Kingswells Community Council have a raft of information on the bids Aberdeen City received as part of the Local Development Plan process. You can access their website here.
The Aberdeen City Main Issues Report consultation is expected to open on 4th March and will run for ten weeks.
The next Local Development Plan (LDP) 2021, once agreed, will shape our area for the next number of years and determine where new development will take place, whether it is new homes, offices, retail or leisure facilities. Aberdeenshire Council Planning Policy Team have been working hard to prepare a Main Issues Report (MIR) to support the preparation of the new LDP, carrying out consultation with local councillors and key stakeholders. It is now YOUR turn to have a say on the suggested policy changes and the planners’ preferred sites from over forty bids lodged by developers for land in Westhill, Elrick, Kirkton of Skene, Lyne of Skene, Garlogie, Echt, Dunecht, Midmar, Sauchen and Cullerlie. The consultation can be accessed here.
Responses must be made in writing by Monday 8th April. Response forms are online, in libraries and in the Area Office at Gordon House, Inverurie.
You may think that any future development in the local area must be backed up by appropriate infrastructure first; or it may be your view that there should be no further major development locally at all; or indeed you may welcome lots of new opportunities for development! One aspect residents should be aware of is the proposals being submitted to Aberdeen City Council as part of their Local Development Plan – some of which will affect Westhill and the surrounding rural areas. Although your elected representatives have no say in Aberdeen City planning matters, you can make representations to the Aberdeen City MIR too. My next post will take you to the Aberdeen City maps and bids.
Don’t forget, there is a drop in session on Thursday 21st February from 1230-1900 hrs at Holiday Inn, Westhill where you can meet the planners and discuss any aspect of the Main Issues Report.
At the full council meeting back in September, the Proposed Aberdeen City & Shire Strategic Development Plan (SDP) was ratified after having been agreed by members of the SDPA and also ratified by Aberdeen City council members. The proposed plan is now open for public consultation and comments can be made until 17th December 2018.
More information on the Proposed SDP can be found here and a copy of the response form is below:
Proposed_SDP_Response_Form_2018
You will see in the proposed plan that western expansion is still considered to be premature and is not supported at this time until a range of studies is undertaken which will include an appraisal of the effect of the AWPR.
The following slides are the latest updates from Aberdeenshire Council on progress to date on the next Local Development Plan (LDP). Please do sign up for updates through the council’s newletter – contact details on the last slide. The draft Main Issues Report (MIR) came before councillors at Garioch Area Committee last week and comments made there will be presented to the Infrastructure Services Committee on 29th November. You can see at this time which of the bid sites are recommended by officers to be taken forward in the next plan period. The report before Garioch Area Committee can be found here under item 6.
The formal public consultation period for the Main Issues Report will commence early January 2019, closing 8 April 2019 therefore all information being made publically available at this time is for information only. Community councils are being asked to gather views and co-ordinate a collective submission during the January to April public consultation period.
What is the Strategic Development Plan (SDP)?
Strategic Development Plans are prepared for Scotland’s four largest city-regions: Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. The SDP for Aberdeen City and Shire sets out priorities for the long-term development of the region, and focuses on key issues such as transport, economy, retail, housing and greenspace.
The Main Issues Report
The current SDP for Aberdeen City and Shire was approved in March 2014 and both councils are in the process of reviewing this Plan to ensure it is kept up to date. The Main Issues Report is the first formal stage in the review process – it describes and invites discussion on options for future policies, as well as employment and housing supply targets for the next Plan. The Report includes 12 Main Issues and 16 Questions for comment. The results of this consultation will inform the preparation of a ‘Proposed Strategic Development Plan’ which will be subject to further consultation in late 2018. The closing date for responses to this first stage is 12pm on Monday 21st May 2018.
You will find the consultation document here.
Issues of particular interest to Westhill and District include the potential growth West of Aberdeen (A93 and A944). The report states that “Westhill and Banchory continue to be attractive to the development industry. However, there are significant infrastructure challenges (particularly for transport and education) if there is to be growth. The extent of the transport challenges and the action needed will not be certain until a City Region Deal appraisal of the effect of the AWPR is completed and any necessary solutions can be identified. While opening the AWPR will have a significant effect on settlements to the West, current transport modelling suggests it is unlikely to create any room for growth. The reports goes on to say that “we therefore think it would be a very risk strategy to identify western expansion for strategic levels of growth before a realistic and deliverable solution is identified…”
Furthermore, Main Issue 3 adds that it is important that the free flow of traffic and the junction capacity of the new road (AWPR) are protected and not affected by development taking place which would have a negative effect on the road and its junctions. The preferred option would be for the next SDP to be clear about the need to avoid high footfall-generating uses near the AWPR’s junctions and to make it explicit that any development proposals should only come through the full and open development plan process.
