocation. This concern would seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what is being proposed by the Policy when it refers to “Bus Depot”. No modification is proposed to the Plan. National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): The Gas Holder site has been in industrial use for many years and in locational terms is well suited for its purpose. It is capable of providing future employment opportunities particularly as it has convenient trunk road access, it is close to other industrial uses to the east and south, and is in an area that is largely characterised by other economic development uses. It is one of a number of sites throughout the City, given its nature and location close to Dundee Port that could have the potential to accommodate demand from the renewable energy manufacturing industry. The Proposed Plan aims to create a supportive business environment and as such the strategy encourages the retention and redevelopment of well–located industrial and business sites to ensure a range of sites are available at all times. Consequently, it is considered necessary to safeguard this site from other development pressures to assist economic development in the City. The Proposed Plan identifies the potential for additional retail floorspace within the City Centre (Policy 20 (c) the Overgate and the Wellgate) and at The Stack and an extension to Gallagher Retail Park. It is considered that these locations between them provide a

107


basis to accommodate the likely additional retail floorspace over the period of the Proposed Plan. They are also logical extensions within the City Centre, adjacent to a District Centre (The Stack) and to an existing Retail Park. The proposed out-of-centre locations will be subject to goods range restrictions to ensure that they do not undermine the retail strategy of supporting the City and District Centres. The Gas Holder site does not have the locational advantages of the allocated sites and the potential for linked shopping trips would be minimal. Orchard Street Investment Management LLP (61) (CD63) in their representation set out their support for the Council’s approach to Policy 25, as the goods range restrictions on this site, will ensure it does not undermine the overall retail strategy. The request for an additional allocation of some 11,150 sq metres gross Class 1 floorspace would be a significant increase in the retail floorspace within the City. It is argued by National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) that there will be available expenditure to meet this level of additional floorspace over the plan period. This would be in addition to the areas already identified in the Proposed Plan for additional floorspace which could be of the same scale in total as that being proposed for the Gas Holder site. These issues have been addressed in consideration of the comments by National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks in terms of Policy 20 (Schedule 13). It is considered that in the current economic climate and in the period of the Proposed Plan it would be inappropriate to allocate this level of additional floorspace over and above that proposed to be allocated. In addition, unrestricted Class 1 use is being proposed. This would have the potential to draw significant levels of trade from the City Centre, District Centres and Commercial Centres, undermining their vitality and viability. The proposed inclusion of a large food store is unnecessary. Dundee already has an excellent range and distribution of major food retailing. All previous studies have been clear that there is no further capacity for food retail floorspace. In addition, a new ASDA foodstore at Kingsway West/Myrekirk Road in 2011 (Planning Ref: 10/00750/FULM) (CD55) is currently under construction. The City Centre is already provided for in terms of food shopping with various stores in the City Centre and a Tesco Superstore at Riverside Drive to the West. The east area also has the benefit of an ASDA foodstore together with Aldi and other smaller retail units, on Arbroath Road to the east. A new policy allocating the Gas Holder Site for 11,150 sqm of Class 1 floorspace would undermine the retail strategy of the Proposed Plan and would remove a site that could accommodate new uses including those in relation to the renewables sector. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 22: The Stack Legal & General Property Ltd (8) 1. The Stack is a former leisure park which is no longer viable. It is a major development site close to the Lochee District Centre. Redevelopment is important to the surrounding area and the proposed plan says that a mix of use complementary to the District Centre offers the best opportunity to bring the Stack back into use.

108


2. Masterplanning for mixed use is an established method of helping the creation of sustainable and successful places. It should include an appraisal of environmental, social and economic issues in the context of the relevant policies. That should include an assessment of the potential impact on the District Centre, as required by Policy 22. It should be open to consultation and should arrive at a workable and sustainable proposal for the site. It should therefore be evidence based and should be in accordance with the local development plan, supporting its intentions. I note that retail applications have been permitted at the Stack. That is a matter for the planning authority. The masterplan for the Stack will need to include these permissions in its assessments of impact. 3. The intention of Policy 22 is to bring about a mixed use that will complement the District Centre. This will necessarily limit the impact of any retail in the mix, such that it should not harm the function of other centres. Even if there were an impact, the need to regenerate the Lochee District Centre should be the focus. The masterplan requirement should remain in the policy. ASDA Stores Ltd (27) 4. Retail uses at the Stack are included as part of a mix to be subject of a masterplan. Any retail element would need to be justified through that process. Removing retail use could restrict the redevelopment potential of the site and its ability to contribute to regeneration of Lochee District Centre. The policy approach need not be changed. T J Morris Ltd (49) 5. The District Centre at Lochee should support the City Centre as part of a traditional nucleus of shops, services and leisure facilities. These should conveniently provide for the needs of the surrounding communities. This is set out at paragraphs 8.2, 8.4 and 8.12 of the proposed plan. However, the Stack site is intended to be developed as a mix of housing, retail and leisure. The mix would depend on the masterplan. It would be premature to re-designate the entire Stack site when large parts may not be part of the offer appropriate to a District Centre. Policy 25: Gallagher Retail Park Extension (Para 8.25) Legal & General Property Ltd (8); M Astin (9); Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52) 6. The planning authority justifies the additional household goods retail floorspace on the basis that it would accommodate part of the future requirement and because it would be next to an existing edge of centre retail park. There is nothing to show whether it would threaten existing commercial centres. However, I accept the planning authority’s explanation that it allows for potential small-scale expansion at an existing retail park and that it would retain the focus of bulky goods at Kingsway West and East. 7. Goods would be restricted to bulky household goods of the sort found in retail warehouses and where car access is desirable. This is in accordance with the goods range restrictions for commercial centres set out at Policy 23 of the proposed plan. There should be no threat to the City Centre shops. 8. The existing bus depot is for the garaging and maintenance of the bus fleet. Its removal would not affect the bus station on Seagate. A new site would need to be arranged for it before development could proceed at the retail park extension.

109


National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) 9. The gas holder site is to be safeguarded for industrial and business use to assist economic development in the city. The site owners have estimated remediation at £10.7 million including future costs and removal of the gas holder. A land values report shows that only the higher value of retail would be viable. Paragraph 30 of PAN33 allows that the benefits of remediation could be sufficient for them to take priority over other policy objectives where a high value end use is essential to make remediation viable. The site owner considers this to be such a case. The planning authority says that it is well-placed and could have potential to accommodate demand from the renewable energy industry. This has not been specifically assessed but would reasonably equate to an industrial use, which, according to the site owner, would not be viable. Much work has been done in preparing a retail scheme for the site and any planning application would need to be assessed on its merits. In terms of preparing a local development plan, however, I accept that sites should be kept available to support business and the economic development of the city. See also Issue 22 regarding high value end uses on contaminated sites. 10. For these reasons and also those set out under Issue 13, I do not consider that there should be a new policy designating the gas holder site on Dock Street, Dundee for retail use. Reporter’s recommendation: No modifications.

110


Issue 15 Goods Range Restrictions


Policy 23: Goods Range Restrictions (Para 8.20, 8.21 & 8.22) Appendix 4: Goods Range Restrictions (Page 81)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Legal & General Property Ltd (8) Land Securities (7) ASDA Stores Ltd (27) Barton Willmore (18) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:


Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 23: Goods Range Restrictions (Para 8.20, 8.21 & 8.22) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): Seeks a change to the wording of Policy 23. In relation to paragraph 8.21 highlights that an appropriate and positive reference should be made to Commercial Centres. The negative emphasis of the wording is inappropriate. In relation to paragraph 8.22 the Plan fails to recognise that the Kingsway East Retail Park has not been able to operate successfully under the current goods restrictions and seeks an immediate review. The Plan’s failure to identify the need for regeneration of Kingsway East Retail Park is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (CD10). It is not acceptable for the Plan to seek to defer a review of goods restrictions until later in the Plan period. This undermines the Plan’s support for Kingsway East Commercial Centre as an important part of shopping centre hierarchy. Land Securities (7): Seeks to encourage further commentary to support the potential for future variations to the existing restrictions at the City's Commercial Centres, which are now recognised within TAYplan for their significant role in the hierarchy and in light of the continuously evolving retail landscape and the need for locations within the retail network to adapt and remain flexible to ensure they remain competitive regionally and nationally. ASDA Stores Ltd (27): Recommends the addition of wording to the beginning of Policy 23 as the current sentence could be misunderstood as meaning that the Council will revisit the permissions already in place. The insertion of the recommended wording confirms that this is just in relation to any new applications for additional floorspace. The food store section of Policy 23 requires clarification. At present, as the foodstore section is a separate section to Commercial Centres it could be interpreted that this element of the policy relates to all foodstore proposals. It is expected that the policy is intended to apply to any foodstore proposals for sites within Commercial Centres or in other out of centre locations. The general principle of the identification of the role that Commercial Centres play in the hierarchy of retail locations throughout Dundee is supported. The specific section in the Proposed Plan accords with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and is

111


welcomed. However, greater explanation and recognition of the role that commercial centres play in the community should be made within paragraph 8.20. Barton Willmore (18): Seeks a change to the wording of Policy 23 and supporting paragraphs to ensure the policy meets the objective of increasing sustainable economic growth. Policy 23 should be amended to reflect changes in the retail market and to ensure vitality and viability of commercial centres are protected. The current policy is too restrictive and is at risk of deterring investment. Suggests a review is undertaken now of the goods range restrictions to ensure centres remain viable. A minor adverse impact on town or district centres should be considered acceptable if it maintains the viability of the commercial centre itself. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): States that the three commercial centres are all heavily dependent on car-borne visitors and that this is not recognised in the supporting paragraphs. Suggests an additional policy be included to encourage increased use of buses at commercial centres. Appendix 4: Goods Range Restrictions Legal & General Property Ltd (8): Flexibility is required to relax the goods restrictions at Kingsway East Retail Park a) Food and Drink this restriction should be reviewed and revised. It is anti-competitive and unnecessary when there is a large adjacent Asda which is also part of the Commercial Centre. At least a proportion of food sales should be permitted to allow important flexibility. b) Clothing and footwear same arguments as previous. c) Jewellery, silverware, watches, clocks this restriction should be reviewed and revised. Some well established retailers located at retail warehouse parks have business models that include selling a limited amount of these types of goods as part of a mixed goods business. These retail business models are distinct from the specialist stores in town centres and department stores. d) Toys and Sports Goods - there is a large toy store at Kingsway West Retail Park and therefore reference to a restriction on toys does not reflect the reality of the ranges of goods that have been permitted at Kingsway West Retail Park. Sports goods retailers selling sports clothing and equipment are a well established business model at retail parks across the UK. There is no clear evidence that this would be harmful in Dundee. e) Electrical goods - the sale of electrical goods is not actually prohibited at Kingsway East Retail Park and previous occupiers of units at the Park include Powerhouse and Comet. The specifics of the controls on electrical goods sales at Kingsway East Retail Park can be dealt with through development management decisions. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 23: Goods Range Restrictions (Para 8.20, 8.21 & 8.22) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): Change the wording of Policy 23 to "The commercial centres at Kingsway East Retail Park, Kingsway West Retail Park and Gallagher Retail Park shall be supported in continuing their complementary roles in meeting the shopping needs of the City and its catchment alongside the City Centre and District Centres. Proposals to significantly alter the ranges of goods that are currently restricted at the Commercial Centres will be allowed unless there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to; 1) individually or cumulatively have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the City Centre as a whole or any District Centre as a whole. The City Council supports the regeneration of Kingsway East Retail Park and recognises that greater

112


flexibility in goods ranges may be required at this Commercial Centre in particular.” Land Securities (7): Additional commentary should be added to support the potential for future variations to the existing restrictions at the City's Commercial Centres. ASDA Stores Ltd (27): The following text should be added to Policy 23 at the beginning of the first sentence which starts with: "The commercial centres…" "Any new proposals for floorspace at…" In paragraph 8.20 the following sentence should be added: "Commercial centres bring economic investment and employment opportunities to the local community, they are a positive contribution to the retail provision of the Dundee area, providing additional choice and range of goods to the consumer." Also clarification on the section 'Food Stores' and whether this relates to all food store developments in Dundee or whether it applies to only food store proposals within commercial centres or in other out of centre locations. Barton Willmore (18): Amend wording of policy to enable existing non-food units within Commercial Centres to provide up to 40% of their existing net sales floorspace to the sale of goods defined in Appendix 4 with the exception of "food and groceries" where the following criteria is met:• Where it is shown that a vacant unit has been extensively marketed for an appropriate period of time without securing a new end user; or• Proposals will comply with the Local Development Plan Strategy in that they will be capable of coexisting with the City Centre and the District Centres without individually or cumulatively causing a significant adverse impact to their vitality and viability. Regarding the wording in bullet 2) of the Policy "undermining" should be replaced with "significant adverse impact". Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Additional wording should be included in paragraph 8.20 to recognise that the three Commercial Centres are dependent on car-borne visitors and so contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. An additional active policy should be included to encourage increased use of buses and promotion of facilities for shoppers to encourage them to use buses. Appendix 4: Goods Range Restrictions Legal & General Property Ltd (8): All restricted goods ranges should be reviewed and revised at Kingsway East Retail Park. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 23: Goods Range Restrictions (Para 8.20, 8.21 & 8.22) Legal & General Property Ltd (8): TAYplan (CD25) identifies three commercial centres in Dundee. In line with TAYplan the Proposed Plan recognises that the Commercial Centres provide an important complementary role as part of the shopping hierarchy within the City. Commercial centres have a clearly defined and accepted role in the hierarchy but only as subordinate to the prime role of the City and District Centres. In relation to the goods range restrictions, the Council has operated a policy for the last 20 years of controlling the range of goods sold at all the retail parks within the City through section 50/75 agreements. These restrictions apply across all of the non-food retail warehouse units at Kingsway East, West and Gallagher Retail Parks. The reason for this policy approach is to ensure that a balance is maintained between safeguarding the City Centre in its role as a regional shopping destination and providing for bulkier retail warehouse goods in out of centre locations. These restrictions have been maintained consistently. The Proposed

