Request support for Aberdeenshire
We're not currently able to provide detailed weekly summaries for Aberdeenshire Council. We need support from the council to:
- Ensure we can reliably access and process council meeting information
- Cover the costs of processing and summarizing council data
- Maintain and improve the service for residents
You can help make this happen!
Contact your councillors to let them know you want Aberdeenshire Council to support Open Council Network. This will help ensure residents can stay informed about council decisions and activities.
If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate to support this service, please contact us at community@opencouncil.network.
Buchan Area Committee - Tuesday, 6th February, 2024 10.00 am
February 6, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting or read trancriptTranscript
study. Thank you very much. This is Council down Bagley Chair of the Baha'en area committee. Welcome to the Baha'en area committee meeting of Tuesday the 5th of 2020. Please note that today's meeting will be recorded. The recording will be published online after the meeting. If any Council has not been able to access today's agenda, please indicate the other hands up function now. Thank you, 8-in-1-centre. We have apologies to come to the George Hall and come to the island with me. Can you ask the committee officer to do a rule of law, please? Can I ask you if they're full in case, I'm in attendance, please. Okay, so they are meeting present. Let's look at Matthew James. Let's look at Matthew James. Let's look at Alan Boughton. Let's look at the present. Let's look at the present. Yeah. It's like Alan Powell. Excellent. It's like on Simpson. Present. It's like Colin Simpson. Present. It's a student spend. Thank you. We also have the polling officers will be in attendance this morning. I want to do a whole new manager. Barbara Alexander Schlister, Susan Moore Schlister, Lindsay Civett, Principal Committee Officer, Sally Ruth Senior Planner, Stuart Newland's Planner, James Hewitt Senior Planner, Pierce Blockster, Team Leader, Gavin King, Business Sport Leader, Freeman Terris, Project Manager, and myself, Teresa Ruth Lee with you also. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Do members have any declarations of interest? Please indicate using the hearts up function. For members during virtually kinda inviting you, should you intend leaving the meeting for a particular item, you should indicate that you intend doing so as the committee officer will be required to remove you from the recording. You should not be joined onto the vital back and at the conclusion of the item. Senior indications, thank you. Item 2A, Public Sector and Quality Duty Guidance. Should any member not agree with the guidance, please indicate the other hands up function. Item 2B, resolution. Should any member not agree to take items 8 and 9 as exempt with the press and public excluded, please indicate via the hands up function. Thank you. When I proceed, I have the polynine excellence. The Hambake Leopitarete, the Hambake Leopitarete was delighted to take a silver award for their macaroni pie and bronze award for their amity fish pie at the What Else Watch pie championships. Well done. Strickard School Robotics Team, I am delighted to share some exciting news from Strickard School. On Tuesday 30th of January, two teams of P67 couples travelled to Edinburgh to compete in the Scottish sheet of the VEX IQ Robotics Competition. There were 13 schools participating, 11 of which were second to schools. Strickard School was the only team from the Northeastern Highlands taking part. The two teams did incredibly well with the VEX Robotics Team winning third overall and the design team and the robot rapids team winning first overall and the teamwork champion award. The school are now busy fundraising, looking for sponsorship and preparing for the winning team to travel to Telford at beginning of March to compete at the UK Championship. Can I ask lectures of graduation be said to the Hambake Leopitare and Strickard School please. Thank you. Item three, draft minute meeting on the 16th of January 2024. Should any member not agree with the content of the draft minute, please indicate the other hands up conscience. Is it the planning going to explain something about this agenda? I'm going to make sure that I'll arrive at earlier on this point. Okay, thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item four, please. And I continue with it to be done. And planning application address for its number APP 2002302.1, planning permission and principal for the direction of dwelling house, applied to the west of Balnevi Cottage Road up Etudehead. We have a request to address the committee in relation to this planning application from the applicant, Mr Lala Craig, and the agent, Mr Philip Baxter. Can I confirm Mr Craig and Mr Lala attendance? Thank you very much. Welcome to the meeting of the Boccaneer Committee. For your information, I can confirm that we have nine members of the Boccaneer Committee in attendance. Today, in line with the council procedure, I am now going to confirm that the committee wish to hear your representation. I will then ask the new planner, Sally Wood, to present the planning application. Before asking you to address the committee, when you are invited to speak, you will be given five minutes to put forward your representation. After that, members, can you ask questions? Thank you. Committee members, should I not take the lead to hear the representation, please, and to get via the hindsight function. Thank you very much. Good morning, Sally. Can I ask you to present the support, please? Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Morning, everyone. So, as outlined, outlined, I am kind of permissioning for this application of the permission that is sought, the erection of a driving house at Lancaster, California. The application is before the meeting today, following local ward member consultation, and the reasons outlined by members are expressed in section one of the committee report. The application site itself is within that act-surgical rural area, as defined in a residential local development plan, and by the Scottish government. And the site itself appears to be greenfield, it's a paddock, it's sort of the last use of sorts of ways and forces, and there are no buildings on the site. Just a general reminder that the Taran and Country Planning Act, Scotland Act, section 25 and 37 requires a decision, the decision-maker determines applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material planning considerations that can be paid for the wise. Just to recap, it's in the report that there are no valid letters of representation that have been received, and in respect of consultees, there are no objections to the application. In section 2.4 of the report, as to the relevant planning history, as can be seen on the application site site itself. In 2019, reference 0 5 7 9, there was planning permission within principal granted on this site, it was determined under the 2017 development plan, but that planning permission was revoked, i.e. removed, so it doesn't apply, that site then doesn't have a history of planning permission. The reason for that is because the same applicant as us today asked that that be swapped, and what happened was there's a site east of Daisyfield, and i'll show you that shortly on the presentation, and that has a history of two planning refusals, permission on refusing July 2019 and November 2019. The applicant came to the planning service and asked if we could revoke the permission on this application site and swap it to allow capacity within VORA to grant that allowed the permission that was granted in August 2020, and as I say, that's the site next to Daisyfield. There was another application submitted in 2022, it was refused in August, it was determined in between the plans, if you like, so in the 2017 plan, under Scottish planning policy and having the weight applied, again that was refused as well, and the reason for that, as you can see again under the small scale additions to an appendix for settlement, there's a list of planning histories there. Under the 2017 development plan, VORA was a settlement that could be organically grown, if I can put it that way, so there was sites that were identified in the development plan in the 2017 plan, which could grow up to 10% in only units, so under the 2017 plan, she ever had a capacity to apply planning houses, and there are five permissions that were granted under that, that took that capacity away, so there are also a number of reviews us and cited for more, because the capacity had been met, one time a cent had been met. Of course, any application has to be now determined upon the prevalent development plan, not the one before, so that is the 2023 development plan and national planning framework for, and there's cited in section five of the committee report. The policies are listed there, and also for the material considerations is the planning advice as well that the planning service then has adopted, and principally the main considerations are policy 17 rule of homes, national planning framework for, and Abadine to a local development plan 2023 policy R2. As previously mentioned, the site is lies within an accessible rural area, the site is greenfield, so it doesn't benefit from brownfield development, it doesn't benefit from being related to a retiring farmer, or a primary industry related to the need for an additional person to occupy, say an agricultural unit. There is a provision in some elements of Abadine share with regard to allowing organic growth, but that clearly does not apply within the accessible rural area, where there is an allocation, an opportunity for rural housing development. In the case of Aurora, there is an allocation for six houses within a development plan, therefore it does not benefit from the organic growth element of the policy, and this is also supported within the settlements that are identified within the planning and price that we have. Aurora is not one that is listed. The policies that the applied in the 2017 plan do not apply on to the 2023 plan in order to apply with the national planning training like before. The opportunity site in Aurora is for six, and it's noted in terms of planning history, again concluding the report, the planning permission was granted in April 2015, and as of just yesterday, it was noted by the planning service that that site is actively being marketed by Stuart Watson on their site as a whole site by someone who can buy the six houses or as an individual, so they are actively being marketed at the present. Section 6.3 to 6.5 of the committee report effectively referred to the accessibility issues and the third site itself doesn't have any linkages in terms of footpath networks or public transport. 