With regards to housing, between 2011 and 2016, a total of 11,433 homes were built (2,769 fewer than the SDP requirement). Private-sector completions were 165 units more than the requirements identified in the Housing Need and Demand Assessment (2011) but delivery of affordable housing fell almost 3,000 units short of the need that was identified. Do you agree with the housing targets suggested in the Main Issues Report?
Main Issue 11 looks at Housing Land Allowances. The preferred option here allows delivery of new homes consistently at levels not seen for 20 years and provides 28% generosity on top of the housing supply target. Without this extra level of generosity, the Local Development Plans (LDPs which I mention in previous posts and which are also in the process of review) would not be able to identify any significant new housing allocations up to 2030. Do you agree that the preferred option should allow LDPs to make some further housing allocations.
Why should you become involved?
Becoming involved in the development plan preparation gives you an opportunity at the earliest possible stage to have a say in shaping the future of your community and environment. Making your opinions known at this stage can be much more effective than trying to influence decisions on planning applications later on. No setttled view on the content of the next SDP has yet been reached, making the Main Issues Report a key stage for public consultation.
As part of the preparation of the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2021, Aberdeenshire Council invited applicants to nominate land for development (known as the ‘Call for Sites’ stage). This stage ran from 3rd January until 31st March 2018. During this period, any interested parties could submit a ‘bid’ to have land allocated for housing, business or mixed use development. The council received in excess of 500 bids from landowners, developers and agents.
‘Call for Sites’ is the first formal stage in developing the new LDP. The next step is to assess all submitted bids. The assessment then forms the basis of the Main Issues Report. You can stay up to date by viewing regular updates on the Local Development Plan progress here.
I have set out the bids by area. It is normal practice for developers to approach community councils for support for their bids so please do keep in touch with your local community council and look for further updates here and on the council website.
WESTHILL & ELRICK
120 houses at Land at Kinmundy Westhill
180 houses at Land at Strawberry Fields, Westhill
100 houses (phase 1) on Land to the west of Westhill south of the A944
500 houses (phase 2) on Land to the west of Westhill south on the A944
77 houses Mains of Kinmundy – 1
87 houses Mains of Kinmundy – 2
750-900 houses at Damhead/Cadgerford, Backhill, Westhill
6 houses land north of Keirhill Way
100 houses at Cairnfield, Westhill
35 houses north of Meadowlands (phase 1)
40 houses north of Meadowlands (phase 2)
49 houses site adjacent to Westhill Drive (north west of Meadowlands)
Housing (numbers to be confirmed) at Former Blockworks site, Straik Road, Elrick
90 houses (in two phases) at Land at Mains of Keir
25 houses on site adjacent to Wester Ord Farmhouse
KIRKTON OF SKENE
35-45 houses on land off Old Skene Road, Kirkton of Skene (near Kesson Gardens)
20-30 houses on land north of Glebe Land, Kirkton of Skene
LYNE OF SKENE
5 houses on site to north of Little Acre, Lyne of Skene
15 houses on land north of Letter Road, Lyne of Skene
7 houses at Mains of Skene, Lyne of Skene
157 over three sites in Lyne of Skene village
ECHT
25 houses on Land north of Forbes Park, Echt
28 houses on land south east of Echt, south of B9119
Employment use on land adjacent to Birchmoss Depot
SAUCHEN/CLUNY
15 houses at Burnside, Sauchen
40 houses Sauchen West phase 1
160 houses Sauchen West phase 1-4 (includes 40 above)
Retail use/coffee shop land to south west of Sauchen
6 houses south of Cluny Primary School
150 houses over 3 phases on land to North West of Sauchen
MIDMAR
20 houses West of Midmar, near Midmar School
4 houses at Tillybirloch, Midmar
3 houses on land to East of 1 Marionburgh Cottages, Midmar
10 houses at Roadside of Corsindae, Midmar
GARLOGIE
15 houses at Roadside of Garlogie
CULLERLIE
8 houses on land adjacent to Flora’s, Cullerlie
DUNECHT
50 houses on land immediately to the north of Dunecht, adjacent B977
Scottish Government proposals to overhaul the planning system in Scotland are unlikely to have any positive effect in meeting the demands and aspirations of communities and the development industry, say councillors.