113


Plan offers a criterion based approach to be met by new proposals involving the sale of any of the restricted goods ranges. It is considered that a relaxation of controls over the range of goods could result in existing retailers located within the City Centre relocating to the Commercial Centres. This would undermine the vitality and viability of the City Centre and its role as a regional shopping centre. The retail impact implications of the commercial centres initial development and subsequent expansion were considered carefully, and the restrictions have been vital in maintaining their complementary relationship with the City and District Centres. The restrictions have prevented the potentially damaging diversion of expenditure on goods ranges including clothing, footwear, leisure, sports and personal items, so that the City Centre’s key role at the top of the shopping hierarchy has been safeguarded. Removing the restrictions would open up the prospect of fundamental retail character changes, which would have serious, harmful consequences for the City and District Centres and would destroy the current balance between central and out-of-centre retailing within the City. The Council has applied the goods range restrictions in a flexible way, and has been prepared to support minor adjustments where that could benefit consumers without undermining the existing primary shopping centres. To date, this approach has operated satisfactorily and it has provided a degree of stability that otherwise would not have existed for prospective developers and established retailers alike. The restrictions have also given City and District Centres retailers a degree of confidence and reassurance that their primary locations will not be harmed by fundamental changes in the roles of Kingsway East, West and Gallagher Retail Parks. The Policy 23 restrictions are an important safeguard to avoid damaging the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, and should be retained to clearly define the roles of the commercial centres. Orchard Street Investment Management LLP (61) (CD63) and Fife Council (32) (CD62) in their representation set out their support for the Council’s approach to continue to place special goods restrictions and related controls to limit the amount of floorspace that can be given to non-foods at Kingsway East Retail Park, Kingsway West Retail Park and Gallagher Retail Parks as this will continue to protect the vitality and viability of the City Centre. The Proposed Plan does recognise that retail is changing (Paragraph 8.22) and so gives flexibility to the Council by allowing future review of the retail situation and goods range restrictions within the City. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Land Securities (7): The Council has always applied the goods range restrictions in a flexible way, and has been prepared to support minor adjustments where that could benefit consumers without undermining the existing primary shopping centres. To date, this approach has operated satisfactorily and it has provided a degree of stability that otherwise would not have existed for prospective developers and established retailers alike. The restrictions have also given City and District Centres retailers a degree of confidence and reassurance that their primary locations will not be harmed by fundamental changes in the roles of Kingsway East, West and Gallagher Retail Parks. Therefore, the Policy 23 restrictions are an important safeguard to avoid damaging impact on the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, and they must be kept to continue to clarify and define the broad roles of the commercial centres. The Proposed Plan recognises that retail is changing (Paragraph 8.22) and so gives flexibility to the Council by allowing future review of the retail situation and goods range restrictions within the City. It is considered that this is sufficient and that no additional commentary is required to support the potential for future variations to the restrictions. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

114


ASDA Stores Ltd (27): It is considered that the existing wording of Policy 23 applies to all new proposals for additional shopping floorspace. It is considered that there is no justification to support the suggested wording change. The additional text suggested for paragraph 8.20 is unnecessary, particularly as paragraph 8.2 already recognises the contribution that commercial centres make to Dundee's economy. In relation to the food stores, Policy 23 applies to all new major food stores as explained in paragraph 8.23. Existing major stores in Dundee already have these restrictions attached to their planning permissions. It is considered that the approach set out in the preamble and Policy 23 is sufficiently clear. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Barton Willmore (18): It is considered the request to amend the wording of Policy 23 to allow for existing non-food units within commercial centres to provide up to 40% of their existing net sales floorspace to the sale of goods defined in Appendix 4 and to amend criterion 2) is not appropriate as the Council has always applied the goods range restrictions in a flexible way, and has been prepared to support minor adjustments where that could benefit consumers without undermining the existing primary shopping centres. To date, this approach has operated satisfactorily and it has provided a degree of stability that otherwise would not have existed for prospective developers and established retailers alike. The restrictions have also given City and District Centres retailers a degree of confidence and reassurance that their primary locations will not be harmed by fundamental changes in the roles of Kingsway East, West and Gallagher Retail Parks. Therefore, the Policy 23 restrictions are an important safeguard to avoid damaging impact on the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, and they must be kept to continue to clarify and define the broad roles of the retail parks. The Proposed Plan recognises that retail is changing (Paragraph 8.22) and so gives flexibility to the Council by allowing future review of the retail situation and goods range restrictions within the City. The rewording of the policy as suggested is not considered to be appropriate and could undermine the retail strategy of the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Paragraph 8.6 makes it clear that the Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the provision of shopping, services and facilities so that the community as a whole has the benefit of convenient access to the full range of shopping and related services. In addition, one of the criteria in Policy 24 Location of New Retail Developments seeks to ensure that sites are accessible by modes of transport other than the car. An additional policy and additional wording is not necessary. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Appendix 4: Goods Range Restrictions Legal & General Property Ltd (8): The Council has operated a policy for the last 20 years of controlling the range of goods sold at all the retail parks within the City through section 50/75 agreements. These restrictions apply across all of the non-food retail warehouse units at Kingsway East, West and Gallagher Retail Parks. The reason for this policy approach is to ensure that a balance is maintained between safeguarding the City Centre in its role as a regional shopping destination and providing for bulkier retail warehouse goods in out of centre locations. These restrictions have been maintained consistently. The Proposed Plan offers a criterion based approach to be met by new proposals

115


involving the sale of any of the restricted goods ranges. It is considered that a relaxation of controls over the range of goods could result in existing retailers located within the City Centre relocating to the commercial centres. This would undermine the vitality and viability of the City Centre and its role as a regional shopping centre. The retail impact implications of the retail parks initial development and subsequent expansion were considered carefully, and the restrictions have been vital in keeping the expected complementary relationship with the City and District Centres. The restrictions have prevented the potentially damaging diversion of expenditure on goods ranges including clothing, footwear, leisure, sports and personal items, so that from the centres’ key role at the top of the shopping hierarchy has been safeguarded. Removing the restrictions would open up the prospect of fundamental retail character changes, which would have serious, harmful consequences for the City and District Centres and would destroy the current balance between central and peripheral retailing around the City. The Council has always applied the goods range restrictions in a flexible way, and has been prepared to support minor adjustments where that could benefit consumers without undermining the existing primary shopping centres. In addition, some limited floorspace was permitted to allow electrical goods to be sold from the parks. To date, this approach has operated satisfactorily and it has provided a degree of stability that otherwise would not have existed for prospective developers and established retailers alike. The restrictions have also given City and District Centres retailers a degree of confidence and reassurance that their primary locations will not be harmed by fundamental changes in the roles of Kingsway East, West and Gallagher Retail Parks. Therefore, the Policy 23 restrictions are an important safeguard to avoid damaging impact on the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, and they must be kept to continue to clarify and define the broad roles of the retail parks. The Proposed Plan recognises that retail is changing (Paragraph 8.22) and so gives flexibility to the Council by allowing future review of the retail situation and goods range restrictions within the City. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 23: Goods Range Restrictions (Para 8.20, 8.21 & 8.22) Legal & General Property Ltd (8); Land Securities (7) 1. As part of the retail hierarchy, commercial centres have their goods ranges restricted so that they do not draw trade from retailers within existing shopping centres. The text at 8.22 of the proposed plan recognises that changes to retail will need to be monitored to establish whether a review of or changes to the goods range restrictions is necessary. I am told that Kingsway East does not appear to be as successful as Kingsway West. However, that is not necessarily a concern which would demand a review of the restrictions. They may nevertheless remain necessary to protect the vitality and viability of the city centre and district centres. The commercial centres are an important part of the network of shopping, providing accessible shops for bulky goods. Their place in the hierarchy is defined by the restrictions. I do not consider that the lack of success at Kingsway East should be addressed by relaxing the restrictions, nor by supporting one commercial centre and not another. The policy does allow for sale of restricted goods if a case can be made, but I consider that the negative tone of the policy reflects the need to protect the city centre. No change to the policy wording is needed and no additional commentary is necessary.

116


ASDA Stores Ltd (27) 2. The wording of Policy 23 applies a restriction to the commercial centres and allows for variation where justified. It cannot affect existing permissions, attached conditions or associated legal agreements. There is no need to change the wording to make that any clearer. 3. Policy 23 seeks to restrict goods range firstly at commercial centres and secondly at food stores. Under the general heading of Commercial Centres, paragraph 8.23 explains that controls will be applied to restrict comparison goods at major food stores. This is because of the potential impact on the city and district centres. It would thus be illogical to apply this only to major food stores within the identified commercial centres. The council confirms that it should apply to all new major food stores. A new sub-heading is needed to make this clear. 4. The contribution of commercial centres to the retail provision of the Dundee area is set out at paragraph 8.2 of the proposed plan and again at paragraph 8.20 where their important complementary role is recognised. Whilst, like any other retail business, they may provide benefits to the local community, they need not be singled out for this in the retail section of the proposed plan. An additional sentence at paragraph 8.20 is not justified. Barton Willmore (18) 5. SPP supports investment to maintain and improve commercial centres where they are part of the network and where such investment will not undermine town centres. Whilst the commercial centres are valued in their own right, they remain subordinate to the city centre. If the restrictions on the range of goods sold are relaxed, the city centre could suffer, particularly as the same pressures that have affected some of the national bulky goods operators will affect national companies in town centres. I therefore agree with the planning authority that future review may be necessary, but at the moment it is not. There is no need to alter the percentage of goods defined in Appendix 4 to the proposed plan. 6. Barton Wilmore also ask that Policy 23 be rewritten to allow full sale of restricted goods (except food and groceries) where a vacant unit has been extensively marketed for an appropriate period of time without securing a new end user. However, that could be used to support a failing commercial centre, even if that would harm the vitality or viability of the city centre. The planning authority has and will operate the goods restrictions in a flexible way and according to the circumstances of the case. I consider that this is more appropriate, allowing support where justified and where there would be no harm. In that way the position of the commercial centres in the retail hierarchy would be maintained. There is no need to modify the policy. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 7. The commercial centres are generally used for bulky goods, more suited to customers travelling by car. That supports their location outside of the city centre. Policy 24 expects all new retail to be on sites already accessible by modes of transport other than the car. The increase use of buses (and indeed active travel) at existing commercial centres would support the plan’s strategy, and paragraph 8.6 seeks to ensure that the community as a whole has convenient access to the full range of shopping. I consider that additional information is not needed at paragraph 8.20.

117


Appendix 4: Goods Range Restrictions (Page 81) Legal & General Property Ltd (8) 8. The commercial centres have their goods range restricted to maintain their complementary role in the shopping hierarchy and to avoid harm to the vitality and viability of the city centre and district centres by avoiding a damaging diversion of expenditure. Their range of uses and physical arrangement makes them different in character and place. Whatever the circumstances of any particular commercial centre, relaxing the restrictions could undermine the function of the other centres. The planning authority has already relaxed the restrictions in some cases. That demonstrates that where a case can be made that there would be no harm to the other centres, the planning authority is prepared to be flexible in supporting the commercial centres. I consider that to be a more appropriate way of managing the goods range restriction than changing Appendix 4 in respect of Kingsway East. Therefore no modification is necessary. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modification: 1. Insert a new sub-heading immediately above paragraph 8.23 to read ‘Major Food Stores’.

118


Issue 16 Out of Centre Retail/Class 2


Policy 24: Location of New Retail Developments Policy 26: Local Shopping Provision Policy 27: Class 2 Office Developments (Para 8.28)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): ASDA Stores Ltd (27) Dara Changazi (50) Aldi Stores Ltd (60) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:


Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 24: Location of New Retail Developments ASDA Stores Ltd (27): Additional retail investment in existing/committed retail locations within the City should be favoured. This would encourage investment in District Centres as well as Local Shopping Centres which would further develop the existing network of shopping centres across the City. The approach should provide a framework for the protection of all locations within the retail network from development outwith these locations. This approach would seek a balance between supporting the City Centre, facilitating growth in traditional District and Local Shopping Centres, protecting existing centres and retail locations while also maximising investment in retailing in the City. To reflect this the following changes are requested: i) Change of wording to criterion 2) to encourage investment in District Centres as well as Local Shopping Centres ii) Change of wording to criterion 4) to more accurately reflect paragraph 62 of Scottish Planning Policy (CD10). Policy 26: Local Shopping Provision Dara Changazi (50): Local shopping centre areas should be identified and expansion options shown. The Proposals Map should also be amended to identify the location of the local shopping centres to highlight the significance they play in the overall hierarchy. The identification of a Local Shopping Centre boundary for the existing retail units at Macalpine Road together with the nearby Lidl store and the former petrol station/shop site, is an example where the definition of such a boundary would support the vitality and viability of an existing shopping centre. This would allow for some limited expansion and improvement through the redevelopment of a long standing prominent brownfield site that is located on the road frontage. Aldi Stores Ltd (60): The imposition of floorspace restrictions could harm the viability of existing shopping centres. Any assessment of such proposals should focus more on their credentials to deliver genuinely “local” shopping facilities and that the vitality and viability of