6.10 deals with developer obligations related to that application, and as confirmed there, there are no contributions required for the proposed development. That actually is quite normally the place where individual single houses within out with settlements, but I think members ought to be aware that the 2015 plan at permission for six houses, albeit has expired, is allocated nevertheless in the development plan, and the development plan does refer to the need to provide developer obligations in relation to that site. The developer obligations includes a 25% contribution to affordable housing, and this is one of the challenges really about applications for houses with settlements that have an opportunity within them, so there is the site for six houses, and the planning of divisions out with doesn't have the same sort of service requirements as those that are allocated, so it can undermine the deliberately of affordable housing within Abadinsha itself. There also a material consideration is that housing demands need and the housing demands assessment and appendix 6 of the local development plan also shows a summary of the housing allocations across Abadinsha. Talks about the regional allowance and in respect of the accessible rural market area, it does show that there is a over provision within terms of the allocations, and that's coupled with the windfall, which is windfall within a defined settlement, and then it demonstrates that there is sufficient housing supply that Abadinsha council does not have a shortage of housing supply to meet the demands. What is a challenge however is the ability to provide sort of the affordable housing, if you like, and again that's one of the reasons for the allocation for the six houses, as that would generate and secure 25% affordable housing within that housing market area. And now I have to remember myself how to share the presentation So the application site is just on the edge of the settlement of Aurora and there is a slide to show you where the settlement development boundary is, and I think we're all clearly familiar with Aurora is, but it's to the south-south-west of St. Berger's. It is a planning permission within the principal, so there are no details of the house design itself, it is merely seeking the principle of a house on that site. The red line is application site boundary and the blue indicator land owns by the applicant as well. That's the show the site, there's an indicative access that shows that it will be accessed from the south of the site, to be honest that's the most obvious location for it, and due to the site layout, and again just indications to show that the site can accommodate drainage. This aerial view is taken from Google, and as you can see the site is free from any redundant buildings, and it's not previously developed land, it is a greenfield site, so it doesn't comply with that element, and again looking into the application by itself, there is nothing that supports in terms of a statement as to how the applicant or agent feel that this ought to be planted, and again it's a reminder that the town and country planning at talks about applications being made in accordance with the development plan. This slide slide six shows an extract from the local development plan, the dotted lines are the settlement boundary of Rora, the red line is the application site, as you can see it's a bot stick, it's not within it. OP1 in the middle is within the settlement boundary of Rora, and it is the site that is the opportunity site allocated to six houses. Slide seven, the purple area is to show the site that the previous permission had been swapped with if you like, so the 2019-0579, this application site has said did have permission, but we were asked at that time to swap the permission by the same applicant as of today to allow that purple site to gain permission, which had previous been reviewed twice, because it did not comply with the 2017 development plan, and as of today we note that it was reviewed in 2022, and in respect of the current development plans is in conflict with the development plan, both national planning framework for and having each other with development plan 23. This slide slide eight, the black dots, they show the permissions that were granted out with the settlement boundary, so there were some houses granted within, possibly two or three sites, but these show the sites that were granted out with the sentiment development boundary, these are the ones that were granted into the 2017 allowance, as you can see that shows that there was five houses, and again looking at the into those planning files of those five commissions, each one is either completed, commenced, or is still extant, and so none of those have expired at all, but of course again that provision doesn't apply within the 2020 plan, or is not an organic settlement identified for current. Slide nine is the photograph of the site, this is looking from looking from the southwest corner over the site itself, and that's looking northwest from the road, as you can see it doesn't benefit from being previously developed land or has a redundant building on it, and that's a lot of them looking at a lot of the frontage looking to the east, so just to conclude, the application is recommended for refusal, for the reason cited in section 10 of the committee report, as the site lies within that accessible rural area, it fails to make any of the criteria that supports a house in this area, and also in respect to reason two, it would generate and promote a hard-based travel, and it's just a reminder that there are no material planning considerations, the planning commission was revoked, and the application should be determined in accordance with development plan, and just to sort of bear in mind that sort of precedent about there are other sites that have been refused for permission, and whilst each application must be determined on its own merits, there has to be good sound planning reasons to do so, thank you. Thank you very much, Sally, Mr. Clerk, Mr. Baxter, can I invite you to address the committee?
- Thank you very much. It's you that we are, you will have five minutes in total, thank you very much.
- Okay, the site that I'm going to be fortunate to be on the go, and I'm Alex Regg,
here today to appeal the planning decision, direct event refusal for my daughter Laura.
I feel the zone area, Laura clearly does not meet the needs of the local people,
as it's been undeveloped for the last nine years, and wrote us a five-examine,
it has been popular about individuals building their own houses for the last 10 to 15 years.
None of it on this take place in the current zone area, as a development there requires
to own a list of expenses for an individual house bill that's under take. And single plot options
in where the village's gross has come from, provided houses for the market people, real people,
you know, people who need houses, and who are far less than go, is a fair school center, etc.
I have a whole couple of days, but to buy the plot, and they both work all the way,
they use local tradesmen to build the house, as you've seen in their plans, it's right next to
our local houses, there's an established hedge round about it, it's not associated in proper
how we would be completely out of the counter. The plot itself is approximately 200 metres
from the zone area, which makes some of the points in the buying department's document
about contradictory. In the conclusion and part of 6.11, the final sentence says,
The site is an unsustainable location with no employment, shops, educational, leisure facilities close by, they have a lot of property and home allowance and a drive for car.
In my point, my point is, you know, how can they think that the site is not approved of its development within nearby zone site heads? But in your fact, that we have zoned one, that Lola means the council wants to support the development of Lola, that he may have a recommendation for a refusal. So we need to promote, I feel, as I've progressed, I have an independent area, and I've brought a back home and said,Step one, the situation, one policy, it is not always fit all.
So, as local goes, as I asked, you can support my application. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. It doesn't be a surprise in that we are no longer allowed to expand and grow the settlement of Lola. We didn't have asked you, do you want any policy? This policy seems to preclude any new one-off development to a recognized settlement purely because it has a current housing line allocation. Although I do understand the concept of this, so that zone sites are developed first, and reality, this is not working. There's no disadvantage of developers to take on their own line in many areas of our marine share that don't command a reasonably high house value. Of course, I'm putting in services to a site and building houses and growers the same as the site where cell so developers usually don't want to connect to high levels of upfront development costs on marginal returns. I mean, I also don't want to give their line their way for the next, for next to nothing as they can get better at time than just keeping it. The long-up development certainly hasn't been solely down to the current cost of living places but hasn't backed in the case for many years. House building costs have also went up with the introduction of sector regulations and installation standards, installation of renewable technologies and car chargers. Take this role, I'll get its site approved in January 2015. It's now a student, I'll get it here for over nine years. This new policy will not offer any choice in Kenya that developers don't usually offer one off flights of sale to the cell builder. They usually need to construct their house as well to get the maximum return on their site. It also seems to me that the role of being in accessibility does not now have a cohesive group policy to promote this one of development for years like Turk and VARC, except I do. According to the new government, NBR4 buying policy recently approved, it states that it's a special principle to support local liberty and you'll also recognize the need to support the rural communities. You're an actual buyer here who, as soon as permission is granted, will commence with the development which will return, will generate investment in the local community and allow them to stay in the rural area. I think that this application should be supported under policy as an appropriate addition to a settlement that there's no viable holiday land available in this settlement under the new NBR4 policy, any settlement you've allowed to go to and support rural communities. I ask members to support this application under current policy. Thank you very much. Member, any questions for Mr. Craig, Mr. Baxter, please. Here, I've seen your indications. Mr. Craig and Mr. Baxter, thank you for your representation. Thank you. Member, should there be any questions about the Council Office that is soundly? Would you like to acknowledge? Thank you. There was a couple of comments there about the war of being undeveloped, but the slide indicates that perhaps it's not the case and actually the happened permissions are said within the settlement boundary itself. I recall three maximum bodily due, but three within the 2017 of which the majority of those have been built and saying the five that's outlined there that are extant by third trucking, complete or work started or the permission is still live. The sales particular for the allocated site actually state and the value of the land for Office 300, but it also states that offers are invited for individual plots as well. To suggest that there isn't the opportunity to build single house plots, one of plots is actually not substantiated when looking at the sales particulars of the Stuart Watson website that indicates that and the willing to consider off of the 50 grand per glut, it's in a league sold at the whole. In terms of staying within the village, sorry, within the war itself, I mean the application site itself is not within the village, it's adjacent to the settlement boundary. We can't condition obviously who