Aberdeenshire Council’s Infrastructure Services Committee (ISC) has written to the country’s Chief Planner in response to a range of changes being proposed at a national level.
Councillors and planning officials believe the current approach to strategic and local planning in the area works well and the proposed changes take decision making further from local communities.
There is particular concern over a lack of detail around proposals to replace the role of the Strategic Development Plan (SDP), which currently provides a long term strategy for future growth.
It also guides the production of Aberdeenshire’s Local Development Plan, which provides a blueprint for the development of the area, ensuring a consistent approach to planning applications.
The Government’s current intention is to replace Strategic Development Plans with Regional Partnerships and officers and councillors are concerned about the lack of detail so far.
Its Places, People and Planning consultation asked Scottish councils for their opinions on plans to bring forward a Planning Bill in the near future, which is part of a wider programme of work aimed at strengthening “planning’s contribution to inclusive growth and empowering our communities”.
Now ISC chairman, Peter Argyle, has written to the Scottish Government on behalf of the committee to set out the council’s thoughts on a Position Statement which outlines the changes the Government is considering.
The Position Statement was published following an independent review of the planning system, published in May 2016, and a subsequent consultation on 20 proposals for improvement.
Aberdeenshire Council has already responded to the initial consultation, and has now given its opinion on proposals for changes which have emerged as a result.
There is particular concern around timing as the north-east needs, at the very least, a transitional arrangement to ensure up-to-date development plans are in place throughout any period of change.
Cllr Argyle said: “This council’s most immediate concern is the lack of detail around measures to replace the role of the Strategic Development Plan and the means of engaging over regional spatial strategy and, in particular, housing requirement.
“The Council welcomes change where benefits can be evidenced but, in the context of the north-east of Scotland the current arrangements have worked very well and there is not as yet sufficient evidence or detail around a replacement system to demonstrate that it will improve on the current system.
“One size does not fit all and there is a lack of evidence that the proposals will improve the process or performance of the system in delivering infrastructure and further housing.”
ISC vice chair, John Cox, added: “The current barriers to development, particularly housing, are the physical cost of development and the demand within the local markets, not the planning system or its processes.
“The changes being proposed would also remove political control from the local area, taking it to the centre, and would also potentially give developers the opportunity to renege on agreements made for contributions to improve infrastructure impacted upon by their developments, known as Developer Obligations.
“The committee wanted to reinforce the resource implications of the proposals for all councils and the need to improve trust in planning processes, which the current proposals do not assist.
“There is nothing that gives me confidence the process will be easier, quicker or more efficient, basically failing most of the objectives. Plain and simple, this would be a further erosion of the local democratic process and accountability, driven by lack of funding.”
Councillors have also expressed their concern about the fast pace of the consultation and the emerging legislation, fearing it may lead to errors.
The Government’s Position Statement states no final decisions have been made on the content of any future legislation at this stage.
The Scottish Government have now issued a Position Statement following the last round of consultations on review of the Scottish Planning system which closed in April 2017. This statement describes the key changes that Scottish Ministers are now considering taking forward through the forthcoming Planning Bill. Further responses on this Position Statement can be lodged up until 11th August 2017.
Some of the key proposals for the Planning Bill include:
Local authority planners, councillors as well as community councils and residents input greatly to the various consultation processes previously and it is good to see some of the issues raised being included in this Position Statement. The Statement can be accessed here along with the link for further comment on any of the proposals.
The “Strategic Development Planning Authority” (SDPA) was designated by Scottish Ministers on 25 June 2008 under the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. The Aberdeen City and Shire SDPA have 12 members with six being appointed by both Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils.
Their observations and policy conclusions on the AFC stadium proposal are documented below. Although the response has been online for some weeks, it was before SDPA members yesterday for noting. With so many documents online, it can be time-consuming to find the statutory consultee responses.