119


existing shopping centres is not unduly harmed, rather than imposing an arbitrary upper floorspace limit. As such, we request that the upper floorspace limits of 250sqm and 500sqm respectively are removed from Policy 26. Policy 27: Class 2 Office Developments (Para 8.28) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Large housing estates may be distant from District Centres and not well provided with public transport. Therefore, offices such as doctors' surgeries should also be available within large housing estates. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 24: Location of New Retail Developments ASDA Stores Ltd (27): Criterion 2) should be reworded to read “individually or cumulatively it would not prejudice the vitality or viability of the City Centre, District Centres, Commercial Centres or existing retail locations: and”. Criterion 4) should be reworded to read: "the site is or can be made easily accessible by a choice of transport modes". Policy 26: Local Shopping Provision Dara Changazi (50): Local shopping centres should be identified and expansion options shown. The former petrol filling station at Macalpine Road should be included within the identified local shopping centre area. The site has been marketed and interest has been shown from various commercial/retail operators. As the site was formerly used as a petrol station and shop the site should be included within the boundaries of an identified local centre along this stretch of Macalpine Road. Aldi Stores Ltd (60): Remove maximum floorspace limits of 250sqm and 500sqm from Policy 26. Policy 27: Class 2 Office Developments (Para 8.28) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 27 should be amended to allow/encourage offices, such as doctors' surgeries, to also be available within large housing estates. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 24: Location of New Retail Developments ASDA Stores Ltd (27): The Proposed Plan has set out through Policy 24 a sequential approach to the consideration of new shopping developments in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012 (CD25). This places a strong emphasis on the need to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. In Dundee, the term town centre applies to the City Centre and District Centres. Commercial Centres have also been identified in accordance with Policy 7 of TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2012 (CD25). The proposed policy approach protects the City Centre, District Centre and Commercial Centres. The suggested rewording to criterion 2) could result in any scale of retail premises having to be considered. There is a wide range and scale of existing retail premises across the City in addition to those identified in the City Centre, District Centres and Commercial Centres. These take many forms from corner shops to standalone large scale food stores. The

120


suggested approach would go well beyond the guidance of the Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and Policy 7 of TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (CD25). It is considered that the consideration of all existing retail locations would not be feasible and could limit the potential for new retail development. The proposed rewording is not considered to be appropriate. Orchard Street Investment Management LLP (61) (CD63), Land Securities (7) (CD64) and Fife Council (32) (CD62) in their representations set out their support for the Council’s approach as the policy framework will help ensure that the City Centre continues to be promoted as the primary location for new retail developments and the approach is in line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and the approved TAYplan (CD25). Criterion 4) as worded seeks to encourage the use of sites that are accessible by modes of transport other than the car. This is considered to be in accordance with Scottish Government guidance: Designing Streets (CD12) and Designing Places (CD11) as well as Policy 54 of the Proposed Plan. As such it is considered that the proposed rewording to criterion 4) as suggested would not add any clarity to interpretation or application of the proposed policy. TACTRAN (41) (CD61) in their representation set out their support for the Council’s approach as it is complementary to and supports the aims and objectives of the Regional Transport Strategy (CD19). No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 26: Local Shopping Provision Dara Changazi (50): The Proposed Plan is based on a hierarchical shopping strategy, which accords with the sequential approach in Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and also reflects Policy 7 in TAYplan (CD25). In accordance with this the City Centre, five district centres, and three commercial centres are the identified shopping centres in line with this approach. The preamble to Policy 26 (paragraph 8.27) recognises the important role local shopping areas play in supporting local neighbourhoods. Whilst not identified on the proposals map, Policy 26 seeks to positively support existing local shopping centres and parades. However, it is not considered necessary to identify all of these on the proposals map given the varying scale and type of centres/parades that exist across the City. In terms of the former filling station on Macalpine Road it is approximately 300 metres away from the centre of the nearest shopping parade and it is separated by other uses. It is considered that if a boundary were to be drawn it could not logically include this site as part of the centre. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Aldi Stores Ltd (60): The floorspace limit set out in the Policy has been included to ensure that local shopping provision remains local in nature. Provision for larger retail developments exists in the identified centres in the City Centre, District Centres and Commercial Centres. The sizes proposed provide for the opportunity to positively develop these centres/parades at a scale that would be appropriate. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 27: Class 2 Office Developments (Para 8.28) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): In relation to Class 2 uses being available within large housing estates, the Proposed Plan does provide a policy context through Policy 16

121


Small Scale Commercial Uses Within Residential Areas and Policy 17 Community Facilities for the consideration of small scale developments such as those suggested. It is considered that these policies provide a satisfactory basis for consideration of the future locations of such facilities. Therefore it is unnecessary to amend the wording of Policy 27 as suggested. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 24: Location of New Retail Developments ASDA Stores Ltd (27) 1. Criterion 1 should be amended to read ‘…District Centres…’. 2. Criterion 2 seeks to protect the vitality and viability of town centres and commercial centres where new retail is proposed. This does not extend to local shopping centres, retail parks and supermarkets elsewhere. Other policies support new retail within the defined centres, subject to specific criteria. Those policies encourage investment in the centres. Including existing retail locations in the policy criterion would elevate these to a status not envisaged in the strategy or the SPP’s support for a sequential approach. It could result in protection for a business which has been located on site-specific grounds rather than in support of the shopping hierarchy. Whilst I agree that the established network should be protected from development elsewhere, that should not extend to protecting individual traders from rivals. The investment in retailing should respond to the proposed plan’s focus on the locational and accessibility advantages of the city, district and commercial centres, which provide convenient access to the full range of shopping and related services for the benefit of the whole community. I see no need to extend the protection afforded by Policy 24 to other retail locations. 3. Criterion 4 of Policy 24 requires that new retail sites not already identified in the proposed plan are accessible by means other than the car. This accords with Policy 54, which seeks to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport. Paragraph 62 of SPP applies the sequential approach for retail development. If there are no town centre, edge of town centre or identified commercial centres, out of centre locations accessible by a choice of transport modes may be considered. Policy 24 does not preclude car access. Rather it expects it yet seeks to ensure that other modes will be available. On that basis I see no conflict with SPP and no need to change the wording of Criterion 4. Policy 26: Local Shopping Provision Dara Changazi (50) 4. Policy 26 allows for modest additional floor space at local shopping centres and parades. This recognises that they exist and play an important role, but that they are not large enough to form part of the identified retail hierarchy. The proposed plan looks to protect district centres, but would support small new local shops in areas of low provision where a need can be shown. In that way, the vitality and viability of the identified centres can be protected. Given the small scale and subordinate function of these shops and centres, and despite their importance locally, I do not consider that they should be formally identified as part of the hierarchy.

122


5. Identifying a specific local shopping centre boundary for the retail units at the McAlpine Road and the nearby Lidl and former petrol station/shop site would therefore be contrary to the intentions of the proposed plan. I note that this a sizeable local provision, including a range of shops and food stores. It provides convenient local shopping in a more remote suburb of the city. It is exactly the sort of shopping supported by Policy 26. I do not consider that defining the centre with a boundary is necessary to encourage investment or to justify redevelopment of the former petrol station/shop site. Aldi Stores Ltd (60) 6. The imposition of limits on floor space development in Policy 26 is aimed at restricting the impact on the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, as defined in the proposed plan. The limits allow for modest scale units to encourage more sustainable shopping habits whilst not diverting trade from those established centres. There is scope for larger format stores in the city, district and commercial centres, supporting their viability and vitality. I see no need to remove the floor space limits from Policy 26. Policy 27: Class 2 Office Developments (Para 8.28) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 7. Policy 16 of the plan supports small scale commercial uses within residential areas, which paragraph 7.19 explains as a range of facilities and commercial uses. Policy 17 supports community facilities close to where people live. Paragraph 7.24 includes that it is important that all sectors of the community enjoy access to a wide range of essential services, resources and opportunities. Doctors’ surgeries and the like would be one example. Accessibly located healthcare combined with other services is encouraged at paragraph 7.26. Thus there is no need to modify policy 27 or paragraph 8.28. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

123


Issue 17 Alternative Energy


Policy 29: Low and Zero Carbon Technology in New Development (para 9.2- 9.3) Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) Policy 31: Wind Turbines (para 9.6)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Balmossie Developments Ltd (25) Homes for Scotland (47) Stewart Milne Homes (58) Scottish Natural Heritage (39) Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38) SSE Group Companies (55)


Policy 29: Low and Zero Carbon Technology in New Development sets out the percentage of the total carbon emissions reduction required by Building Standards regulations which must be met through the installation of low and zero carbon technology. Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant gives direction for the location of biomass plant and district heating systems. Policy 31: Wind Turbines sets out requirements for the location of wind turbines.

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 29: Low and Zero Carbon Technology in New Development (para 9.2- 9.3) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58): Suggest that design, materials and construction are more effective at reducing CO2 emissions than Low and Zero Carbon technology requirements and wish Policy 29 to be amended to reflect the superior role of building standards regulations in achieving this. Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): Suggest inclusion in Criterion 1) of “visual impacts” as biomass plants can have a significant visual impact. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38): (i) Request change of wording to first sentence of paragraph 9.5 by replacing “or a

combination of both” with “a combination of both or any other organic materials.” In order to ensure that proposals for anaerobic digestion facilities are adequately addressed through the Proposed Plan.

(ii) Request additional wording is added at end of paragraph 9.5, "Recovery of waste biomass will be given priority to limit the pressure for dedicated biomass feedstock production, provided that the waste management hierarchy is being adhered to," in order to encourage the recovery of energy from waste biomass and limit the pressure for dedicated biomass feedstock production.

124


Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) and Policy 31: Wind Turbines (para 9.6) SSE Group Companies (55): Highlight in the representations to Policies 30 and 31 a general need for clarity and more relevant information on provisions in the Proposed Plan for electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure from potential renewable energy proposals, specifically off shore wind and Port related electricity infrastructure development in Dundee. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 29: Low and Zero Carbon Technology in New Development (para 9.2- 9.3) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58): Alter the wording of Policy 29 to recognise that The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (CD08) set the mandatory minimum carbon reduction standards for new buildings. Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): Include the wording “visual impacts” into the list in Criterion 1. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38): i) Replace “or a combination of both” at paragraph 9.5 with “or a combination of both

or any other organic materials.” ii) Insert the following sentence at end of paragraph 9.5 - "Recovery of waste biomass

will be given priority to limit the pressure for dedicated biomass feedstock production, provided that the waste management hierarchy is being adhered to."

Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) and Policy 31: Wind Turbines (para 9.6) SSE Group Companies (55): Include more relevant information to guide the development of electricity infrastructure emanating potentially from renewable energy proposals. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 29: Low and Zero Carbon Technology in New Development (para 9.2- 9.3) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58): The policy as drafted recognises the importance of wider measures in contributing to CO2 reduction by reflecting this in the low percentage to be attributed to low and zero carbon technology in future development. The additional wording is considered to be unnecessary. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

125


Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) It is not considered necessary to add the words “visual impacts” into criterion 1 of

Policy 30. It is considered that this is already covered by the criterion as worded. In addition, the visual impacts of any major proposals would be considered in terms of Policy 7 High Quality Design.

No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38): i) The Council considers that the Policy as worded is appropriate. The suggested

rewording does not add any clarity to the Policy as drafted. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to reword the Policy as proposed.

ii) The Council does not support the proposed modification as no indication is given as to the planning justification or criteria by which such prioritisation could or should be implemented. The Council is required to consider each planning application on its individual merits.

No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) and Policy 31: Wind Turbines (para 9.6) SSE Group Companies (55): Most of the electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure referred to in the representation falls under separate legislation with only the remaining infrastructure such as electricity sub-stations falling under the Planning system. The likely extent and scale of development is too small scale to merit a separate policy in the Proposed Plan, particularly as the latter would not present a problem in principle at the areas identified as potentially accommodating such uses. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 29: Low and Zero Carbon Technology in New Development (para 9.2- 9.3) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58) 1. One theme of the proposed plan is to build climate change resilience by incorporating high resource efficiency and low/zero carbon energy generation targets within developments. This is crystallised by Policy 29. These requirements are proper to planning and additional to the building standards. It is likely that there will be a target for net zero carbon emissions from new homes by 2016/2017. As set out in the proposed plan at paragraph 9.3, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires that this LDP encourages the installation of low and zero carbon technologies and to increase the percentage contribution they make over the lifespan of the plan. Policy 29 does that. 2. I note that much can be achieved through building standards rather than planning policy. However, should net zero carbon homes become secured by revised building

126


standards, they would be likely to already rely on low or zero carbon technologies to a significant degree. Of course, developments might achieve the reduction by siting, orientation, design, materials and insulation. That would then remove the need for any further contribution to the reduction by those technologies, because the target would be met already. Even so, the proposed building standards reductions are not yet in place. It is therefore appropriate to retain a planning policy requirement for zero carbon technology. Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) Scottish Natural Heritage (39) 3. Policy 30 sets out firstly that major biomass plants, not ancillary to wider development proposals, will be directed to economic development areas. Small scale biomass or district heating schemes in other areas would be subject to a criterion in the policy which includes for assessment of scale, design and landscape setting (amongst other things). At the same time, Policy 7 requires all development to be of high quality design and sets out criteria to be met. These include respect for the site and setting. I therefore consider that the visual impact of such development is already adequately considered. 4. However, it appears odd that the policy contains criteria which appear to apply to only small scale schemes, where larger schemes would have a greater impact, albeit being confined to industrial areas and the like. By introducing a paragraph break as suggested, the criteria would logically apply to all schemes. The policy should therefore be modified as proposed. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (38) 5. The proposed text at paragraph 9.5 includes that biomass plants need large quantities of virgin biomass materials, waste materials, or a combination of both. The suggestion is to include other organic material, but that must be either virgin biomass or a waste material. There is thus no need to include the additional wording. 6. SEPA also seeks an additional sentence to the paragraph to prioritise waste biomass and thereby discourage the production of dedicated biomass feedstock. That would accord with SEPA guidelines and would be a material consideration in any planning application. However, the local development plan should not seek to impose restrictions on matters which could be commercial decisions for developers. The additional sentence should not be added. Policy 30: Biomass Energy Generating Plant (para 9.4-9.5) and Policy 31: Wind Turbines (para 9.6) SSE Group Companies (55) 7. Policy 30 deals with biomass energy generating plant and Policy 31 with wind turbines. Neither makes reference to electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure. Mostly such infrastructure will be regulated by the Electricity Act, but sub-stations and the like may need planning permission. In terms of the biomass plants, these would be likely to include ancillary buildings on the particular site and the scale of onshore wind energy envisaged is unlikely to need ancillary structures of a significant size. There is a possibility that off-shore energy generating development would require on-shore infrastructure not covered by the Electricity Act. However, any that are required could be managed under the design

127


policies of the plan, whilst location would need to be justified in the context of the transmission and distribution arrangements particular to each case. I therefore consider that no additional policy is needed. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modification: 1. Introduce a paragraph break in Policy 30 before the words ‘Development may be acceptable where…’

128


Issue 18 Nature Conservation


Policy 32: Development within the Open Countryside (para 9.7) Policy 34: Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites (para 9.9-9.10)

Reporter: Trevor Croft

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Scottish Natural Heritage (39)


The issues raised relate to provisions within the Proposed Plan which address conservation and protection of the open countryside and the natural environment. Specific sections of the Proposed Plan are: Policy 32: Development within the Open Countryside Policy 34: Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 32: Development within the Open Countryside (para 9.7) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Change wording of policy from “stone” to “stone/brick” in order to widen scope and include mixed construction. Policy 34: Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites (para 9.9-9.10) Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (39): i) Insert bullet point “it can be demonstrated that the proposal and/or associated

mitigation will have a positive impact on the conservation interests of the site.” SNH consider that “the requirement only ‘to mitigate impacts’ would not result in any enhancement of the site. Indeed, the requirement is not substantially different to what would normally be required for development on any greenfield site.”

ii) Provide a reference or link to a map showing the boundaries of the Locally Important Nature Conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves. SNH suggest “There is currently no obvious means of determining the exact area of land to which Policy 34 applies despite it being, by its nature, a location-specific policy.”

iii) Alter end of first paragraph by replacing 'will only be permitted where' with 'will not be permitted unless.' SNH consider that “The purpose of a local designation is to “protect, enhance…… locally important landscape and natural heritage.” (SPP para.139) ….The current policy does not give any special protection to LINCs, nor does it encourage any enhancement.”