that site is sold to, we can't secure developed applications for affordable housing. Again, it's the planning reasons and why this site actually is deemed more sustainable than the allocated site itself. We have to get to the application on planning reasons and in respect of the opportunity site, it's next to the village hall of Mora, the community hall and the application site itself is a 450 meter walk approximately to the village hall and that's obviously something for the members to consider. What's the final ed approach is to sort of make that sort of connection with the village hall itself and make a sort of community hub if you like within the majority of those houses are sort of central bit within Mora and it's just to say that there's no evidence to suggest really that this site is more viable or less viable than that of the allocated site. As I say there is no support statement, so it's just part of the application. Thank you. Thank you, Sally. Council, come on please. Sorry, thanks a little. And that's a two point really. How can you address those great last point that we recommended only one that is sustainable but not this long particular and can we, I mean I haven't seen the Russell Watson website, so I don't know if it is, we go split up, I don't know if we can get it out of the situation but it hasn't sold at all since 2012. The way to be standing relation to releasing those allocation within, there we go. So again, you come us back down to the plan length systems. The plan is the council's event and council's adopted that event and it was ratified and by reporting the Scottish government. In terms of land use planning, the P1 site said it's right next to the community form, so from that point of view it's supporting the nuisance of that and in terms of citing and design it would be considered a more appropriate design in terms of sort of the growth of Aurora whereas yes this one is adjacent to the settlement boundary but nevertheless at the moment it's got an attractive hedge, it's not developed, it's sort of provides an entrance, a gateway to the built-in moment, it's softer than the edges. So in terms of allocations, again, you come down to housing needs, housing demands, we've got a sufficient supply and the 2023 development plan allocated this again, you didn't remove it and there's reason to believe that it wasn't developed under the previous plan but there's no reason to believe that if there are any constraints for me coming forward it comes down to what interest the planning information delivery team are able to sort of unlock any sites that are constrained but there's no sort of immediate constraints, it comes back down to sort of how much the lands might be worth and again the application site that's been applied for doesn't have the same developer obligations as the opportunity site would have in terms of the affordable housing provision, that was also secured under the previous plan and again if you look at the settlement statement for bumping folks specifically for Aurora, it does stay, let me just move mine to myself. Just going into the looking at this, yes, OP1 land in the park, allocated centrally within a specimen Aurora so that's why because it's believed to be central, close to the local port, housing desire to respect out the existing houses, another traditional style, stealth build can be favoured due to the scale of development, expect and site to contribute towards affordable housing in line with policy H2 to affordable housing, so that's the reason why the allocation is where it is and I think one of things again is you look at Stuart Field for example and how we grew and the department and the allocations then sort of were built in the middle because it's why not, why would you not sort of build down green field sites and so it kind of undermines that sort of community feeling these one of ones because they don't sort of the holistic plans so you're actually contributing more housing than required within the settlement itself which then means that the chances of an allocated site are being undermined, that's one of the fundamental reasons is that sort of good planning with community cohesion, bringing sites forward and plans rather than reactive and again that's why when the local development plan was adopted the policies leading to that were that it was an opportunity site to basically stop granting houses within the 200 metres to enable those sites to actually point forward because these sorts of opportunity organics at the were in the 2017 plan, you can see five houses have been granted and nothing has happened on that only one site has yet and because you know in a number of cases as indicated there you know in case as family I don't know the background the family that gets planning use this you know trying this plan of material planning considerations if you land use planning rather than the but you know what's preventing them necessarily looking to build on OP1. I think the fact that we've got the fire site shows that there is a willing community in Aurora, I don't think maybe a town that I'm not a town or a village born is what we can consider a community I think will look a lot more and the fact that maybe there's a but at nine adjacent to the other side of the park that says to me that there's a really established community in Aurora and I think maybe we need to we need to protect our community and this is an ideal spot I think as you know my friend is about to enter into the neighbourhood we have to rely on cars up here we don't have the transport infrastructure so I'm not sure we can count that either I wonder if this does add to the community aspect if a land is principle but this is like I don't think communities is just around the nature of I think it is the look a lot more than that that's it I don't know I'm sorry Thank you. Can I come so James now please. Chair just to follow up on I was going to ask a question to refer directly to the connectivity of the Opio thanks fine in terms of the response we got there Sally but in the same vein we previously approved this tonight and we'll be here that we were right as part of the applicants request but at one point we must have deemed that it was connected to the settlement and so what has changed between the plan between the two plans that's changed that view and the ability of this site and thank you Chair I'll probably come back in and this discussion point is. Okay thank you Councillor James Sally. Sorry I struggled to hear that. Teresa did you get this to it and what's changed between where we have to decide before so if it's changed between this plan and the last but I don't know if you try again I will try and speak a bit clearer. Yeah it cannot happen. Apologies for my voice today it's similar to Councillor Powell's point on Opio 1 and the connectivity that deemed it's approval previously. We approve this site under the previous plan albeit it's been revoked and so at some point we've obviously deemed it connected to the settlement so what's changed between the two plans that is now I think it's no longer that connected and I hope you got it that time. Yeah we're going to take those three steps let's go. Adam would you like to just go out? Sorry Councillor James it wasn't your voice such as the technical issues I think you're experiencing but we did catch that thank you. So effectively is National Planning Framework Form and Abadinesia Local Development Plan 2023 and I call it draws DRAWS you know distinctive resource adaptable welcome in safe present so effectively there is a much more stronger emphasis on making sure that sites are well connected and that wasn't as prevalent through the previous previous development plan and again it's been looking at you know how sustainable this site stay is for example then Opio 1. The way that sites are identified for organic growth where there isn't an allocation is such that really looking at what facilities are within a settlement so in the case of Vora there's a village hall that'll be wide and there is that sort of allocation if you like but because of that allocation that's a reason why the organic provisions don't apply within this accessible rural area and of course we've got two different housing market areas within Abadinesia Council as defined in the local development plan and looking at this site itself it's 450 metres away from that public facility that community facility and there isn't a footpath linking that so what has changed it's effectively the policies and the emphasis with regards to National Planning Framework Form and also the Abadinesia Local Development Plan 23. Professor James did you hear that? Yeah I've got that thank you. I'm happy very much. I'm actually glad. I'm just going to be able to suck up for minutes so I'm sorry to thank the coalition. Thank you very much and I'm so interested you had to come in before we open it for discussion. Is that a question for that? I'm just going to tell them a bit though I'm about to tell. I'm so interested. If you've been speaking a bit before I'm going to be interested at all. I mean I wouldn't imagine that distance itself is the problem. I've been brought to home from Spain. I don't know if they say very negative but is it the fact that there's a good part between the property and the whole because I mean obviously we're looking at the diet around and that particular cause has been to be less connected and the emphasis beside it or no further we can walk within the whole so just listen to both conversation. So that's a question for members to make so committed to make their decisions and factors of that aspect. In the 20 minute neighborhood is obviously in 20 minutes there in the 20 minutes sorry 20 minutes there around back it's not 20 minutes there and 20 minutes back it's sort of a previous sort of definitions of that might refer to 400 meters. This is 450 meters there isn't a full path so you know arguably it's not safe to walk to the public hall and we realise that communities members might decide to do that but that's really at the end of the day a decision for the members to make in respects of reason number two but of course there are two reasons why this application is recommended to refuse them but you know you know that's for members to perhaps arrive at a decision on but it is the you know it's the distance and the sort of net you know lack of thought. Yeah thank you Councillor Ayesha so please. Thank you Chair and thank you Sally and I think I am definitely feeling a little bit confused by all of this and I absolutely accept to contradict to the nature of some of it. A hypothetical question the OPI area that's got the six hoses designated on it none of those planning we don't be correct in that assumption and we also not meet the criteria for when I shall bring work forward or is the fact that they've been allocated that looks like we mean that that doesn't sound. So the planning permission will have expired in 2018-19 because it's planned permission principles so it would apply to matter specified conditions application coming forward but the principles already established because it's an allocation within the development plan so technically they don't need to apply the planning permission and principles because principles already established the six houses on the land itself and in respect of the second question or yes in terms of sustainability well that comes back down to the connection with the village hall and obviously then you know that's a consideration for members as a respondent