SDPA CONSULTATION RESPONSE
PLANNING PROPOSAL
Local planning authority: Aberdeen City Council
Proposal: Proposed Community and Sports Facilities, Football Academy, (comprising outdoor pitches, pavilion, ancillary buildings), Stadium (20,000 capacity), ancillary uses, formation of access roads, parking and associated landscaping and engineering works | Land At West Kingsford (North Of The A944 Road) Skene Road Aberdeen AB15 8QR
Reference No: 170021/DPP Date received: 16 January 2017
Case Officer: Garfield Prentice Target date: 27 February 2017
STRATEGIC PLANNING OBSERVATIONS
Context
An application for detailed planning permission has been submitted on behalf of Aberdeen Football Club. The application seeks approval for a football stadium and campus development on an unallocated site forming part of the Aberdeen City Greenbelt to the west of the AWPR junction between Kingswells and Westhill. The proposed development would comprise:
20,000 seater football stadium
The stadium capacity is similar in scale to the current stadium (Pittodrie) and that for a community stadium allocated at OP59 in Loirston in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 (and 2017) on which Aberdeen City Council were minded to grant consent until the application was withdrawn.
Strategic Development Plan
The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan (SDP) was approved by Scottish Ministers on 28 March 2014, replacing the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan (2009). The Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2017) was adopted on 20 January 2017. The development plan for Aberdeen City is therefore fully up-to-date. The plan is framed around a vision, spatial strategy and a series of aims and objectives; with those relating to economic growth, sustainable mixed communities, quality of environment and accessibility being the most relevant to this application. The SDP sets a strong framework for investment decisions. The purpose of the SDP is to focus the right development in the right places and to prevent inappropriate and poorly located development. The SDP is ambitious in its strategy for change, facilitating growth in focused places in order to deliver the significant and properly planned infrastructure required for this growth (SDP paras 3.5 and 3.9), while enhancing quality of life. In terms of the plan’s spatial strategy (p8- 23), the proposed stadium falls within the outer edge of the Aberdeen City “Strategic Growth
Area” (p12-14). The plan explicitly supports the principle of the development of “a new community stadium, a regionally important facility which will bring economic, social and cultural benefits” (para 3.24, Diagram – p13 and Schedule 2). Two possible locations are identified – on and around the current stadium site at Pittodrie / Kings Links and to the south of the city as part of the Loirston development.
It is recognised that the development proposal is attractive to and tries to meet the needs of the football community of the region. However, it is the principle of a new, single-purpose stadium (for football use and surrounded by ancillary football facilities), on an unallocated site, in the greenbelt which on the edge of the city that is the primary focus of this response.
Spatial Strategy
The SDP acknowledges the importance of Aberdeen City Centre as being vital to the economic future of the area (SDP para 3.21). The regeneration of the City Centre and a number of city communities is vital to reduce inequality (paras 3.47 and 3.48). A key facet of this is acknowledging that a varied mix of uses must be maintained and expanded in order to have a successful city which is attractive to business, residents and tourists. The importance of reducing travel distances and making walking, cycling and public transport more attractive is also highlighted as vital for the future (para 3.16). This again focuses attention on the City Centre or sites that are well connected to existing or planned communities.
Para 3.24 of the SDP details two possible locations for a Community Stadiums to support the growing sporting infrastructure of the city. This is further illustrated in the indicative diagram 5, p13. The careful consideration of the location of a community stadium was part of not only the SDP development process but the Aberdeen LDP. The SDP aims for the development of a Community Stadium which would facilitate more than one use on site and as such co-locate multiple uses at one facility that would be better connected to existing or proposed infrastructure than the single use and isolated proposed development. Specific sites have been allocated for this use within the spatial framework and to locate a stadium of this size and singular use on an unallocated site in the greenbelt, on the outer fringes of planned development corridors would be contrary to both the SDP and Aberdeen LDP. It is noted in the supporting Environmental Statement (ES) that the previously considered
Loirston and Bellfield Farm sites were located in areas designated as Greenbelt at the time of determination. However, this is misleading as the Loirston site was part of a new community coming through the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012) and Bellfield farm was considered under a specific policy in the 2001 Structure Plan relating to the SFA’s bid for Euro 2008. The policy context for the current application is therefore very different. It is also claimed that the AWPR would facilitate development at this location. The purpose of the AWPR is not to facilitate development rather alleviate traffic congestion in the greater Aberdeen area. A 20,000 plus capacity stadium on the periphery of Aberdeen City’s road network and public transportation routes is unlikely to make the best use of existing and planned transportation infrastructure. In a similar vein the ES states the stadium would be designed to the highest sustainability standards yet fails to mention given its location how heavily car dependent it would be, thus neutralising any gains made through greener technologies on site. The ES asserts the stadium would improve quality of life. Again this is debatable given the level of traffic that would be generated on match days and at peak commuting times placing increased pressure on the immediate area’s infrastructure. In addition to that it would only be accessible for pedestrians from Westhill given the AWPR forming a barrier to pedestrian and cyclist movement from Kingswells which is the only other adjacent neighbouring community.