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 32: Development within the Open Countryside (para 9.7) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Criteria (2) change "stone" to "stone/brick". Policy 34: Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites (para 9.9-9.10)

129


Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) Insert bullet point “it can be demonstrated that the proposal and/or associated

mitigation will have a positive impact on the conservation interests of the site” ii) Provide reference or link to a map showing the boundaries of the Locally Important

Nature Conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves. iii) Alter end of first paragraph by replacing 'will only be permitted where' with 'will not be

permitted unless.' Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 32: Development within the Open Countryside (para 9.7) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): There is no evidence base to support the supposition and the Council consider that the wording of the Policy is appropriate. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 34: Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites (para 9.9-9.10) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) It would not be appropriate to prevent development which would have no negative

impact on the conservation interests of a site. ii) The scale of the Proposals Map to the Proposed Plan prevents representation of the

site boundaries in a single map format. However the individual site boundaries are available from the City Development Department. It is considered that the representation on the Proposals Map is sufficient for the purposes of the Proposed Plan.

iii) No alteration is proposed to the Proposed Plan because the current wording is sufficient to protect Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites.

No modification is proposed to the Plan Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 32: Development within the Open Countryside (para 9.7) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): 1. The aim of this criteria appears to be the restoration of significantly older buildings of stone construction of some quality where these have decayed by a substantial amount, but still retain the basic structure in recognisable form. As a generalisation such older properties are likely to be in stone rather than brick. The ‘presumption against’ does not constitute an outright ban on other forms of construction. If a worthy case arose of a brick built building it would be possible to argue as a material consideration that it should be allowed as a justified departure from the development plan. In these circumstances I accept the council’s view that no modification is necessary. Policy 34: Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites (para 9.9-9.10) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): 2. It is a general principle with conservation designations that development should not be

130


permitted where it would make an existing situation worse. It is normally accepted that if the status quo or its equivalent is maintained then development should be permitted, using mitigation if necessary. For example Scottish Natural Heritage’s comments regarding Natura sites in the proposed plan seek the maintenance of the existing situation, or mitigation to offset the impact of any adverse effects of development. It does not seek to enhance sites. I agree with the council this is not necessary here, and a modification is not required. 3. I am unaware of any local development plan that contains the detailed boundaries of locally important nature conservation sites. This is due, as the planning authority has pointed out, to the scale of the proposals map. To produce this at a relevant scale would make it unwieldy and is not necessary. Figure 9 shows the location of the sites, and the list is confirmed in Appendix 5. I find no need for any further reference. 4. There is some inconsistency in the approach different policies have taken towards development. For example Policy 33, regarding Natura sites uses ‘only be permitted’, whereas Policy 53, regarding protected species, uses ‘will not be permitted’. This representation refers only to Policy 34, and as this presently accords with the internationally important Natura sites Policy 33, with which Scottish Natural Heritage appears content, I am not persuaded that any modification is necessary. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

131


Issue 19 Open Space


Policy 36: Open Space (para 9.13-9.15) Policy 37: Open Space Maintenance (para 9.16)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Balmossie Developments Ltd (25) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) Beachwatch Group(12) Scottish Natural Heritage (39): Homes for Scotland (47) Stewart Milne Homes (58) Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

This section deals with green infrastructure and open space requirements of the Plan and relates to: Policy 36: Open Space. Policy 37: Open Space Maintenance

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 36: Open Space (para 9.13-9.15) and Policy 37: Open Space Maintenance (para 9.16) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): Introduce a new policy or Supplementary Guidance setting out the intended open space standards which can be fully tested at Examination. Balmossie Developments consider that “open space standards are clearly one of the influencers in the design and layout of new housing sites and the detail of the open space standards [therefore] should be included in the Plan.” Friends of the Earth Tayside (31); Beachwatch Group(12): It would be beneficial to draw up a publicly available annual database or register of Dundee's environmental assets and the Open Space Strategy. Showing the cumulative level of improvement or deterioration providing a useful barometer of the status of these assets. Friends of the Earth Tayside consider that “members of the public would be able to refer to the register and also to notify the Council if any assets are damaged. This would help the Council to get an overview of the situation and changes over a period of time, and enable the public to scrutinise this and raise questions.” Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) Consider that Policy 36 appears only to apply to sites “identified in the local

Development Plan as ‘Open Space.” However, paragraph 9.13 highlights the opportunity to “extend and enhance the provision of green networks” and 9.14 says that “new development should also avoid fragmentation of the green network”. Unless all the land considered part of “the green network” is contained within the open space as shown on the proposals map, it is difficult to see how this aspiration will be achieved or encouraged by Policy 36.

ii) Seek to change the title of this policy from “Open Space” to “Open Space and Green Networks” as “it would appear that Policy 36 only applies to sites 'identified in the local

132


Development Plan as open space'. However, paragraph 9.13 highlights the opportunity to 'extend and enhance the provision of green networks' and 9.14 says that 'new development should also avoid fragmentation of the green network’”.

iii) Insert new sentence between bullet 3) and “Proposals…”: ”There will be a presumption that new development should contribute to the enhancement and connectivity of open space and habitats where appropriate as part of the wider green network” as “the contribution of development to enhancement and connectivity of open spaces and habitats is a key mechanism for the delivery of green networks and is consistent with the sentiment of paras 130 and 126 of SPP.”

Homes for Scotland (47): Homes for Scotland are concerned that Supplementary Planning Guidance will not be prepared until later and wish to see introduced a new policy or Supplementary Guidance setting out open space standards which can be tested at Examination. Consider that “open space standards …. are clearly one of the influencers in the design and layout of new housing sites and the detail of the open space standards [therefor] should be included in the Plan.” Stewart Milne Homes (58): Seek additional supplementary planning guidance that sets out how open space provision can be assessed for new residential development. Consider that “open space standards are clearly one of the influencers in the design and layout of new housing sites and the detail of the open space standards [therefor] should be included in the Plan.” Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38): SEPA consider that the Plan should reflect Scottish Government Guidance on 'Green Infrastructure: Design and Placemaking' which recognises the link between the water environment and green infrastructure in strategic placemaking. It should recognise the positive contribution that the blue network and SUDS can have on the creation of place and in environmental improvement. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 36: Open Space (para 9.13-9.15) and Policy 37: Open Space Maintenance (para 9.16) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): Suggested wording of policy: "The Council has carried out an Open Space Audit/Strategy which identifies areas of open space deficiency. The Council also has standards for the provision of new spaces where required by the Strategy. Where proposals for new residential development would either exacerbate an existing deficiency in provision, or cause a deficiency, then developers will be expected to contribute towards, or provide, appropriate private and public open space. The Council's supplementary guidance sets out how this space provision can be assessed." Include Supplementary Guidance with proposed standards. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31); Beachwatch Group(12): Produce an annual database or register of Dundee's environmental assets and Open Space Strategy. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) Provide a clearer definition of “green network”, “green space” and “open space” to

provide more certainty about the areas of land to which Policy 36 applies. ii) Seek to change the title of this policy from “Open Space” to “Green Networks” iii) Insert new sentence between bullet 3) and “Proposals…” to read: ”There will be a

133


presumption that new development should contribute to the enhancement and connectivity of open space and habitats where appropriate as part of the wider green network”.

Homes for Scotland (47): Suggest wording of a new policy: “The Council has carried out an Open Space Audit/Strategy which identifies areas of open space deficiency. The Council also has standards for the provision of new spaces where required by the Strategy. Where proposals for new residential development would either exacerbate an existing deficiency in provision, or cause a deficiency, then developers will be expected to contribute towards, or provide, appropriate private and public open space. The Council’s supplementary guidance sets out how this space provision can be assessed.” Stewart Milne Homes (58): Propose development of supplementary planning guidance in the Plan for open space standards for new residential development. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38): Para 9.13 Additional text should be after "New development gives an opportunity to extend and enhance the provisions of green networks, including biodiversity networks throughout the City” In the form of “Blue infrastructure including sustainable drainage systems, watercourse corridors and natural flood management measures are also considered part of the green network and can positively contribute to strategic placemaking and environmental improvement.” Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 36: Open Space (para 9.13-9.15) and Policy 37: Open Space Maintenance (para 9.16) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25): The preamble to Policy 36, (see paragraph 9.13), states that all of Dundee's green space was audited in 2007 and is regularly updated. This was used as the basis for development of the Public Open Space Strategy 2008-2011 (CD48) and designated open space in the Proposed Plan. The audit confirmed that Dundee does not suffer from a deficit of public or open space. Local Community Plans are the main vehicle whereby local communities can influence the open space hierarchy in their area and in line with the Open Space Strategy. Large development areas will be covered by master plans or site planning briefs which will develop the open space requirements for that development. It is considered that the policy approach as set out in the Proposed Plan is sufficient and that no additional policy or wording is necessary. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31); Beachwatch Group(12): A database on open space already exists and is continuously updated. It is held electronically on GIS and is therefore not in a format that can be made generally available. However, specific information can however be derived from the database and made available on request. Dundee’s environmental assets are identified in the Open Space Strategy (CD48). It is not for the Proposed Plan to provide for this level of detail and monitoring regarding open space maintenance. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

134


Scottish Natural Heritage (39): i) Policy 36 does in fact only apply to sites identified as Open Space in the Proposed

Plan. Although not all of the green network is identified in the Proposed Plan as Open Space most does. Therefore the aspirations in terms of developing or expanding the green network are also achievable. Paragraph 9.13 refers to Dundee’s green space and says that much of this is identified as open space in the Proposed Plan. The online Glossary which accompanies the Plan defines green infrastructure giving a number of examples of what constitutes green space based on the European Commission’s definition. All open space has a use. The different open space use types are also defined in the Glossary. The Council considers that a modification is unnecessary

ii) The policy is specifically dedicated to formally designated open space in the Proposed Plan which captures most but not all of the green network. It would be misleading to give the impression it applies to the entire green network.

III) The Council considers that the Policy as worded is sufficient and provides appropriate guidance. The additional wording is unnecessary and would not add any clarity to the wording as drafted.

No modification is proposed to the Plan. Homes for Scotland (47): The preamble to Policy 36, (see paragraph 9.13), states that all of Dundee's green space was audited in 2007 and is regularly updated. This was used as the basis for development of the Open Space Strategy and designated open space in the Proposed Plan. The audit confirmed that Dundee does not suffer from a deficit of public or open space. Local Community Plans are the main vehicle whereby local communities can influence the open space hierarchy in their area in line with the Open Space Strategy. Large development areas will be covered by master plans or site planning briefs which will form supplementary guidance to the Proposed Plan and set out open space requirements for that development. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Stewart Milne Homes (58): The preamble to Policy 36, (see paragraph 9.13), states that all of Dundee's green space was audited in 2007 and is regularly updated. This was used as the basis for development of the Open Space Strategy and designated open space in the Proposed Plan. The audit confirmed that Dundee does not suffer from a deficit of public or open space. Local Community Plans are the main vehicle whereby local communities can influence the open space hierarchy in their area and in line with the Open Space Strategy. Large development areas will be covered by materplans or planning briefs which will form supplementary guidance to the Proposed Plan and set out open space requirements for that development. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38): No alteration is proposed to the Proposed Plan because the positive contribution that the blue network and SUDS can have on the creation of place and in environmental improvement is recognised through Policies 33, 34, 36, 42 and 43. No modification is proposed to the Plan.