to Councillor Croson but in terms of sort of the plan led basis if members don't feel so strong but I'm recently that's for the measures to determine. I accept that but I just can't see that a house that's very close to another house that's very close to another plot which I've different considerations in terms of sustainability and that unity and I don't think that having a village hall this road up road up is all the housing that sets where they mark in a two-mile radius because it doesn't have a village but it doesn't have a village centre pass a village hall that all the people that are currently living there and anyone else that wants to live there which public access to the same hall and I take the point about a ninety-two having walked much further than a nine-two but I think if there were one to be six houses there I could think even make the criteria of the national one either and that's for difficulty and opportunity to ensure yes we've got proof something but I don't think we're to realize the consequences of what we think when we do it thank you. Thank you Councillor Simmsen. I think that's a comment and I expect to know if I have that one from Sally thank you. Okay well that will come up for discussion then after should any member consider that they have not perceived sufficient information I feel able to participate in the determination of this application please indicate via the hands-up function. So Sally your hands-up oh sorry should have said thank you as soon as maybe I'll like a second. Thank you. Okay we'll open for discussion first Councillor James please. Thank you Chair and I'll struggle through this so if you can't hear me at any point please let me know. But initially I just wanted to start with some comments and hopefully general discussion and see how everyone else is feeling on this. I mean as I look at this I can sense the frustration from the agent and the applicant with regard to a OP1 site that has been zoned since 2012 not brought forward and we're seeing Aurora developed because of an organic growth policy that seems to have worked quite well for this community and what will be that that organic policy does not exist in this settlement anymore but the contradiction between something that's zoned and has been sitting there for what 12 years since that zoning and has not moved forward and the stifling of development we're now seeing because of it is quite stark. I take on board the points from the agent and the applicant of a you know a plot that will be ready to be pulled out will have significant impact to the local tradesmen being helped to build out this development and or rather this is a single plot and across I can we're seeing it more and more that that smaller self-built properties are not getting across the line from a plan and policy point of view now that is something that we have to take good license on in terms of the plan that we've approved but we also have to accept that things have changed drastically in the last few years as the development of the plan and I would like to see single plots like this being much more supported by a plan and the connectivity point that we're seeing a pushback on I'm I'm certainly not as concerned of and then what the report comes across with we're seeing a plot here that's bounded by a he a hedge and looks as part of the you know the L shape of housing C to the top left of the screen currently and it looks part of the plot development that we're seeing already and you know the black dot that's adjacent to it it's already built out and so I see this as connected to community but really I would like to welcome some more comments before before we move much further thank you. Thank you Councillor James. Councillor McLACHLAN please. Thank you Chair. Didn't need to be a track technical review bit. I had with it that saw this plan before me and I feel a bit frustrated because I'm afraid in the wax common sense but looking at it I see no real reason why somebody shouldn't be able to build that. Who's that? I would rather share my frustrations with the plan or who I think or just having to follow the rules and guidelines that's been laid before them and upon that possibly because of the speed things that have moved this past five years feels outdated and would be allocated in line to have this kind of be built and then we get things like go very didn't basis the materials going up and actually just sort of people's options so I'm sort of caught between that sort of two opinions. That's it. Thank you Councillor Cresson. Councillor Bailão please. Yeah I think Councillor Cresson makes a really good point so I think if both the one was just viable and was what to make the living still then it would have been solved and I think the fact that the applicants already got a lot where it's built at all shows that it could be. So yeah I have further comments but I'll just see if anyone else wants to come in. Thank you Councillor Smith please. Thanks Chair and I agree with much of what's been been said already. Of course a couple items on we're kicking off the process for the next local plan so that's what opportunity to change things for going forward and the next iteration of the plan. Although I do remember that ISC a few years ago there was talk of the local plan becoming a little bit document so we're going to set an aspect for five years and as we're finding now it was on April 18 but we're changes so I think when you talk about sustainability and transport works you know that's a little more taken by demand response of transport and you can be an argument about you know by car use as an electric car more sustainable than you know somebody getting you know a diesel bus you know those arguments there so I think those things are won't finally kept up with it. I think given the history of the site we know that you know the site can accommodate a dwelling house and require service and access to what that would need because it's a professional principle we're doing all the impact on the landscape that would have in the character but you know we can assume that it's likely to be fairly limited due to the neighboring dwelling houses caused by that also would be an adjacent to the settlement boundary so as long as the eventual property I think was of a scaled character that respects those around it I think that could be a quality to the material impact on the landscape character. So it's not my word I think if local members were when did to come forward with something I would certainly look to be supporting that and you know here and here what now to say on that question. Thank you very much Councillor Smith and all the comments they agree with them but following for Jeff, COVID-19 sometimes they just need to prevail and the locals don't want to explain to them possibly the growth that I think other members possibly went to come back in so we will invite other members back in before first I'll just sum it up so does anyone have anything to add? Sally? It's just a reminder that the development plan was adopted just a year ago in respect of um trying to move but although it went there we go um there's you know there's no evidence it there's no evidence that this site is constrained to the OP site and again that's in the development plan if it's constrained it wouldn't have been brought forward in the plan of the year old and it's just um it's sort of looked toward a legal boundary but I don't have trained in providing, I wouldn't have said there's a material even to grant in terms of the a house on this site list um because you know there is a noise or supply in the access of overall market area present um but you know there are opportunities for local tradesmen. Thank you, Sally. Thank you. Um yes why would you give Sally about that by also wanting to take this opportunity to remain members to be clear about the reason that you're making this decision is it because you're saying it doesn't apply and there are material considerations that we thought or because it does comply it's just to make sure that we're very clear when we're stating why we made the decision and why the decision that we made. So the mind you've got on the team of that so I would invite to come for some sort of honor please. I just want to make another comment about my reasons for thinking. What I am thinking by thinking at the moment it's just I'm not making I'm not making a motion amendment at this point. I'm just pointing out that I suppose I disagree with the partners analysis of the sustainability issue um because of what I said anything wrong um and and I don't think our future is such a big local authority one size doesn't fit all. Accessible rule is an unspoken definition and I'm just not sure we've got ourselves in a situation because we've accepted that for the two you know lots of bits of ambideensia which probably we went to the team act to the five within communities and and we will only do that if we can actually support their sustainable development. So I suppose my as I said at the start is a difference of opinion between the planners youth of its sustainability. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Simpson. All your name coming back and getting all in your choice. All right, yeah. Good evening. I just want to take a look at my idea. Although the final idea to go with the consultation was started quite a few years before that when a lot of people would have been been told to stay in the houses and things and we'd be not paying too much attention to what houses would be allowed to build the environment. Thank you. Thank you very much. How do I have good discussion on death? Is there any members putting in some form work? Councillor James? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Excuse me. I think in this case as you know as we've heard we were a bit conflicted between what we're seeing in the local land and what we're hearing from African an agent here. I would be minded to move to the grant permission of this site and very much subject to the discussion we've had but to hopefully add a bit of clarity on the basis of we're seeing a well-connected property site here linked to an existing row of houses pounded by a hedge that defines the boundary, quite clearly defines a boundary to settlement and I think as Sally has said it offers a gateway into row from that direction so clearly offers quite a well-connected placement of the site. The local development plan is the material weight that we could apply to. The opportunities this site will bring for economic development in the area in terms of building out the site and the fact that we do have an active develop here that has clients ready to go, ready to build and this is really a good opportunity to see the growth and support of VORA building on this rural community and really pay enhancing what's there and bringing more opportunity to the area and so if that would be deemed confident, I'd be looking to move that forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor JIMS. I'll see you can face it in either. Yeah, I think that's the most important motion that's going to be posted here this week. Thank you very much for creating that up for us, Councillor NOOR. Sorry, I was just going to go to second that motion and mention, simply in Underbrowsley 15 that departure here in the site does promote rural communities and the connectivity and the rotary construction over there and for the reasons. Sorry, Councillor Jeng connection. Thank you very much. So we go, can we just check that Professor James' motion is competent and that Councillor Powell has seconded the motion. Yeah, so the only issue, I think, is that the issue of the RTU policy has been addressed, we should believe, was part of the report. And so James, would you like to come back on the policy, are two proposals, I'll say. I think. Yes, Chair, I would like to try and come back and pack it on that if possible. So I think given that the RTU is really around the principle of development, I would apply material weight to the economic impact of building out this, given that the opportunities for local tradesmen, as I previously noted, I'd also add a bit more weight to the fact that whilst we have a revoked planning application, we do have a history in rural for organic growth. Now that does not sit within the current plan, but I think there is material weight that could be added to the fact that we've approved sites in the past in this area, leading to the preparation of the plan currently. I don't know if that's sufficient. Hi, Black, can you confirm if that's sufficient, please? Thank you, Chair, yes, I can confirm a lot of sufficient, thank you. Thank you very much. So we have an accepted motion from Councillor James. We have it seconded by Councillor Powell. Do we have any further indications, please? No, thank you very much. I've seen a further indications. So, 10, the recommendation, 10.1, the recommendation from Baha'un area committee is to grant plan and permission and principle for the reasons stated in the discussion. And you can turn to that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I can confirm the committee's decision. And thank Mr. Clerk and Mr. Baxter for their time and advice that they can now leave the meeting if you so wish. