For your Representations: –
When representations (or objections) are received and are not resolved at the local council level. The Scottish Government Ministers appoint reporters from The Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). DPEA then make final recommendations on what moves forward into the LDP.
Attached is the extract from the 2016 DPEA Report on Potterton – The report outlines reasons why they did not recommend mass scale development being brought forward. We believe nothing’s changed since then (apart from a weakened economy!) that justifies a different outcome.
Feel free to reference any of the report as you see relevant. I particularly like Points 4, 5 & 6 highlighted below!!!! Apologies this is quite long (12 bullets), but they raised a lot of important points that might help with your representations.
Couple of key reasons from the DPEA Conclusions that haven’t changed: –
1. The sound reason for not making allocations in Potterton was that the strategic housing land supply in the area had been met and further local needs in the area have not been identified. No additional allocations are required.
2. Potterton does not fall within the Aberdeen to Peterhead Strategic Growth Area.
3. The planning authority determined that there were more suitable locations to accommodate strategic growth and large-scale developments. *(These sites are still available)*
4. There are clearly many other factors that influence a spatial strategy, and I do not accept the representee’s *(the developers)* intimation that the AWPR’s presence alone should necessarily be the trigger to accept a significant expansion of Potterton.
5. Potterton is surrounded by greenbelt and there are identified infrastructure constraints relating to the local road network, school capacity and water infrastructure.
6. The respondent (developer) has failed to adequately address points and demonstrate a change of circumstances that would justify changing the conclusions of the MIR 2013 Examination. This is not considered as inhibiting development*. (MIR stands for Main Issues Report – which is completed before the LDP)*
7. No evidence has been provided to substantiate the concern *(stated by the developer)* that the long-term viability of existing services may be threatened unless growth is permitted. Even if this were the case, this would not be an adequate basis for permitting the large-scale growth being sought.
8. Potterton is located in the south of Formartine in the Aberdeen Housing Market Area within a “local growth and diversification area”. In accordance with paragraph 3.43 of SDP 2014, the village is therefore appropriate for a level of growth related to local needs. *(Example Local Growth permitted could be agricultural buildings or types of small-scale development)*
9. The vision for Potterton and absence of allocations reflect a continuation of this spatial strategy into the proposed LDP, and I am not persuaded that there has been any change in circumstances to a degree that would justify a different approach.
10. Representations *(by the developers)*have been made regarding the delineation of the greenbelt. It has been asserted that the Aberdeen western peripheral route (AWPR), which is currently under construction to the south of Potterton, would be the most appropriate boundary for the greenbelt. *(i.e. it should run from Potterton out to the AWPR boundary)*
11. In the absence of any substantive evidence to suggest otherwise, I am also unconvinced that the exclusion of Potterton from the strategic growth area would be inconsistent with, or to the detriment of, the strategy for the Energetica corridor.
12. Recommendation to preserve the Greenbelt boundary to protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity of the settlement and to provide access to open space.