135


Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 36: Open Space (para 9.13-9.15) and Policy 37: Open Space Maintenance (para 9.16) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58): 1. I note the planning authority’s reference to its Public Open Space Strategy 2008-2011, and that green space audits are regularly updated. Appendix 3 of the strategy sets out a hierarchy of levels of provision from country parks to local open space. Whilst there is not a formal table setting out space standards for new development the planning authority says large development areas will have master plans or site development briefs that will develop the relevant open space requirements for that development. I consider it would be helpful if this is stated in the proposed plan, providing some certainty for developers. This could be done at the end of preamble paragraph 9.14 where reference is already made to new development. See also paragraph 4 below regarding new development contributing to open space provision. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31); Beachwatch Group(12): 2. I note the planning authority already holds much of this information, albeit not in a form readily accessible by the general public. Specific information is available on request. I agree however with the planning authority that it is not the task of the local development plan to set out such detail as requested. If this is required it should be pursued with the council through other channels. No modification is required. Scottish Natural Heritage (39): 3. The heading preceding paragraph 9.13 refers to Green Infrastructure and Open Space, but the successive text makes only passing reference to green networks and there is no effective reference to it in the two policies. I consider this a deficiency in the plan. 4. This can be remedied without prejudice to the general thrust of the policies by renaming Policy 36 Green Networks and Open Space. I note that definitions of the green infrastructure are available on the planning authority’s on line glossary, and need not be repeated. I also agree with the respondent that it would be beneficial to add a sentence about new development contributing to the enhancement of open space where appropriate. This is best located at the end of Policy 36, rather than as part of the third bullet. Including ‘where appropriate’ allows for flexibility in implementation and does not bind developments where such a provision would not be relevant. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (38): 5. I consider the sprit of the proposed modification is already captured in Policy 42: Sustainable Drainage Systems, which provides for an appropriate level of water treatment and exploitation of opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement through measures such as the formulation of wetlands or ponds. This reflects Government guidance on Green Infrastructure, and there is no need to duplicate this in Policy 36.

136


Reporter’s recommendations: The following modifications: 1. At the end of paragraph 9.14 add a new sentence as follows: ‘Large development areas will be covered by master plans or site planning briefs which will develop the open space requirements for that development.’ 2. Rename Policy 36 as follows: ‘Policy 36: Open Space and Green Networks.’ 3. At the end of Policy 36 add a new paragraph as follows: ‘There will be a presumption that new development should contribute to the enhancement and connectivity of open space and habitats, where appropriate, as part of the wider green network.’

137


Issue 20 Waste


Policy 39: Major Waste Management Facilities (para 9.18) Policy 40: Waste Management Requirements for Development (para 9.19)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Fife Council (32) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

This section of the Plan deals with waste management and the location of waste management facilities: Policy 39: Major Waste Management Facilities Policy 40: Waste Management Requirements for Development

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 39: Major Waste Management Facilities (para 9.18) Fife Council (32): Suggest deleting the term “local” from criterion 1 to read “there is no detrimental impact on neighbouring uses or residential amenity, and….” Fife Council consider that the “detrimental impact on residential amenity should be avoided, irrespective of how far any development is located from housing.” Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): Recommend removing “major” from the policy title and wording to ensure that the policy will apply to all types of waste management facilities. Policy 40: Waste Management Requirements for Development (para 9.19) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): SEPA suggest the wording is backed up by Supplementary Guidance or supporting information. This is to support the development industry in meeting the requirements of the Council’s waste strategy. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 39: Major Waste Management Facilities (para 9.18) Fife Council (32): Delete the term “local” from criterion 1 to read “there is no detrimental impact on neighbouring uses or residential amenity, and…” Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): Remove “major” from the policy title and wording. Policy title suggested would be “Policy 39: Waste Management Facilities” and the first sentence would be “New waste management facilities should be located in the first instance in General Economic Development areas identified in the Proposals Map unless:” Policy 40: Waste Management Requirements for Development (para 9.19) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): Support Policy 40 with additional guidance for applicants on how the Council's waste strategy can be met.

138


Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 39: Major Waste Management Facilities (para 9.18) Fife Council (32): The Council considers that the Policy as worded is appropriate. The suggested deletion does not add greater clarity to the Policy. Therefore it is not considered necessary to reword the Policy as proposed. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): The Council considers that the Policy as worded is appropriate. The suggested deletion does not allow sufficient flexibility for the consideration of smaller scale development. Therefore it is not considered necessary to reword the Policy as proposed. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 40: Waste Management Requirements for Development (para 9.19) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): “Planning Advice. Waste Management” (CD51) is available to view on the Dundee City Council website giving advice to developers on planning requirements. It is therefore considered that no additional guidance is required within the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 39: Major Waste Management Facilities (para 9.18) Fife Council (32) 1. Fife Council’s aim of ensuring any detrimental impact on residential amenity should be avoided is laudable. However, its proposed deletion in this case will not alter significantly the meaning of the criterion. Removing ‘local’ means that the criterion will effectively mean no detrimental impact on ‘neighbouring residential amenity’. To achieve Fife Council’s aim would mean rewriting the criterion, but this is not being asked, and I am not convinced it is necessary. If there is any detrimental impact it is likely to be felt first by neighbouring properties, which are protected by the criterion as it stands. No modification is necessary. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38) 2. I have some sympathy with the aim of this representation as, taken at face value, if the policy is only for major waste developments, then other waste facilities are not covered by any proposed plan policy. That said, the policy effectively delegates, through an exception, the development of major waste management facilities to a strategic waste programme, which may have been a better overall approach for the policy. 3. In the absence of any policy for waste overall, the removal of ‘major’ would bring all types of waste development within the ambit of the policy. This will still allow sufficient

139


flexibility for smaller scale developments to be considered. The planning authority’s fears are therefore unfounded, and I agree with the proposed modification. Policy 40: Waste Management Requirements for Development (para 9.19) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38) 4. Neither the policy nor its preamble paragraph 9.18 give any clear indication of what the planning authority’s waste strategy is, and there may have been some benefit in a clearer explanation or point of reference. The policy would benefit from inserting a reference to the planning authority’s existing web-based advice in the preamble. This is not giving further guidance within the proposed plan, but simply directs practitioners to existing relevant planning authority advice. Consideration could be given when the plan is reviewed as to whether additional supplementary guidance is required. Reporter’s recommendations: The policy be modified by: 1. In the policy title and first sentence, delete ‘major’. The policy now reads: ‘Policy 39: Waste Management Facilities New waste management facilities should be located….’ 2. At the end of paragraph 9.18 add a new sentence as follows: ‘Further advice is available on the council’s website under ‘Planning Advice. Waste Management’.’

140


Issue 21 Water and Flooding


Policy 41: Flood Risk Management (para 9.20 - 9.23) Policy 43: Protecting and Improving the Water Environment (para 9.25)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

This section of the Plan relates to flood risk and the water environment; Policy 41: Flood Risk Management Policy 43: Protecting and Improving the Water Environment

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 41: Flood Risk Management (para 9.20-9.23) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Wish to see more discussion in the Plan on current risk from flooding, flood risk management at the Waterfront, protection of beaches from erosion and the incorporation of climate resilience in construction, in order to provide further information in the Proposed Plan. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): i) SEPA consider that the risk of flooding is defined not only though the probability of a

flood hazard occurring but also the consequential impact on sensitive receptors. Consequently, they think that it is essential that Policy 41 ensures brownfield development or change of use do not result in an increase in vulnerability to flood risk.

ii) It is stated that all sources of flood risk should be considered and that it is essential that flood risk assessments are carried out in line with SEPA's Technical Guidance.

iii) Policy assumption is contrary to provisions of Risk Framework in Scottish Planning Policy. Re-wording would more adequately reflect the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy.

Policy 43: Protecting and Improving the Water Environment (para 9.25) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Raise concerns about proposed new developments impact on the water environment. They consider that “in Broughty Ferry we have experienced increased pluvial flooding from drains (with associated sewage content) as well as worrying regular rainfall related elevations of microbial content in Broughty Ferry’s bathing waters. If climate change is an accepted phenomenon, such occurrences will increase.” Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 41: Flood Risk Management (para 9.20-9.23) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Include discussion on current assessment of risks from the different types of flooding and storm damage.

141


Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): i) Add additional bullet point under strategy 41 (after number 3) to read: “4) The finalised

scheme does not result in a land use which is more vulnerable to flooding.” ii) Request that the section of Policy 41 which reads: “A flood risk assessment will be

required for any development within the medium to high risk category” is amended to read: "The design and layout of any development within medium to high risk areas shall be informed by a flood risk assessment assessing the risks from all sources of flooding in line with SEPA's Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders".

iii) Delete "These areas are generally not suitable for essential infrastructure unless capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events" and replace with "These areas are generally not suitable for essential infrastructure. Where such infrastructure must be located in these areas, it should be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events."

Policy 43: Protecting and Improving the Water Environment (para 9.25) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Requests “clear commitments” from Scottish Water and SEPA and Dundee City Council to ensure that any new developments will not increase pluvial flooding and will not have a detrimental impact on the quality of the water environment. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 41: Flood Risk Management (para 9.20-9.23) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Detailed information is available on the Council website and from the City Development Department on flood risk management including the results of the Coastal Flood Risk Study and Waterfront BREEAM Communities initiative as well as the Council’s approach to Climate Change. Inclusion of appropriate water resistant materials and construction also forms part of the criteria under Policy 41: Flood Risk Management. The Council is also a partner in development of a Local Flood Risk Management Plan as required by the Flood Risk Management Act 2009, which is currently at a very early stage. These and other initiatives are under constant development and review and therefore it could be misleading for future developers to quote information which would be outdated even before the Proposed Plan is approved. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38): i) It is unclear why the terms of the new criterion suggested by SEPA have been drafted

in the suggested form. The Council consider that this could lead to confusion regarding its intentions and therefore does not support the requested modification.

ii) The Council consider that the additional wording suggested is unnecessary as it largely repeats what is already in the Policy and SEPA’s Technical Flood Risk Guidance is considered by the Council when a flood risk assessment is required.

iii) The Council consider that the Policy wording is adequate and the suggested alteration does not add clarity to its requirements.

No modification is proposed to the Plan.

142


Policy 43: Protecting and Improving the Water Environment (para 9.25) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): The inclusion of the policy is welcomed by SEPA. The policy provides protection against any proposals that compromise the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (CD01) and so contributes towards the Directive's aim of protecting and improving Scotland's water environment. Any site specific water environment issues and necessary mitigation measures will be addressed at the development management stage. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 1. At paragraphs 9.20 to 9.23, the proposed local development plan includes reference to Scottish Planning Policy and the forthcoming Local Flood Risk Management Plans. Protection against climate change is properly a matter for those plans, which will in turn inform assessment of development proposals. It is clear that flood risk management is evolving outwith the local development plan process and that proposals for protection schemes are beyond the scope of the land use strategy. The local development plan currently has no specific proposals for flood protection schemes along the waterfront and beaches. Dundee Waterfront is a Strategic Development Area under the proposed plan and any proposals would be subject to Policy 41, which would require flood resistant materials and construction where the risk is medium to high. Although the text of the plan on this matter relies mostly on other documents, it appears to me that it provides sufficient discussion on the matter for its own purposes and no modification is required. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38) 2. Policy 41 allows that a new development on previously developed land in a medium to high flood risk area may be acceptable where there would be adequate defences and where any construction liable to flood would be water resistant. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency seeks an additional criterion to prevent a proposed land use that would be more vulnerable to flooding than the existing. Scottish Planning Policy includes that developers and planning authorities should take the use and design of the proposed development into account when applying the risk framework. The inclusion of a criterion requiring assessment of vulnerability seems appropriate to me because it would reduce the risk of flooding. It would be unlikely to confuse practitioners, particularly as they will need access to the necessary skills to prepare or consider a flood risk assessment. The extra criterion should therefore be added. 3. Scottish Environment Protection Agency also seeks additional wording to ensure that flood risk assessments are carried out in line with its technical guidance. The planning authority says that Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s flood risk guidance is taken into account and I note that the law requires the planning authority to address all sources of flooding. The proposed Policy 41 succinctly requires a flood risk assessment for any development within the medium to high flood risk category. I consider that the detail could be safely left to the development management process and that no modification is therefore required.

143


4. Scottish Environment Protection Agency proposes a change of wording to Policy 41 which would change the emphasis. As currently proposed, the wording allows for essential infrastructure in low to medium risk areas where they are capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events. This suggests that they could be built in those areas even when less risky alternatives are available. By re-wording the policy, Scottish Environment Protection Agency seeks to allow such development in the flood risk area only where it must be there. In practice, however, the requirement that such infrastructure should remain operational and accessible during extreme flooding events would provide sufficient protection whichever way the policy were to be framed. There is added protection because the policy would also require a flood risk assessment where the nature of the development indicates a higher risk. Taking these together, there is no additional benefit in the proposed re-wording and no modification is required. Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 5. Policy 43 clearly sets out the approach the planning authority would take to assessment of development which might compromise the protection and improvement of the water environment. This should provide a level of protection in line with the current legal framework. The suggestion that a clear commitment should be made by Scottish Water and Scottish Environment Protection Agency is beyond the scope of the local development plan, which is a planning authority document. In my view, the inclusion of Policy 43 is a clear statement from the planning authority that development which would make the water environment worse would not be supported. In terms of the effects on drainage, any new development would also need to comply with Policy 42 on sustainable drainage systems and with the building regulations in terms of the disposal of sewage. The concerns of the community council would be adequately addressed with the plan as proposed and no modification is required. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modification: 1. Amend Policy 41 to include another criterion: Criterion 4 ‘the finalised scheme does not result in a land use which is more vulnerable to flooding.’