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. And does everyone have a question? Is it a question for the question or is it a question? And I just confirm that we have just begun in Mr. Don on our by Mr. McLeod, please. Good morning. Can you hear us? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. And will just clear the screen and invite that gentleman to join us in the chamber. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. We'll move on to item five, planning application reference number eight, two, two, three, one, four, five, four, full plan information for national, for permission of onshore landfill point, laying a hundred round cable and direction of substation at land from north of and south of New York, green, both offshore wind farm and we have two requests to address the committee in relation to this planning application, one on behalf of the applicant, rotation and are too limited. We have Dr Richard Wakefield, and Mrs Marvin Sivrecht, and two on behalf of caledonian offshore wind farm, who submits the lecture presentation. Mr Donnerhead, onshore development manager, and you and the cloud partner for shepherd and webinar L. L. E. So can I confirm Dr Wakefield and Mrs Sivrecht and attendance. Thank you very much. Can I confirm that Mr Donnerhead and Mr McCloud are online, please. We are indeed. Thank you very much, welcome to the meeting of the Buckingham area committee, for your information I could confirm that we have nine members of the Buckingham area committee attendance today. In line with the council's procedure, I am now going to confirm that the committee wish to hear your representations. I will then ask the planner Stuart Newlands to present the planning application. Before asking you to address the committee, when you're invited to speak, you'll be given five minutes to put forward your representation. After that, members, we ask questions. Please note that we also have James, who you have senior employment attendance today. Thank you. Committee member should a member not agree to hear the representation, but please indicate the hands up. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask Stuart Newlands to present the support, please. Good morning, Stuart. Good morning, Chair. Thank you and good morning to the committee. This application seeks full planning commission for the formation of an unsure landfill point line of underground cabling and formation of substation compound upon land located between north of Peterhead and New Deer and connects with the green vote offshore wind farm. The proposal qualifies as one of the 18 forms of national development within National Planning Framework for as involves the provision of new onshore high voltage LLC cables and new infrastructure directly supporting offshore wind developments. Permission for the proposed works would be on a temporary basis for a period of 50 years, with the overall construction period estimated 30 months to at all. Before providing an overview of the proposed development contained within the application before members today, I want to provide some brief context of the wider green vote project. This map shows the location of the proposed offshore wind farm, approximately 72 kilometers northeast of Peterhead, consistent with maximum of 35 wind turbine set out of an area of around 116 km2. The project has come forward as part of the innovation and targeted oil and gas into initiative, which seeks to decarbonize the operations of existing oil and gas facilities in the North Sea. In this case, electricity from the green vote wind farm with power for oil platforms found in the Buzzard oil field with any surplus electricity produced from the wind farm, then being exported onshore into the national grid. The works contained within the application under consideration, they represent the onshore transmission infrastructure needed to transmit the excess energy generated by the wind farm into the onshore transmission grid. As part of this process, each offshore wind developer is offered an onshore grid connection point. In this case, Greenville have been offered a connection into the recently completed substation operated by SSE transmission to the southwest of media. Although two line fold points were initially identified as shown in this map, a final decision was made prior to the submission of this application to select the more northern two of the options coming ashore north of Peterhead. This is resulted in the proposed routine of the cable I shown in red with a landfill point just north of Peterhead. The onshore cabling making its way inland approximately 35 km towards the grid connection point offered in New York substation. There are three distinct elements proposed onshore transmission infrastructure and they are as follows. One full point adjacent to Cregu and Lynx golf course along the Peterhead golf club. This shows an aerial photo of the location of the landfill site. Cables would come ashore using horizontal directional drilling which would effectively bury the cables at the point of seabed before running underneath the initial landfill. In this case, the golf course before emerging within a joint input to before near the surface within an existing agricultural field. Within the pit the offshore cables would then be joined with cabling designed for an onshore environment for the onward route inland. A joint input would measure approximately 20 meters by 8 meters within adjacent trenches compound for the same size for the project of construction to be provided at its location. Upon completion of the settlement, the project, these works would be largely unseen other than minehole covers to allow for future access for personnel to undertake inspections and maintenance. The cable route from this point weaves its way in land across the entirety of the booking area crossing under the A19 near Lunderton, continuing westward past in where Yogi before crossing first river Yogi and then the A950 public route between Longside and Montlaw. From here the cable leads southwest crossing the A952 to the south of Colola before turning westward once more towards the proposed substation site with the majority of the land within the cable corridor relating to agricultural land. This is a typical cross-section of how the cable would be laid underground, note that in fact two high voltage cables are required as opposed to a single cable. Although the example shown is a twin duct variation with cables installed in parallel trenches, then maybe instances where the two high voltage cables may be installed in a single trench. At surface level the cable corridor which ranges from 37 to 80 meters in width has been designed to accommodate temporary hall roads and running tracks in addition to areas for soil buns for the storage of extracted topsoil and subsoil for later reading statement of the land following completion of a particular section of cabling. The cable would be installed either by and trenchless methods, particularly where it encounters a creature such as a road or a watercourse or by open trenching. The cable, the cabling would then terminate at the proposed substation site found 5.5 kilometers to the southwest of New Deer just within the Fort Martin area. This is an aerial photograph of the proposed substation site adjacent to the existing SSC substation. This is a detailed layout plan of proposed substation compound which occupies an area of approximately 7.3 hectares. The site would be drained using a sustainable urban drainage system consisting of a detention basin found to the south with the main compound in the opposite right of the public road, which immediately pounds the south of the compound with eventual outfall to the azaleid burn found to the west of the basin. In tear substation compound would be enclosed by a 2.4 high meter perimeter fence with a single point of entry found at the southeast of the compound. An array of buildings in external plant of varying sizes are required within the proposed compound to process the energy to be produced from the offshore wind farm into the national grid. The first of these are two filter buildings along the west edge of the compound, each measuring 16 meters long, 31 meters wide and 15 meters tall. In addition to two switchgear buildings which would be the longest of the proposed buildings on site located along the northern boundary, each measuring 18 meters long, 28 meters wide and also standing 15 meters tall at rich height. These buildings would all be finished in grays steel profile sheen. Further structures include a building to house dynamic reaction compensation plant within the southeast of the compound. This would be the largest building in terms of floor space measuring 51 meters long by 58 meters wide, but standing at a slightly lower level than the previously shown buildings at 10.5 meters tall. A control building which would house staff in addition to instrumentation and monitoring equipment would be cited within the northwest of the site, measuring 30 meters long, 12 meters wide, 9 meters tall. Again, these buildings would also be finished in grays steel profile sheeting. This slide shows the items of external plant which would be required within the compound to transformers measuring 30 meters by 14 meters and standing 8.5 meters tall at the highest point. In addition to two shunt reactors, each measuring 17.5 meters by 13 meters and also standing 8.5 meters tall at the highest point. It's not proposed for these items of equipment to be enclosed within a structure with all four items to be applied to be located within the center of the compound site. I'll now run through some site photographs with members. First of these, the land force site with an indicative area of development shown by the red circle. It's proximity adjacent to the golf course