Economic Growth
With regard to economic growth the SDP seeks to grow and diversify the economy. However, the applicant’s claim that the development of a football stadium at this location would help to provide a new range of employment that would also help to diversify the regional economy, moving it away from the oil and gas sector, is unfounded. The vast majority of job creation would be in construction, and therefore temporary. While additional employment is welcome, 30 jobs is difficult to class as a shift in employment base. It is also unclear from the supporting Economic Statement as to whether these jobs would be a net gain or a shift from the existing stadium at Pittodrie to the new stadium at Kingsford. However, no account appears to have been taken of either the fact that jobs will be transferring from one of the most economically disadvantaged parts of the City to a significantly more affluent one, or of pre and post-match revenue spent in the vicinity of Pittodrie or the wider city centre – with very limited opportunities for such expenditure in the vicinity of the application site. The issue of ‘Net Economic Benefit’ is covered in more detail below.
Sustainable Mixed Communities
It would appear that the proposal is for a football stadium rather than a community stadium as envisaged at the time of the preparation of the SDP (and previous structure plan) which identified potential stadium locations (SDP para 3.24) as a component of a broader mixed community. While it is recognised that there will be community access to some of the football facilities, the uses proposed are not integrated in a sustainable fashion into the community given the scale of the development and its proximity to established or planned developments.
Quality of the Environment
The Greenbelt around Aberdeen plays a vital role in protecting the character and landscape setting of the city and adjoining communities (para 4.31). Development of this site would remove the protection afforded by the designation and lead to coalescence between Westhill and Kingswells.
Accessibility
While the application sits on the edge of one of the plan’s ‘Strategic Growth Areas’, it is not within or adjacent to either the City Centre or other defined town or neighbourhood centres and has the potential to impact on the City Centre which is afforded significant protection within the plan. This issue will be considered in more detail below in terms of sequential site selection.
The objective of the SDP is to ensure all new development contributes towards reducing the need to travel by car and encourage walking, cycling and public transport – a target of the plan being that walking, cycling and public transport should be attractive options. This location will be a significant traffic generating use in a location only served by public transport between the City Centre and Westhill. It will have a limited residential walk-in catchment and would create further danger on the Aberdeen-west cycle route (with three entry points to the site), which needs to be further upgraded (although it is recognised that there are proposals to upgrade this).
The accompanying Transport Assessment (TA) proposes a number of measures to manage the potential traffic congestion such as overflow parking being accommodated within the Arnhall Business Park. However, it is difficult to see how the development could mitigate its impact in this location when (according to the TA) over 20% of supporters currently travel to the stadium on foot and this is likely to fall dramatically at the Kingsford site. If thousands of cars were to be parked at the nearby employment areas this would give rise to thousands of pedestrians trying to cross the A944 dual carriageway immediately before and after matches. The proposal would create a car dependant development in an area served by limited public transport and an almost non-existent walking catchment. As such it would not be in keeping with the objectives and targets of the SDP.
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)
Uses that attract a significant number of visitors should generally be located in town and city centres and paragraphs 58 and 59 of SPP place a strong emphasis on the health and vibrancy of town centres, placing the right development in the right places. As such a town centre first approach is taken by the SDP and the Aberdeen LDP. A mix of uses is important in order to attract visitors and should be encouraged in order to have a variety of uses resulting in a more resilient centre. Furthermore the sequential town centre first approach of SPP para 68 would place developments which generate significant footfall firstly in established areas and require justification as to the lack of suitable locations for a similar development in these locations.