144


Issue 22 Environmental Protection


Policy 45: Land Contamination (para 9.29 -9.30) Policy 46: Development of or next to Major Hazard Sites, para 9.31 Policy 47 Environmental Protection, para 9.32


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (38)


This section of the Plan relates to providing guidance on requirements for the development of sites which are affected by environmental contamination, hazard or land use constraints. Policy 45: Land Contamination Policy 46: Development of or next to Major Hazard Sites Policy 47 Environmental Protection

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 45: Land Contamination (para 9.29-9.30) National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): Suggest Policy 45 part b) should be amended to include a new criterion 3 “There may however be situations where the anticipated benefits of remediation are significant enough for them to take priority over other policy objectives and a high value end use is essential to make remediation viable." Retail use is proposed in this representation for the gasworks site on East Dock Street. The representation argues that “it is necessary to adopt as sympathetic an application of policies as possible towards brownfield sites and gasworks sites in particular. This is in the interests of sustainability and brownfield regeneration and is especially necessary in an age of austerity.” Policy 46: Development of or next to Major Hazard Sites (para 9.31) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): Recommend policy wording is changed to ensure that the environment is also considered. SEPA consider that other environmental receptors such as Nature Conservation Designations could also be impacted by inappropriate siting or extensions of hazardous sites. Policy 47 Environmental Protection (para 9.32) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): Change wording of first sentence to "All new development or an extension to an existing development that would generate emissions to air, odour, dust, noise, vibration or light pollution, will be required to demonstrate that it can be accommodated without an unsatisfactory level of disturbance on the surrounding area". SEPA consider that “a number of potentially harmful emissions have been omitted from consideration. In order to ensure that residential and environmental amenity is protected from inappropriate industrial development, we would therefore recommend that the policy wording is altered to include all emissions to air, odour and dust.”

145


Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 45: Land Contamination (para 9.29-9.30) National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): Suggest Policy 45 part b) should be amended to include a new criterion 3 “There may however be situations where the anticipated benefits of remediation are significant enough for them to take priority over other policy objectives and a high value end use is essential to make remediation viable." Policy 46: Development of or next to Major Hazard Sites (para 9.31) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): Amend Policy 46 to state "The siting of new or extensions to existing hazard sites or sites which operate under SEPA authorisation will not be permitted in close proximity to residential areas and or area of public use or interest, where the risk to people or the environment is likely to be significantly increased.” Policy 47 Environmental Protection (para 9.32) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): Change wording of first sentence to "All new development or an extension to an existing development that would generate emissions to air, odour, dust, noise, vibration or light pollution, will be required to demonstrate that it can be accommodated without an unsatisfactory level of disturbance on the surrounding area". Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 45: Land Contamination (para 9.29-9.30) National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28): The Policy provides scope for developers of contaminated sites to provide evidence to support non-allocated uses subject to the requirements of other relevant Proposed Plan policies being met. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 46: Development of or next to Major Hazard Sites (para 9.31) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): The Policy is expressed in a similar manner to that of the adopted Dundee Local Plan 2005 (Policy 80a) (CD40). Historically there have been few applications next to hazard sites and therefore little evidence upon which to evaluate the need for change. The change proposed by SEPA would not alter or undermine the policy as existing but would add in an additional level of potential control which is unnecessary. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 47 Environmental Protection (para 9.32) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38): The Council considers that the impact on the environment from air and dust is adequately considered in a separate policy in the Proposed Plan, Policy 44: Air Quality. The Proposed Plan states that Supplementary Guidance will be prepared giving further guidance on meeting the planning

146


policy requirements of Policy 44. Issues arising from noise will vary depending on the proposed location of development within the City and will be taken into consideration through regulatory requirements outwith the Planning system. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 45: Land Contamination (para 9.29-9.30) National Grid/Scotia Gas Networks (28) 1. The planning authority’s response above does not fully address the main point of this representation, which is that other plan policies should be set aside where necessary to allow a high value end use. This is to justify the potentially very high costs of remediating certain types of sites with high levels of, generally, chemical pollution. Gas works are quoted. 2. Part b) of Policy 45 does allow for end uses other than those allocated in the plan, and an economic appraisal would be required to justify this. It would be unwise for any policy to readily set aside the provisions of others in the plan, as this could lay it open to potentially undesirable developments that may be difficult to then argue against in development plan terms. As matters stand legislation allows, through due consideration of other material considerations, the setting aside of development plan provisions. If an economic appraisal showed a high end value development necessary, contrary to development plan policies, it would be open to argument that this justified, as a material consideration, exceptional granting of planning permission. 3. I consider this would be an appropriate route to follow rather than a policy which sets aside others without more detailed consideration. No modification is necessary. Policy 46: Development of or next to Major Hazard Sites (para 9.31) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38) 4. The planning authority argues that the proposed addition of environmental protection is unnecessary. I consider the additional level of control would be sensible, even if only acting as a reminder of other potential impacts that would require assessing. I accept the proposed modification. Policy 47 Environmental Protection (para 9.32) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (38) 5. I note that paragraphs 9.26 onwards, embracing Policies 44 to 47, are prefaced by the heading Environmental Regulation Policies – Air Quality, Land Contamination, Hazard Sites and Environmental protection. This implies these should be considered together, and in these circumstances I am not persuaded there is any need for the modification proposed as this would effectively duplicate Policy 44 Air Quality. The other issues mentioned in Policy 47, noise, vibration and light do not appear to have their own subject policies. The proposed modification is not therefore necessary.

147


Reporter’s recommendations: The following modification: 1. In Policy 46 insert the words ‘or the environment’ between ‘people’ and ‘is likely’. The policy now reads: ‘The siting of new or extensions to existing hazard sites or sites which operate under Scottish Environment Protection Agency authorisation will not be permitted in close proximity to residential areas and or area of public use or interest, where the risk to people or the environment is likely to be significantly increased.’

148


Issue 23 Telecommunications


Policy 52: Telecommunications (para. 9.38 -9.41)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

Mobile Operators Association (44)


Telecommunication masts and related apparatus

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 52: Telecommunications (para 9.38-9.41) Mobile Operators Association (44): i) Proposes additional wording to preamble paragraphs 9.38-9.41 to provide an

appropriate introduction to the Policy. ii) Seeks for the removal of Criterion 2 of Policy 52 as the respondent deems the

requirement for an operational justification for a telecommunications proposal as contrary to paragraph 253 of Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) that states: “Planning authorities should not question whether the service to be provided is needed…but must determine applications on planning grounds.”

iii) In relation to the cumulative impact of existing and proposed telecommunications installations criterion 4) requires it to be demonstrated that there will be “no negative visual impact”. It is also considered that this wording is overly restrictive on telecommunications development when compared to paragraph 252 of Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) which states that applications should include “a description of how the cumulative effects of the proposed and existing equipment in the area were considered”.

iv) Proposes a reworded telecommunications policy to replace Policy 52. The respondent suggests that the reworded policy is concise and flexible and provides detailed siting and design advice that is in line with Planning Advice Note: PAN 62 Radio Telecommunications (CD15).

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Policy 52: Telecommunications (para 9.38-9.41) Mobile Operators Association (44): Proposed additional wording to preamble paragraphs 9.38-9.41; i) “Modern telecommunications systems have grown rapidly in recent years with more

than 92% of the adult population in the UK now owning a mobile phone. Mobile communications are now considered an integral part of the success of most business

149


operations and individual lifestyles. With the growth of services such as mobile internet access, demand for new telecommunications infrastructure is continuing to grow. The authority is keen to facilitate this expansion whilst at the same time minimising any environmental impacts. It is our policy to reduce the proliferation of new masts by encouraging mast sharing and siting equipment on existing tall structures and buildings.”

Change to policy wording sought as follows: ii) Remove Criterion 2 from policy wording which requires that an operational justification

for a telecommunications proposal is submitted as part of a planning application. iii) Replace the wording of criterion 4) with the following words to read “a description of

how the cumulative effects of the proposed and existing equipment in the area were considered.”

iv) Suggested replacement policy; “Proposals for telecommunications development will be permitted provided that the following criteria are met: 1) The siting and appearance of the proposed apparatus and associated structures

should seek to minimise impact on the visual amenity, character or appearance of the surrounding area;

2) If on a building, apparatus and associated structures should be sited and designed in order to seek to minimise impact to the external appearance of the host buildings;

3) If proposing a new mast, it should be demonstrated that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting apparatus on existing buildings, masts or other structures. Such evidence should accompany any application made to the (local) planning authority.

4) If proposing development in a sensitive area, the development should not have an unacceptable effect on areas of ecological interest, areas of landscape importance, archaeological sites, conservation areas or buildings of architectural or historic interest.

When considering applications for telecommunications development, the (local) planning authority will have regard to the operational requirements of telecommunications networks and the technical limitations of the technology.” Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Policy 52: Telecommunications (para 9.38-9.41) Mobile Operators Association (44): i) It is considered that the preamble paragraphs 9.38-9.41 as worded is appropriate and

provides a sufficiently clear justification and explanation for Policy 52. The additional wording is considered unnecessary and would not add any clarity to the preamble to the Policy.

ii) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) paragraph 252 (CD10) states that planning applications for communications equipment should be accompanied by supporting material which includes “a description of the siting and design options which satisfy the operational requirements, alternatives that were considered, and the reasons for the chosen solution.” It is considered that Criterion 2 is therefore in line with Scottish Planning Policy.

iii) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (CD10), with regard to communications infrastructure,

150


states “The siting and design of electronic communications infrastructure are the key issues to be addressed through the planning system” (SPP, paragraph 249 (CD10)). In addition “Planning authorities should take the cumulative visual effects of equipment into account when assessing new proposals” (SPP, paragraph 250 (CD10)). The Policy approach proposed in criterion 4) is considered to be consistent with Scottish Planning Policy and is in line with Planning Advise Note: PAN 62 Radio Telecommunications paragraph 107 (CD15) which states that “Local plans can set the standard of development expected for an area and the criteria to be considered when considering telecommunication applications”. It is considered that criterion 4) is in line with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10).

iv) The Policy as worded is considered to be consistent with Scottish Planning Policy (CD10) and is in accordance with Planning Advise Note: PAN 62 Radio Telecommunications paragraph 107 (CD15). The Policy as worded is appropriate and provides a sufficient framework for assessing proposals for telecommunication developments. The reworded Policy does not add any additional clarity for the consideration of proposals for new telecommunication proposals.

No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Policy 52: Telecommunications (para 9.38-9.41) Mobile Operators Association (44): 1. I have considered carefully the preamble to the policy, as set out in paragraphs 9.38 – 9.41 of the proposed plan. I consider this to give positive support and encouragement for telecommunications development. I agree with the council that the proposed additional wording would not add any clarity. A modification is not therefore required. 2. I do not read Criterion 2 as being contrary to paragraph 253 of Scottish Planning Policy. The criterion is not, in my understanding, questioning the need for the service, but ensuring that a proper assessment of potential sites has been carried out and that from this the proposed location is operationally justified, in that it meets the technical requirements to meet that need. It is standard practice with planning applications to state which alternative sites have been considered, and why the preferred one has been chosen. This is in line with Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 252. I am not persuaded any modification is necessary. 3. Regarding Criterion 4, telecommunications equipment is by its nature visually intrusive. Location proposals should therefore aim to find locations where any visual or other impact is minimised. For the criterion to say there must be no negative visual impact is, therefore, arguably unrealistic. It is therefore appropriate to add wording as stated in Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 252, and to say that it should be demonstrated any negative visual impact has been minimised. The criterion should be modified accordingly. 4. Taken as a whole I find the proposed policy re-write would add little to that already prepared by the planning authority. However I find merit in the respondent’s proposed Criterion 3, which, with minor amendment could combine Criteria 3 and 5 with greater clarity and more positive wording. An appropriate modification should be made.

151


Reporter’s recommendations: The following modification: 1. Delete Criterion 4 and replace with: ‘an assessment of the cumulative impact of individual proposals where other telecommunications developments are present nearby or are proposed to be located nearby should describe how the cumulative effects were considered and any negative visual impact minimised.’ 2. Delete Criteria 3 and 5 and replace with a new Criterion 3 as follows: ‘if proposing a new free standing mast or other equipment, it should be demonstrated that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting apparatus on existing buildings, including sharing masts or other structures. Such evidence, including any reasons for rejection, should accompany any application made to the local planning authority.’

152


Issue 24 Transportation


Preamble to Sustainable and Accessible Transport (para 10.1 and 10.2) Policy 53: Active Travel (para. 10.3 and 10.4) Policy 54: Accessibility of New Developments (para. 10.5 to 10.8) Policy 55: Dundee Airport (para. 10.9 and 10.10) Policy 56: Car Parking (para. 10.11 to 10.14)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Fife Council (32) TACTRAN (41) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) Balmossie Developments Ltd (25) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31)

Homes for Scotland (47) Stewart Milne Homes (58) M Astin (9) Perth & Kinross Council (33) Dundee Civic Trust (64)


Sustainable and Accessible Transport Chapter – excluding Proposal 1

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Preamble to Sustainable and Accessible Transport (para 10.1 and 10.2) Fife Council (32): Support overall approach to transportation and access. Would like to see a more explicit reference to the aim of improving links between the city and surrounding communities. In the city regions the links between a city and its hinterland are crucial. TACTRAN (41): Reference should also be made in paragraph 10.1 to the statutory Regional Transport Strategy (CD19). Policy 53: Active Travel (para 10.3 and 10.4) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 53 - Support bullets 1, 2, and 3 and the principle of connectivity. Suggest adding 'safe' before 'walking' in the final sentence. Policy 54: Accessibility of New Developments (para 10.5 to 10.8) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 54 - Support policy however need to explain how criterion 2 can be imposed/provided at Greenfield developments (e.g. H71) that are initially far from current public transportation. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58): Policy 54: Designing Streets (CD12) and Designing Places (CD11) have superseded Dundee City Council’s roads design standards document “Streets Ahead” (CD50) which was produced in 2005.