on the coastline. It's taken from roughly the same position, but shows the site in relation to the A90 trunk road which is found further inland. This is taken from the 10th TFP red golf course looking westwards offering a different perspective of the land force site, again showing indicative location of the landfall. Moving to the substation site, this photo taken from the southeast from a public road shows the site within the context of the existing SSE substation to the north. This shows the opposite perspective looking from the west looking east with the proposed substation compound to the left of the road shown in the center here. From the same spot by a different angle, this shows the location of the proposed suds detention basin south of the main compound area. Returning to a more resilient position, this is looking directly west with the proposed compound area in the center of the photo, the SSE substation just out of shot to the right hand side. Taking further to the north along the public road from the previous photograph, this is looking southwest. Again, just telling the angle slightly just to take into the context of the SSE substation. This photo was taken further to the south, shows the SSE substation in the distance and the approximate area of this substation proposed substation site they are showing on the red circle. The next couple of slides are visualizations which have been provided by the developer, which would show the proposed compound would look within the landscape without any visual mitigation having been applied. The first of these is taken about 390 meters to the southeast of the site. This is taken from the northeast of about 235 meters showing how the buildings look. And then finally, from the west, it's taken about a kilometer to the west. Again, the SSE substation structures about here and this is the proposed buildings here. A total of five valid representations have been submitted in a court in connection with this application with the site and an objection. Within the representations, it was suggested that certain sections of the cable be redooted. However, this ultimately remains a project design decision made by the developers out with the control of the planning authority. Other matters of concern raised within the representations relate to the proximity of works to residential properties and the impact of noise, construction and traffic, and the cumulative effects of similar development, particularly in the new area around the existing SSE transmission substation. These factors have been taken into account as part of the planning assessment. Such matters considered to be acceptable on door having the ability to be adequately controlled by appropriate planning condition. Concerns were also raised within representations with regard to the impact of proposed development of one private water supplies. The similar concern shared by CPA, who initially submitted an objection to the application on the same basis. However, upon provision of additional information by the developer, CPA with through the objection with the recommendation that to remain for the local authority to satisfy itself. That there was an appropriate planning mechanism in place to ensure that alternative water supply would be provided, prior to the commencement of any other element of the development being taken to all properties, who supplies were identified at being at risk of disruption as a result of the development. In order to achieve this as proposed to apply a negatively worded suspense of planning condition, which would prohibit any works in relation to this application being undertaken until alternative water supplies are to be available to all properties. Currently, using supplies identified by CPA is being at risk. I've been consulted with the Council's legal services. The planning service is satisfied that this approach provides a necessary mechanism to safeguard from a significant impact occurring. In this case, the immunity of residential properties, which in this case may have the ability to make the application unacceptable. However, due to the necessary discussion of the CPA to come to this position on such a fundamental issue continuing well into the planning process. The planning service request that the finalisation of the wording of this condition be delegated to the plan not there. To summarise the planning assessment of each of the various aspects of the proposed development, identified effects which were temporary in nature, which would mainly occur during the construction phase of the proposal of what were waited accordingly. Although no significant impacts were identified in terms of landscape impacts, visual impacts associated with the proposed substation compound would be unavoidable at a local level. However, this impact was not considered to be significant whilst proposed mitigation would assist in this aspect of the proposal. The provision of the substation site would result in the loss of a small area of pre-market cultural land. However, this can be accepted in this case due to the proposed development constituting national development, which gains overriding weight within the context of MPF4. Finally, no significant impacts were anticipated and/or appropriate mitigation and conditioning would safeguard against a significant part with regards to the following aspects. Noise, air quality, ecology, geology, hydrology, contaminated land, cultural heritage and archaeology, socioeconomic traffic and transport. With no signing objections from Council T's and having applied appropriate planning considerations, it's therefore recommended that the application be approved due to compliance with the development plan subject to the two delegated mark noted, which relate to the finalisation of conditions relating to private wash supplies and noise in addition to a suite of appropriate conditions. With regards to the delegated mark is anticipated that both of these will be concluded in advance of the application appearing at the Council's infrastructure services committee on the 14th of March. The planning service would therefore welcome comments and views from members of the bucket and air committee before the applicant should refer to ISC for determination. That concludes the presentation for this application with myself and my colleague James Hugh is also on the call today. If you take any questions from members, thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Stuart. We'll get dog to make feel to missus the plan. I invite you to address the committee, please. Thank you very much. You have five minutes and tall top, please. Do I need to activate? Yes, please. Spread now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. This is taking the time to allow us to speak today. I've got a pair. I'll have to release it by the end. Greenball stands as a planning project. A strategic decision in the approximate 75 kilometers northeast of the Aberdeenshire coastline designed a primary purpose. To electrify decarbonised existing North Sea oil and gas platforms. It plays a pivotal role in achieving ambitious 2013 North Sea just deal targets set to reduce emissions from such platforms by 50%. This visionary project is set to contribute a sniffing into the lowering of ongoing seared emissions from the platforms. estimates have passed 1 million tons of CO2 per year. To put this into context, the UK recently changed our E5 petrol from E5 to E10. That at the UK national level only will result in 700,000 tons of CO2 savings. This one project of the loan has a net saving of a million tons. So we are placed in the UK context. We are meeting our future net zero targets. One of the strategies of Greenball is its status as the first offshore windfall project in Scotland that remains invisible. It's quite a coastline. The unique counter ice ice brings substantial benefits because community data danger as it removes that visual impact consideration that often plays offshore wind. In other situations for offshore and onshore plan. Settled making an example of responsible and community conscious of new allergic development. In Scotland. Jeremy McCreangol gathered nearly five years ago with a sit to the site identification of an initial discussion that senior have had been supplying initial order of four years ago. To outline the broader project concept and objectives. The focus on the death line most suitable locations to the onshore substation and have praised cable reaching through other dangerous rural landscape. Climberation to local stakeholders, still take by dedicated local team, more than being our main primary contact currently. Just in the identification selection of appropriate onshore capability. That's ultimately lead to narrowly defined cable corridor specified by finding fish when you see before you. At this being the future developments, the project had forward thinking since concept in 2019, taking a relation to future Scotland. We allowed ample space to accommodate potential development connection of other offshore wind projects that may emerge in the coming years. Currently, national grid. Who defined where offshore wind farms place their substations currently place the green log connection at new year one. While first Scotland sites coming through will be slightly currently slated for the future new year to substation. While it's not planning issue NFP or is clear that this is the developers to agree. Next to the grid with national grid. It's not finding matter which such and strain renewable developers in the UK. Finally, in the spirit of responsible development, we express our commitment to collaborating with your developers. Collaboration aims to minimise potential impacts on the destruction of surrounding local community along that's what they were. And around the new year substation location. Greenville isn't not nearly where it represents a commitment to sustainability innovation community welfare in the future. That ends our presentation. Thank you very much. Do members have any questions for a doctor? Do a doctor, we could and this is so great, please. I see no indications. Doctor. Oh, that's my goal. I just wanted to take a few good people to create community engagement with the dear community council. I think it's the best we've had so far and very honest with friends with us. And the fact that you're burying the cables. Maybe you can show the other companies what they can do. And I suppose my question is from that. Are you willing to share? I think you've probably mentioned that the private water supply surveys were the most tricky part of it. Are you willing to share that with other companies if they're prepared to bury their cables or is your trenches not able to be shared as such? Does that make sense? Do you mean the construction methodology, or damage cable stretch itself? If other companies were to come in and say, oh, actually, we want to bury our cables too. Would you share your survey findings? And is there scope for? I mean, obviously, you can share. I can find that it's very hard for cable cables next to each other. They want to separate this. Right. Yeah. Because that most of them need about 15 or 20 meters separate. The table, which just they started interacting with each other. But the construction methodologies and all those kind of things, obviously, is part of the process of development. We have to produce detailed social matter in its knowledge elements and within those documents. So we'll be finalised details on how we do about doing those things and how that. So