The supporting ES chapter 4 (as required in para 73 of SPP), discusses why the out-of-centreproposed location is considered acceptable. Analysis has been undertaken of alternative sites but restricted to those within the Aberdeen City Council boundary, despite the SDP explicitly seeing the ‘Community Stadium’ as a regional facility (SDP Schedule 2). Such an artificial restriction on potential sites in the sequential assessment is inappropriate. All allocated sites, those with previous permissions and possible alternatives have been discounted in the assessment. Multiple reasons have been given with a reoccurring issue being site size, due to the area required for the ancillary components of the proposal the applicant believes it is difficult to find a non-greenfield site within Aberdeen City with sufficient space. In the analysis of the Loirston site (15ha) it is claimed that there is insufficient space on site for training facilities when in fact the site (before the application was withdrawn) was minded to be granted consent by Aberdeen City Council for a stadium and training facilities. It has not been articulated sufficiently as to why such a scale of facilities is required and also the need for it to be co-located with a stadium. Redeveloping Pittodrie is viewed as in conflict with the existing residential use of the area even though the stadium has been in existence for over 100 years. Reasons against developing Kings Links are the loss of the golf course and land being Common Good. All development will encounter issues that required solutions and negotiation, many more complex than the above.
The analysis does not sufficiently justify why the co-location of the stadium and training facilities is necessary and that a standalone stadium could not be accommodate on a sequentially preferable site. Training facilities could be located on an alternative site within the City or Shire. This would negate the need for such a large site and the need to develop within the greenbelt detached from the built-up area of the city. Indeed, the strategy of developing separate sites was being pursued by Aberdeen Football Club until very recently.
In summary, the justification for the current proposal is particularly weak. The Scottish Government has issued draft guidance in order to assess a potential development’s net economic benefit. Para 29 of SPP requires due consideration be given to net economic benefit of a proposed development. The Scottish planning system supports economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places and achieving the right development in the right place. The applicant’s supporting Socio-Economic Impact Statement focuses on the proposal’s employment creation, gross and net, in the Kingsford area. It concludes that there would be a net generation of 30 jobs post construction and over a 25 year period that the net additional GVA generated could equate to £14m at the Kingsford level and £108m at the Aberdeen City level (including construction costs). While the document discusses the net gain to the Kingsford area it doesn’t address displacement of jobs from the Seaton area which is in the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation). In addition, Seaton is subject to a Community Locality Plan (a component of the Community Planning system) in order to promote regeneration in the area. The impact of the relocation on the area around the current stadium is not addressed. Added to this, there is also likely to be a loss of match day revenue from this area and the wider City Centre which is not directly considered in the economic assessment. As a consequence, the economic assessment does not present a realistic picture of the impact of stadium relocation to this site.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND POLICY CONCLUSION
Improving and modernising the facilities of Aberdeen Football Club are supported by the SDP, as is the provision of community facilities. However, this application is contrary to the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan (2014), which is up-to-date and relevant to this application. The proposal will result in the loss of greenbelt land, the coalescence of urban areas, inappropriately located development giving rise to unsustainable travel patterns and have a negative impact on the City Centre in terms of its mix of uses and lost revenue. The applicant has not adequately justified why the stadium and training pitches etc need to be co-located or why sequentially preferable sites have been dismissed as unsuitable. The applicant claims that the net economic benefit of the proposal is a material consideration.
However, the attempt to demonstrate what the net economic benefit would be seem to neglect the loss of jobs in a deprived area. Various gross and net figures are quoted in the economic assessment but without stating the loss to the existing community of Seaton or of match-day expenditure in the city. Draft guidance on assessing net economic benefit in the planning system was issued in early 2016 by the Scottish Government, but no account appears to have been taken of this. Without a proper assessment, it is not clear what the net economic impact of the proposal might be. The strong framework for investment decisions set by the SDP (SDP Aims, p6) requires strong decision-making on applications which clearly contradict the strategy of the plan. The application is in an unsustainable location in that it will have a very small catchment in terms of access by walking, cycling and public transport compared to other sequentially preferable sites. It does not follow the sequential town centre first approach of SPP or accord with the aims and objectives of the SDP.
As the period for responding to “Places, people and planning” draws to a close (4th April) there will be an opportunity to speak to the Scottish Government team over the next couple of weeks.
They are in Trinity Shopping Centre, Aberdeen on Wednesday 15th March from 9am-4pm.
The consultation can be found here and there is still time to send in your comments. If you have views about any of the main themes: making plans for the future, getting more people involved in local plans, building more high quality homes and associated infrastructure, stronger leadership and smarter resourcing, please respond to the consultation.