153


Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Generally supports Policy 53 but in Paragraph 10.6 suggest qualifying last sentence to acknowledge motorised vehicle use but that the Council will energetically promote measures which make it easier for people to reduce their car use in favour of active travel (particularly for shorter journeys) and use of public transport. Seeks a commitment to a reduction in use of motor vehicles and would welcome a commitment to extend the coverage of 20mph zones to many other residential streets across the City. Policy 55: Dundee Airport (para 10.9 and 10.10) M Astin (9): Policy 55 – No reason to extend the airport. Perth & Kinross Council (33): The Plan identifies an area outwith the Dundee City Council Administrative area. Policy 55 Runway Safety Zone is indicated as extending into Perth & Kinross. Notes there is no similar policy framework within the Perth & Kinross Local Development Plan nor opportunity at present to have it included. Policy 56: Car Parking (para 10.11 to 10.14) Dundee Civic Trust (64): No reference in paragraphs 10.11-10.14 to a strategy for dealing with the ever-growing problem of residential parking, particularly but not exclusively within the Inner City. There is a need for more off-street parking spaces, sites which could be utilised for parking are being developed which aggravates the problem. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Preamble to Sustainable and Accessible Transport (para 10.1 and 10.2) Fife Council (32): Include reference to improving links between the city and surrounding communities. TACTRAN (41): Reference should also be made in paragraph 10.1 to the statutory Regional Transport Strategy (CD19) Policy 53: Active Travel (para 10.3 and 10.4) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 53: Add 'safe' before 'walking' in the final sentence. Policy 54: Accessibility of New Developments (para 10.5 to 10.8) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 54: Provide further guidance on how criterion 2 can be imposed/provided. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58): In Policy 54: Accessibility of New Developments, delete point five and replace with an appropriate reference to the Scottish Government policy statements Designing Streets (CD12) and Designing Places (CD11). Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Paragraph 10.6. Suggest qualifying last sentence to emphasise "the Council will energetically promote measures which make it easier for people to reduce their car use in favour of active travel (particularly for shorter journeys)

154


and use of public transport." Include a commitment to seek reduction in motor vehicle use and extend the coverage of 20mph zones to other residential streets across the City. Policy 55: Dundee Airport (para 10.9 and 10.10) M Astin (9): Policy 55 – do not extend the airport. Perth & Kinross Council (33): Seeks an amendment to Policy 55 and the Proposals Map, to delete the portion of the runway safety zone which lies within Perth & Kinross. Policy 56: Car Parking (para 10.11 to 10.14) Dundee Civic Trust (64): Suggests there should be clear policies and proposals which identify any safeguard sites on which residents could collaborate to create their off-street parking places or where the Council could make such provision. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Preamble to Sustainable and Accessible Transport (para 10.1 and 10.2) Fife Council (32): Paragraph 10.1 relates to local issues and sets a local context for the following policies. Dundee’s position as a regionally important centre is already stated in paragraph 3.3 and references to the Strategic Development Plan in section 4. No modification is proposed to the Plan. TACTRAN (41): The Council do not consider that the addition of reference to the Regional Transport Strategy (CD19) in Para 10.1 is required. The policies that follow Para 10.1 relate to local issues and as such references the Local Transport Strategy (CD79). The Regional Transport Strategy (CD19) has been referenced elsewhere at a more appropriate strategic level within the Proposed Plan Strategy in page 8 Figure 2 and at project level later in paragraph 10.17 as it relates directly to Proposal 1. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 53: Active Travel (Para 10.3 and 10.4) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 53: All walking and cycle routes should conform to Dundee City Council’s Road Standards Document - Streets Ahead (CD50) which seeks to ensure a safe environment for all road users. In this context the addition of the word “safe” is considered unnecessary. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 54: Accessibility of New Developments (para 10.5 to 10.8) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35): Policy 54: Criterion 2 should not be read in isolation but within the context of the rest of the Policy and the opening paragraph in particular. To provide specific guidance on how this access would be provided is considered overly restrictive and would not give sufficient flexibility for developments to react to site specific issues, local circumstances or opportunities. In the instance of the H71 example it would be expected for a developer to comply with criterion 1 of the policy

155


and in so doing would have the consequential effect of also meeting criterion 2. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Balmossie Developments Limited (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58): Paragraph 10.8 recognises the roles of Designing Streets (CD12) and Designing Places CD11) together with the current Streets Ahead (CD50). The publications Designing Streets (CD12) and Designing Places (CD11) are important and relevant to the design process. Streets Ahead sets out technical details and reflects the local context. It is considered that the reference to Streets Ahead in bullet point 5 is still essential. Future reviews of Streets Ahead will take account of Scottish Government guidance. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): The modifications requested by Friends Of The Earth extend beyond the scope and control of the Local Development Plan. Promotional measures and the assessment of streets for 20mph zones are welcome but are undertaken by processes and legislation outwith the development planning process. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Policy 55: Dundee Airport (para 10.9 and 10.10) M Astin (9): Policy 55 does not propose an extension to Dundee Airport. It does however require developments in the vicinity of the airport to be sensitive to the needs of airport safety. The reference to “developments” includes any development, not just those related to airport operations. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Perth & Kinross Council (33): The omission of the runway safety zone from the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan is noted. The safety zone Dundee Airport is not specifically required by the Scottish Government but set to the same extents as defined by Scottish Government Circular 8/2002(CD14) and was identified within the adopted Dundee Local Plan Review 2005. The zone covers an area of estuary which Perth & Kinross consider is unlikely to be subject to development proposals. Therefore whilst Dundee City Council recognises it has no direct authority of the area which lies beyond its boundary, it is considered to be appropriate to continue to show the full extent of the safety zone for information purposes. No modification is proposed to the Plan Policy 56: Car Parking (para 10.11 to 10.14) Dundee Civic Trust (64): In line with Scottish Planning Policy the Proposed Plan promotes a modal shift and recognises that new developments should be integrated with public transport and active travel networks rather than encourage dependence on the car. At the same time, the Council acknowledges that it is important to ensure that the motor vehicle implications of new developments do not reduce the environmental quality of the surrounding area. The Proposed Plan acknowledges that the loss of parking provision may reduce the environmental quality of an area and addresses this through policies 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 in the chapter 'Quality Housing and Sustainable Communities'. Further

156


Appendix 3 of the Proposed Plan outlines the minimum car parking standards to be applied in the design of new housing. The Proposed Plan does not seek to allocate sites for potential but as yet unidentified community owned parking areas. No modification is proposed to the Plan Reporter’s conclusions: Preamble to Sustainable and Accessible Transport (para 10.1 and 10.2) Fife Council (32); TACTRAN (41) 1. The proposed local development strategy at Figure 5 of the plan is a spatial strategy to guide the policy sections of the plan. It sets out that Dundee will be better connected to its region, the rest of Scotland and beyond. Section 10 of the proposed plan sets out policies for sustainable and accessible transport as the land use planning response to the objectives of the Local Transport Strategy for Dundee. These are at a local level with no reference to surrounding communities. However, Section 4 of the proposed plan sets out the clear vision of the TAYplan. In particular the road, rail and air projects within Dundee that connect to the wider network are shown on a map. Section 10 of the proposed plan focuses on the local transport context. I see no need to reference again the improvement of links with the wider community in this section. 2. Similarly, paragraph 10.1 makes reference to the local transport strategy, while the regional strategy is referred to in the diagram at Section 2 of the proposed plan. It is also referred to at paragraph 10.17, where it is directly related to a site specific park and ride facility. I can see no reason why it needs to be referred to more generally in that section of the local development plan. Policy 53: Active Travel (para. 10.3 and 10.4) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 3. Read as a whole, Policy 53 supports active travel, including walking and to a standard that affords it priority over motorised transport. The planning authority expects safe walking and cycling provision and has published a road standards document to ensure this. The policy sets out the expectation. Safety is implicit and would be covered by the detail of a proposal. It is therefore unnecessary to add to the wording of Policy 53. Policy 54: Accessibility of New Developments (para. 10.5 to 10.8) Broughty Ferry Community Council (35) 4. Criterion 2 of Policy 54 requires that developments will incorporate measures to permit access to public transport networks within a walking distance of no more than 400m from the centre of the development. Although over-worded, the policy is clear enough and I see no need for an explanation. How this is achieved on sites remote from public transport networks is a matter for developers in their planning applications. Balmossie Developments Ltd (25); Homes for Scotland (47); Stewart Milne Homes (58) 5. The Scottish Government publication, Designing Places, and the more recent Creating

157


Places policy statement, set out the principles of street design and layout as part of a place, but they leave much of the detail to be resolved. Also, at a national level, Designing Streets does not support a standards based methodology for street design but instead requires a design-led approach. Dundee - Streets Ahead is dated 2005. It advocates a more flexible attitude to design layout whilst recognising the importance of safety. Although it sets out a number of standards and detailed arrangements, the flexibility it seeks is sufficient to keep it in line with the national approach. The planning authority expects it to be reviewed over time. That would allow more recent national policy and guidance to be taken into account, whilst still providing a local perspective. It is not therefore necessary to remove a reference to it in Policy 54 and paragraph 10.8. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 6. The planning authority’s proposed Policy 54 expects priority to be given to walking, cycling and public transport. That is a clear expression of support for active travel and public transport, aimed at reducing car dependence. Although the text at paragraph 10.6 recognises the need for motorised transport, this should not reduce the force of the policy. I accept the view of the planning authority that promoting measures to support this and a commitment to extending the coverage of 20 mph zones is beyond the scope of the local development plan. Policy 55: Dundee Airport (para. 10.9 and 10.10) M Astin (9) 7. Paragraph 10.10 of the proposed plan sets out measures to protect the continued operation of the airport. That would affect new development in the vicinity. It does not promote any extension of the airport as such. Neither this nor the other comments expressed by Mr Astin require the proposed plan to be modified. Perth & Kinross Council (33) 8. The proposals map for the proposed plan shows an area beyond the runway which extends westwards into Perth and Kinross. This is part of the mud and sand in the Tay estuary which is designated for nature conservation. The map refers to Policy 55: Dundee Airport, which includes that it is a safety zone which will include a presumption against development. The map clearly shows a policy applying to an area beyond the Dundee Council administrative boundary. The planning authority has no authority there. I accept that it is appropriate to show the full extent of the safety zone, as required by Circular 8/2002. Policy 55 includes a presumption against development as set out in that circular. However, that should only apply to the area where Dundee City Council has authority. I therefore consider that the proposals map should be amended to make it clear that it is an indication of the safety zone and the wording of the policy should be amended to remove the implication that it applies outwith the Dundee City Council area. Policy 56: Car Parking (para. 10.11 to 10.14) Dundee Civic Trust (64); Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) 9. Section 10 of the proposed plan includes the planning authority’s policy on car parking. This applies the Central Dundee Parking Strategy to city centre developments and national parking standards outwith the centre. The policy applies to new developments.

158


The parking strategy seeks to protect residential amenity by providing sufficient parking in new developments. That should help reduce the difficulties experienced by existing residents. Whilst additional off-street parking might help further in that regard, it could conflict with that part of the spatial strategy which promotes active and sustainable travel. I therefore consider it unnecessary to include policies in the plan to identify safeguard sites for residents’ off-street parking. Reporter’s recommendations: The following modifications: 1. That the descriptor on the proposals map ‘Policy 55: Dundee Airport’ be removed and replaced by ‘Dundee Airport: Runway Safety Zone’. 2. At Policy 55, remove the words ‘A runway safety zone is identified on the proposals map and will include’ and replace with ‘Within the runway safety zone identified on the proposals map there will be’.

159


Issue 25 Transport Interchange


Proposal 1: Riverside Park & Ride Transport Interchange (para 10.15 to 10.17)


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): M Astin (9) Linda Hartley (30) Maggy Astin & Linda Hartley (62) Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52) Jennifer Kobine (51) Gary Lyon (10)

Prof Christine Leiper (19) Mrs L MacLeod (20) Doug McLaren (22) Friends of the Earth Tayside (31) All Soul’s Church Invergowrie (63) Mark O’Reilly (29)


Proposal 1 allocates a site for a Park & Ride facility to serve the western approach to Dundee City Centre. It is proposed to be located south of Riverside Avenue

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Note: For Information: representees have made various references to the roundabout at the Junction between the A90 and Riverside Avenue. The junction name has historically been associated with the hotel that lies to the north-west of the roundabout. Therefore, the following names all apply to the same location: Swallow Junction/roundabout; Landmark Junction/roundabout; Swallow Hotel/Landmark Hotel access. Proposal 1: Riverside Park & Ride Transport Interchange (para 10.15 to 10.17) M Astin (9); Linda Hartley (30); Maggy Astin & Linda Hartley (62); Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52): Various points of objection to Park & Ride Proposal. (1) Location does not meet the Strategic Transport Projects Review 2009 and does not benefit Invergowrie (2) Dundee City Council has not consulted Perth & Kinross Council so 8 sites have not been properly evaluated (3) Ignores the residential setting of the riverside location (4) Concern that site is adjacent to Firth of Tay, within boundary of Riverside Nature Park, within boundary of several environmental designations. Site is reclaimed land prone to flooding. Concern over disturbance to wildlife, loss of accessible recreational space to residents living nearby, loss of area that has educational potential for schools, PnR is against the purpose of the Nature Park, biodiversity corridors are protected by Local Plan Review 2005. (5) Objections to increase in congestion, air quality and noise pollution. (6) Proposal is contrary to a number of emerging Local Development Plan policies. Jennifer Kobine (51): Objects to siting of Park & Ride on existing Nature Park as it would have a negative impact on the amenity of local residents from loss of flora and fauna, increase in noise, traffic and fumes from having traffic lights on Riverside Avenue. Gary Lyon (10): Location of Riverside Park and Ride Proposal 1 will not alleviate traffic problems for those entering or leaving Invergowrie at the by-pass. Comments that a site west of Invergowrie would be of benefit to Invergowrie residents.

160


Prof Christine Leiper (19): Location of Riverside Park and Ride will have a negative impact on the nearby housing estates as well as to the environmentally sensitive area. Putting it near the Landmark Hotel would be better. Mrs L MacLeod (20): Location of Riverside Park and Ride on the Dundee side of a transport bottleneck does not make sense, nor does it make sense to build it where a lot of money has been spent in creating a Nature Park. Doug McLaren (22): The proposed location will not reduce traffic that passes through the Swallow roundabout. Friends of the Earth Tayside (31): Welcomes the progress towards setting up Park and Ride but seeks clarification as to why this site was chosen over sites further west. All Soul’s Church Invergowrie (63): Objects to Park and Ride for 3 reasons (1) Riverside Nature Park has protected status (2) The relocation of the railway Station would be detrimental to Invergowrie (3) The usefulness of the facility will be lost if it's placed to the East of Swallow Roundabout. Mark O’Reilly (29): Concerned that Park and Ride may cause an increase in car journeys and be detrimental to wider public transport provision. A better option would be to improve transport provision to outlying areas which would also assist those without cars. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Proposal 1: Riverside Park & Ride Transport Interchange (para 10.15 to 10.17) M Astin (9); Linda Hartley (30); Maggy Astin & Linda Hartley (62); Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52); Jennifer Kobine (51); Gary Lyon (10); Prof Christine Leiper (19); Mrs L MacLeod (20); Doug McLaren (22); Friends of the Earth Tayside (31); All Soul’s Church Invergowrie (63); Mark O’Reilly (29): Delete Proposal 1: Riverside Park & Ride Transport Interchange. Pursue an alternative location for the development to the west of the Swallow Roundabout. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Proposal 1: Riverside Park & Ride Transport Interchange (para 10.15 to 10.17) M Astin (9); Linda Hartley (30); Maggy Astin & Linda Hartley (62); Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52); Jennifer Kobine (51); Gary Lyon (10); Prof Christine Leiper (19); Mrs L MacLeod (20); Doug McLaren (22); Friends of the Earth Tayside (31); All Soul’s Church Invergowrie (63); Mark O’Reilly (29): Dundee City Council does not consider that it is appropriate to remove Proposal 1 Riverside Park & Ride transport Interchange. Its inclusion is in compliance with the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (Action Programme item 1) (CD26) and the Regional Transport Strategy, to which the Local Development Plan is required to conform. The proposal also supports implementation of Strategic Transport Projects Review (pages 80-82) (CD29) Intervention 8: Strategic Park & Ride/Choose around Dundee. Tactran – the Regional Transport Partnership for Angus, Dundee City, Perth & Kinross and Stirling Council’s – has developed a Regional Park and Ride Strategy and Action Plan (CD21), which supports the statutory Regional Transport Strategy (CD19). The Tactran

161


Park and Ride Strategy proposes Park and Ride facilities on west, south, east and north approaches to Dundee City centre, with the west of Dundee identified as a high priority. Transport Scotland Strategic Transport Projects Review, Intervention 8 (CD29) also proposes a Park and Ride facility for West Dundee. A Steering Group involving Tactran, Transport Scotland, Dundee City Council and Perth & Kinross Council officers undertook an objective-led study (CD22) in accordance with Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) to identify a preferred site for a West Of Dundee Park and Ride facility. The initial appraisal identified thirteen sites from as far west as Longforgan extending eastwards to the now preferred option. These were assessed through an objective-led process to determine a preferred location for a Park and Ride facility. In doing so, the study process identified that of the thirteen sites assessed, site 6b at Riverside best meets the specific transport and Scottish Government objectives, whilst also offering best value in terms of projected capital costs and revenue operating costs and was also the preferred site for bus operations. For these reasons site 6b was taken forward for inclusion within the TAYplan Action Programme (CD26) and subsequently reflected in the Proposal 1 within the Proposed Dundee Local Development Plan. Transport Scotland has also confirmed that site 6b at Riverside Avenue should be considered as the preferred site in terms of Strategic Transport Projects Review Intervention 8 for the west of Dundee (letter from Transport Scotland to Tactran – CD18). The site remains the preferred option for provision of a Park and Ride facility to serve the western approach to Dundee City Centre. The representees are correct that the proposal site lies within an area identified as the Riverside Nature Park and Local Nature Reserve which has been formed through restoration of the waste landfill area, but is some distance from the SSSI, SPA, SAC and RAMSAR areas. The area also contains other human activities including a municipal recycling, waste transfer station and existing roadways. The addition of the Park & Ride is not considered detrimental to the area and its development will provide improved parking facilities for visitors as well as a bus service directly from the city centre to the Nature Park. As the boundaries of the Park & Ride proposal have not been accurately defined through a detailed design stage it was not considered appropriate to define the boundary of the nature reserve in the Proposals map to align with the potential development boundary. The potential site identified by representees to the west of Swallow Roundabout was one of the thirteen sites assessed as part of the objective-led STAG process. It is of note that such a site is also not without environmental impact. The development of that site would affect a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, likely require the removal of trees currently protected by a tree preservation order, impact upon the setting of a category B listed building and require the complete removal of established woodland. The allocation of a site to the west of Swallow Roundabout would not conform to the content of the Strategic Development Plan which clearly indicates a site “immediately west of Dundee Airport” and is therefore not a consideration for the Proposed Dundee Local Development Plan. Alleviation of traffic through Invergowrie is linked to improving the performance of Swallow Roundabout. Dundee City Council is of course supportive of measures to improve the performance of the trunk road network and address the concerns of the representees. In this regard Tactran has previously funded capacity enhancements at Swallow Roundabout. Further enhancements to the Swallow Roundabout are expected in association with the ongoing development of the Western Gateway residential developments. (TAYplan Action Programme (CD26) – item 7 and Transport Background Paper - Site 2 (CD49))

162


The location proposed in Proposal 1 is not at this time expected to introduce environmental impacts which cannot be sufficiently mitigated however the need for and methods of such mitigation will require to be fully considered as part of a detailed planning application for the facility. Ecological matters will be considered as part of any future planning application. Representations have been received that have suggested that this area is residential in nature. The parking area is bounded by a Nature Park to the North West, waste recycling facility to the west, an Airport to the South and Industrial activities to the East. Housing does exist at some distance to the north-east, directly accessible by foot only and is beyond the A85 Riverside Avenue and East Coast Railway Line. Therefore, this area would not be considered to be residential. The Park and Ride site is forecast to have a demand for use of just over 310 vehicles per day and allowing for some spare capacity is to be designed for approximately 400 parking spaces. The majority of the vehicles accessing the Park and Ride facility will not be new trips to Riverside Avenue but existing trips that currently travel from west of Dundee all the way into the city centre. The proposed Park and Ride facility will intercept these trips and reduce the number of vehicles travelling into the city centre. The facility will result in negligible localised change in congestion, air quality or noise pollution at the site but will contribute to reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality on the approaches to and within Dundee City Centre. The relocation of Invergowrie Railway Station is not a proposal of the Dundee Local Development Plan. The Proposed Plan recognises the potential for strategic transportation and accessibility benefits which the Tay Estuary Rail Study (2009) (CD23 & CD24) has identified. References to the proposal are in line with the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan Action Programme (CD26) which calls for investigative work to be carried out to test a business case for relocating Invergowrie rail station to within the western area of the City. Dundee City Council is supportive of the investigative work in so far as it may identify a potential improvement to the City and regional transportation network. The land use implications of this proposal within Invergowrie, which lies within the boundaries of Perth & Kinross Council, are not within the consideration of the Dundee Local Development Plan. This proposal is supported by Tactran (CD61) as it supports the aims and objectives of the Regional Transport Strategy (CD19). No modification is proposed to the Plan Reporter’s conclusions: Proposal 1: Riverside Park & Ride Transport Interchange (para 10.15 to 10.17) M Astin (9); Linda Hartley (30); Maggy Astin & Linda Hartley (62; Reverend Canon & Mrs O McAusland (52); Jennifer Kobine (51); Gary Lyon (10); Prof Christine Leiper (19); Mrs L MacLeod (20); Doug McLaren (22); Friends of the Earth Tayside (31); All Soul’s Church Invergowrie (63); Mark O’Reilly (29) 1. The park and ride proposal derives from the regional transport strategy. This sets out the strategy for improving the region’s transport infrastructure and includes improving community connectivity and accessibility by developing a regional park and ride strategy. The regional park and ride strategy identifies potential locations at the west of the city,

163


close to the roundabout at the junction of the A90 and Riverside Avenue. Dundee Western Gateway was the preferred option and the strategy suggested that access from a slip road would allow park and ride customers to bypass peak period queues at this junction. Sites at Invergowrie for bus and rail connections were included as alternatives should problems arise in delivering the Western Gateway site. The strategy also supported the development of a new rail station at Dundee West, with sufficient parking to meet demand. The Transport Scotland Strategic Transport Projects Review also identified a park and ride to the west of Dundee as a transport investment of national significance. 2. Tactran commissioned a study to appraise the costs, benefits and deliverability of a park and ride facility at the A90 west of Dundee. The report was produced in 2010 and identified the proposal site at Riverside Avenue as one of two preferred options. It offered the shortest bus journeys, the potential to connect to walking and cycling routes into the city, the opportunity to provide weekend parking for the local nature reserve and the possibility of acting as a parkway should Invergowrie Station be relocated to Riverside Avenue. It could also link via shuttle bus to the airport and provide overspill parking for Ninewells Hospital, but would not reduce congestion at the A90 roundabout. 3. The proposal site was then taken forward as the preferred site in the TAYplan Action Programme of 2012. Transport Scotland confirmed it as the preferred site, reflecting the reduced cost and risk compared to the alternative. I consider that there is robust evidence to support the choice of this site. 4. I acknowledge that the proposal would do nothing to reduce the traffic at the A90 roundabout and that is a major disadvantage. However, that does not prevent it from being assessed as the preferred option on other grounds. As the planning authority implies, other measures may be applied to ease the A90 congestion. 5. The comprehensive appraisals carried out for the study in 2010 suggest that any environmental impacts could be mitigated. That would be a matter for any detailed planning application in due course. 6. The site is adjacent to an existing recycling facility and the airport. It is on land identified as part of the Riverside Nature Park, which was created by restoration of a former landfill site. However, I note from my site inspection that the site is to the west of the nature park, adjacent to the industrial and waste recycling and transfer areas. It has not been landscaped for park use. It is also some distance away from the SSSI, SPA SAC and Ramsar sites. At this stage, there is no reason to believe that the designations would be adversely affected. 7. The residential areas to the north are some distance away and separated from the site by Riverside Avenue and the East Coast railway line. The ground slopes upwards towards the housing and there is existing vegetation and scope for new planting to offset any adverse visual impact. The site cannot be said to be in a residential area and I do not consider that allocating the site need harm residential amenity. 8. For the reasons above, I do not consider that Proposal 1 Riverside Park and Ride Transport Interchange should be removed from the proposed plan. Reporter’s recommendations: No modifications.

164


Issue 26 Other Issues


Sustainable Natural and Built Environment (para 9.1-9.4) Proposals Map


Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Local Funeral Directors (1) Scottish Government (42)


Other representations to the Proposed Plan to include additional policy provision.

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Local Funeral Directors (1): The local funeral trade have identified the need for an additional crematorium in the eastern sector of the city due to pressure on existing cemetery and crematorium provision. Request that the Proposed Plan make provision for the facility. Scottish Government (42): Request that a new policy be included in the Proposed Plan to provide appropriate protection for Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Gardens and Designed Landscapes are included in the Inventory in recognition of their national importance. Planning Authorities have a role in protecting, preserving and enhancing the gardens and designed landscapes of regional and local importance. Paragraph 122 of Scottish Planning Policy states that "relevant policies should be included in Local Development Plans" and there is no policy coverage included in the Proposed Plan or any of the topic areas for the proposed Supplementary Planning Guidance. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: Local Funeral Directors (1): Identify in the Proposed Plan and on the Proposal Map a 2 hectare site in the east of the City for a crematorium, associated gardens and parking. Scottish Government (42): Insert new policy on Gardens and Designed Landscapes with suggested wording as follows: "Development affecting gardens and designed landscapes shall protect, preserve and enhance such places and shall not impact adversely upon their character, upon important views to, from and within them, or upon the site or setting of component features which contribute to their value". Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority: Local Funeral Directors (1): No specific site for a new crematorium has been put forward for consideration and inclusion in the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan sets out the policy context and general land zoning which will be used to consider any future development proposal, which could include a crematorium. Whilst it is appreciated that a crematorium may have specific site requirements, it is considered that site identification and assessment can be undertaken by those interested parties involved and site options

165


166

brought forward. The Council, as with any development proposal will advise on the suitability of potential sites that come forward for consideration. It is considered that there is no requirement to identify a site for a new crematorium in the east of Dundee in the Proposed Plan. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Scottish Government (42): The Council considers that gardens and designed landscapes are important features for the City. There are three designed landscapes within the Proposed Plan area: Camperdown Park, Baxter Park and Balgay Park, all of which are under the direct control of Dundee City Council. These areas benefit from statutory protection and as such it is not considered necessary to duplicate this through a specific policy in the Proposed Plan. However, should the Reporter be minded to include a policy on this matter then the council would have no issue with the wording as proposed. No modification is proposed to the Plan. Reporter’s conclusions: Local Funeral Directors (1) 1. As the planning authority has pointed out, crematoria may have specific site requirements, and these have not been considered as part of the plan preparation. As the planning authority also states it is open to interested parties to consider these and discuss these, prior to any specific development proposal being brought forward. I do not consider at this stage a specific land allocation is necessary, as a proposal could be brought forward within the framework of development policies within the proposed plan. No modification is needed. Scottish Government (42) 2. Whilst the planning authority is correct that gardens and designed landscapes have statutory protection it fails to recognise the specific direction in Scottish Planning Policy, for this to be recognised in local development plans. I note it is content for the proposed policy to be added, and I agree that this should be brought forward as a modification. Reporter’s recommendations: A new policy, and preamble as follows, with relevant numbering, in association with other protected sites policies: ‘(New preamble) Gardens and designed landscapes are important features for the City. There are three designed landscapes within the Plan area: Camperdown Park, Baxter Park and Balgay Park, all of which are under the direct control of Dundee City Council. (New policy) Development affecting gardens and designed landscapes shall protect, preserve and enhance such places and shall not impact adversely upon their character, upon important views to, from and within them, or upon the site or setting of component features which contribute to their value.’

Telephone: 01324 696455 Fax: 01324 696444 E-mail: brian...

Documents

Transcript of Telephone: 01324 696455 Fax: 01324 696444 E-mail: brian...