there might not be square to share with. It's quite your saying, because it has a contraption methods. In terms of, in terms of sharing the cable, burial pathway, it's very difficult. But obviously, we obviously, we work rather than possible, but you took gas pipelines. There's obviously an interaction pathway you need to go through and how you manage that. And also, you work together to try and come up with a solution that both allowed both to get bored. That's important. So you guys have got in there first, I suppose, but we're seeing a lot more projects come in. And it's it's worrying that hopefully they're working together. Yeah. We need to support the decarbonisation, absolutely crucial to our communities or in the last industry. So because I've bought them anyway, I'm bearing cables if one. Yeah. I mean, I think probably coming back to the point in that I get offshore environments. Obviously, one of the requirements for offshore and gas platforms was to electrify. So they need to electrify. So they were all thinking of being the home cables, sure. So it's not about the instead of having four cables ashore. Using the greenboard methodology. We were the open spoke about the offshore. We only bring one cake. We only bring one cake for the shore. So they're having four categories of impacted the coast of committee in the high level. We're bringing one people to shore. So you connect. That's one of those strategies for the national group. I think you've, some of you may have seen some of these post England. Well, but what are closer communities that are concerned about those cables. We just project when bringing it with one cable through the shore, which is about. Yeah. Of course we are to that. On the private water supplies. It was actually that was limited to how much information there was in the private water supplies. In the information seeking it. The private water supplies, which is available in the service. So that information is actually really important to go forward. It was a lot of. And then again, in the right. So that so maybe we can share the actual, you know, the trench. But the information that we have related is one of them. You know, so that you can use that for other projects. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, please have a good morning because it's there. I'm sorry. Apologies. You can put the water. I just know I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you very much. Councillor. Yes. Thank you. And I just wanted to congratulate you too. I'm serious. Do you have a community council that sounds. And I think we're definitely flattened. And I think the fact that you're a people in the underground went down very, very well. And in fact, you come down to community council and want to talk to individual community members was much appreciated because often big. You know, you get them to squeeze and fall into holes, but not actually that interaction with it. I want to explore one point, you know, and I noticed that the. The route and you mentioned. The, the, the, can I mean, several times, I think, but the, you know, it was under, or over, under, presumably under this cable under the 90. Then under the five to twice. I just wondered about the structure. There might be two to order that particular plane. And how we made basically in terms of community reaction to that. When that event, you're inevitable. Because folks on the day, but it's so short. So I suppose times there was any amount of time that were really sharp. But it'd be like a short consideration. Well, it's not much as we went. I just wanted to give a comment on that. There's fully detailed engineering plans for doing those activities are complete. That's completely the next few years. Also, our aim is to minimize issues and. In fact, well, we can, I mean, as we described, we will go on the ground. There are options to horizontally direction in drill under some of these options. So minimize their environmental to close the road down during those. During those periods. I mean, our cable trends are quite wide. It's easy for us to score the features where possible. Just way, no, just the technology. I'm not a consumer expert. I'm having a long line. We'll learn in civil engineering colleagues that are the details. But these that this information will be put forward as part of the sign up on the sort of magic plan. So the opportunity that council can. People to review this process, I mean, again, you're a community step. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, you know, for the indications, Dr. Winfield and Mrs. Sivrite. Thank you for your representation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Donne and Mr. McLeod, can I invite you to address committee now, please? And you have five minutes in total as well. And the star six to speed, please. Apologies. Can you hear us in the chamber? Thank you. Can I just hear check that you can hear us all key? Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you very much. You're five minutes to present. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Ian McLeod. I'm a solicitor and I'm representing Ocean Winds this morning. Thank you for allowing us the time to put our points to you. We would have been with you in person, but we were advised last week that this meeting was virtual. Unfortunately, that information turned out to be incorrect and had we known we would have been with you to present in person and to take any questions. Hopefully our attendance by phone still allows you to understand the issues that we are raising and to ask any questions that you need to. Ocean Winds is an existing employer in the Banff and Buckingham area. It currently has around 100 skilled high skilled employees at its Fraserborough facility, whose work relates to the Murray East offshore wind farm. Around 100 more will be employed at Bucky when the Murray West offshore wind farm comes online. Ocean Winds is currently working up its application for consent to build the Caledonia offshore wind farm. It too will require a substantial number of highly skilled long term jobs for the duration of the project. Those jobs will also be located in the Banff and Buckingham area. Caledonia project is part of the national transformation required to deliver on Scotland's climate change commitments. And that's a very important point to note in the context of what I'm about to see. Caledonia will generate up to two gigawatts and is expected to bring about a reduction of around four million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. In July last year, National Grid published a report that set out the electricity network requirements that would allow the connection of up to 23 gigawatts of offshore electricity around the UK. Caledonia project is one of those developments, making up almost 10% of the total. The relevance of all of those facts is that the application before you today has the potential to frustrate the delivery of those jobs and the CO2 reduction benefits that the Caledonia project will deliver. National Grid's report indicates that Caledonia should connect to the New Deer substation. The Green Vault planning application in its current form wraps around three sides of that substation. And that can be seen perhaps most clearly on the location plan that you will have seen as part of the PowerPoint presentation this morning. You may have noticed the substation at the western end of the cable route and to the northwest of that and then heading back northeast is a loop which I understand to be cables. And that wraps around the New Deer substation and makes it virtually impossible for the Caledonia project to connect to the New Deer substation, which is the point identified by National Grid last July for connection. Now it has been suggested to my clients that the possibility of spatial conflict between the Caledonia and Green Vault projects is not a relevant planning matter. However, in my submission, that is wrong as a matter of law. If a company with an electricity generating license is granted planning permission over land, it can prevent other generators from accessing that land. That's a matter which is covered by the Electricity Act 1989 and it is different to the normal scenario where the grant of planning permission does not usually impact on underlying land rights. And that again is an important point to bear in mind. Final important point, and this is perhaps the most fundamental of all, is that the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 imposes legal duties on a council determining planning applications. Those duties include a requirement for the planning authority to exercise its functions in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of CO2 reduction targets set out in the Act. Now to give some context to that, the last published set of emissions for Scotland for 2021 was around 42 million tonnes of CO2 per year. You've heard from Dr Wakefield this morning that the Green Vault proposal would I think reduce CO2 emissions by potentially a million tonnes. The Caledonia project would result in reduction of 4 million tonnes. In other words, a reduction of almost 10% of the total annual emissions in Scotland at present or the last published anyway. Can I, can I ask you them to conclude that each other please thank you. I certainly will yes thank you. The Council must in my submission carefully consider the objection lodged by Ocean Winds in October and the submission to committee this morning and reach a view on whether granting planning permission in the terms recommended would impact on the delivery of those targets. And if so, how that is a serious matter of national significance. My apologies, that's your five minutes. Thank you very much, do you just want to conclude that final sentence. Thank you very much. The best course of action at this stage would be for the committee to recommend deferral of a decision on the application until such time as the council has evidence from the applicant that demonstrates the likely impact of its proposal on delivering the Caledonia proposal and the jobs and CO2 reduction that it will bring. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm just taking some guidance and do members have any questions for Mr. Donut and Mr McCloud. So I see comes back, how well first please. Thank you, I hear your objection. I suppose I just said my question was in our previous publication, Dr. Rott mentioned South Station 2. So would your client go to South Station 2 and bring back go to South Station 1. No, just to summarize what I was saying earlier on. Last July, National Grid published a document that covered the entirety of the UK that set out where it anticipated projects connecting to. And the ocean winds, Caledonia project is identified for connection at the new deer substation, i.e. the one that the one that this proposal wraps around. I think I think probably the more clarity around this substation through that because could could National Grid now decide to put it into South Station 2 and therefore it would mitigate any problems with your clients. Sorry, that's going to be a question for National Grid. That would be my comment here. Thank you, Councillor Crews, thank you. Main probably isn't as much a question as a survey of both and it doesn't but it's what's happening at this moment. This is up before I start questions and recommendations before it was to just structure services that make this all connected. So, at this point, you're asking only questions of mystery. If we stick to the questions for Mr Dun and Mr McLeod and then we'll go back to Councillor. Okay. James, James, James would like to come in. Can you take James in here. Thank you, Chair. I suppose this is kind of just to address a couple of points that have been raised there. In terms of the the weight that the planning services given under are given to climate change within the assessment. We as a service do take the view that considerations around sustainability and climate change are inherent to the planning process. And that is actually referred to within the report and the mechanism through which we do give that weight and in planning policy terms comes through a few different angles. So, through the energy policy and which starts for national developments from a very high level position of support for the development and principle, and that is covered quite clearly. Within the report work does say that overall it's been demonstrated that such development currently receives a clear overriding policy support and principle, both at national and local level subject to satisfactorily addressing and identified social and environmental considerations. The principle of development received significant weight in the planning balance through the designation as a national development and provided that no unacceptable environmental impacts are identified and in subsequent subsequent sections of the report. The proposal would comply with them MPF for policy 11. So we consider that weight is afforded to the climate emergency as part of the planning balance of the application. And so when I talk about planning balance, that is taking a holistic view of the assessment. So, while we acknowledge that there is a high level of support in policy for development of this nature, it's not development at any cost. It does look for the right development in the right place. And when it comes to national developments, I would draw the committee's attention to MPF for and the particular national development that this proposal falls under, which is the one that concerns upgrading transmission infrastructure. And what you'll find with some national developments in MPF for is that they are geographically tied to certain locations. For example, the carbon capture one is very much tied to some Fergus, where the upgraded energy transmission infrastructure is very much a Scotland wide and Scotland wide and national development. So there is no locational requirement as such that is tied into this. But just, I suppose, when it comes to considering the weight that the committee may wish to give to any concerns around spatial and compatibility. It would be relevant to highlight that no planning application has been submitted for Caledonia as of yet. And so we need to be very careful about giving any weight or be very clear about what we can actually give to that. But I've said rather a lot there so I will, I'll, I'll, I'll conclude there. Thank you James but Councillor Smith is your question for Mr or Mr or Mr cloud. It's for. Yes. So Mr McLeod. Thank you. So it's. I suppose before I ask it, I'm going to seek guidance because there's any fairness in terms of balance. We've heard from green vault and we've had for opportunity to question that might be. Just in terms of balance, so I went to respond, but I'll ask the question and I'll be guided by by legal. So, for ocean winds, then, in terms of just looking at the last paragraph in your submission page 80. Where you said you sought to address this directly with green vault, however, they refused an invitation to discuss prior to the cause of consultation period. I understand why, if I was an applicant, I might not want to complicate my application, my consultation by tapping on some of the else's but I just wondered if you could expand on the contact that there was and the reasons given for not wishing to discuss. And presumably it was an undertaking given that there would be discussions after the consultation period or, or is that not the case. I'm it's Mr McLeod again. I'm not sure that I can enlighten the committee as to the green votes thinking at that point in time. What I can say is that there are ongoing discussions and we were. Please to hear what Dr Wakefield had said about collaboration with other developers, ocean winds, we would obviously welcome that and we do likewise. And the issue though for the planning authority is that at this point in time, there is no mechanism in place to resolve the potential conflict that exists. And, and as I mentioned, the Council has certain legal duties when it comes to understanding what the impact of proposals might be so that it can decide how best to exercise its functions in a way to ensure the maximum reduction in CO2. Thank you for that answer. So, I suppose then for the question is maybe for a monitor and officer. Given the question I asked, is it an order in terms of fearless and balanced to ask for a response from green vote. Again, if I you on that, and I suppose the second question of eyes and from the answer just how we're often told in terms of plan applications, we have to decide on what is in front of us. And we're being told there is no other live plan application promotion when therefore what weight do we give to, you know, what we know was out there and like becoming, but it's not actually alive plan looking at the moment. So, I think, and the question is the second question we probably answered your question there there's not a live application on them so I don't think you need to touch any way to that. And in relation to your question about the consultations, don't have such a much relevant relation to this application either and it's just a sign really just needs to focus on the benefits of the actual application itself. One more question again, I'm sorry it's directed at you. So, again, going back to the representation on page 80. It says that the caledonia project does not feature in cumulative impact assessment so. But what you're saying, we would not have been expecting that to be sure in about assessments, that'd be a quality. As it has to be, okay. Okay, so it's reference to page 80. It's a third, sorry, page eight, a third part of the data. The representation says we're concerned to not become what doing it does not feature in the cumulative impact assessment undertaken by greenboard. So my question was, if I understand you correctly, because there's no live plan application. We would not have been expecting to see that feature in that impact assessment. Would that be correct. Thank you, Council. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Schmuth. Members, do we have any further questions from Mr Donna and Mr cloud, please. Yeah, I see that issue, Mr Donna and Mr cloud. Thank you very much for your representation. Thank you. Thank you. To these of you here. Thank you very much. Okay, do members have any further questions for Council officers. Okay. Okay, Councillor Schmuth, please. Thank you, Chair, your indulgence. Not well, yes, that question. Sorry, again, the legal officer. And like what we just have, would it be an order to allow greenboard to respond to. I would be interested in hearing how they respond to. How they engage or how they plan to engage. Why don't they plan to engage. With this project. No, the consultation here. Thank you. Thank you. So, Councilor Smith, can you push your question? I'm straight and apologies for going back to the table. So it's, it's essentially then just. Think your response would be looking forward to what we've heard. I mean, we are, we have to engage, mostly as we have deep into our play and play process that was nothing in front of us to review in terms of what they're. Of course, as the project itself is running five years, we always been very minded that this future Scotland developer would come from the north. So, as. No, if we are wrapping our three sides, but the northern component, northern area, the quadrant that you would expect a Scotland project to come from is readily open. If we'd come and wrapped it around the southern option. That would have been a concern, I think, for everyone. So we were very conscious of placing our substation to the south of the new year. Subsection complex, because that would ultimately allow any future developments to come through. In the national grid level, it is clear. For the record, if you go on the technology register, we are slated to go into New Year and cal doing it currently on that tech register as of yesterday. I check yesterday are going to New Year too, which is another substation to the third of the north, and there will be any address. We are quite happy to work with anyone who has come into New Year. There are two days at New Year. We require one. So the second one is available. That is not an hour gift at the national grid. And that grid location by grid node is located on the north. On the east side, I wouldn't want to impact on that in the cable node, but again, without any of the planning information and detailed information, I don't. It's very hard for us to make it. But we haven't been in dialogue with them recently. Just discuss collaboration agreements with them. Discuss how we work together to integrate cables. Okay, so also work together national grid. National grid occasionally makes interesting choices. Obviously, we tried to wrap national grid to help our projects move forward. The sports, both the city options are. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would you like to take us here again? Just before I move on, and I'd like to answer James and please. Yeah, thank you, Chair. During that representation, the game, a component that. My work is actually in connection with ocean winds. And as such, I hold glare and interest at this point and leave the committee. On decision making. Okay, thank you very much, Theresa came that we required that cancel James, subsequently discovered. Need for the declaration of just a moment, leave the meeting from the meeting, please. So James, it's like. Thank you very much for confirming that comes to James's way of meeting. So we move on to questions for council office session council and I'm subsidence. Sorry, I'll just check and be aware. I'm just checking this out. We were there. I don't want to push things on, but my understanding is we're giving comments that I see committee, whether we're supportive of this planning application or not. And I think we've heard quite a lot from from James, I understand the consent of the objectors, but I'm from a personal level. I think this is a great step forward to actually see the decarbonisation project happening. And without planning permission, this would just be a project is already going to take about four years before this actually fully completed. So I'm going to jump in the gun if you want questions from, you know, others for the personal officers. I'm just thinking very, I'm with it. Thank you. Thank you very much, comes to James said. So, can I start close then? Do you have a question for council officers? Just want to clarify the people that ended this week, a also have the opportunity to attend this when it comes to infrastructure services. Do you know? Yes. Make sure that all represent you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So now I will open it up for discussion. And then after any member considered they have not received sufficient information, I've been able to participate in this termination of this application. Indicate via the hands up function. Now, we asked for this to go back to ISC. So can members please be clear that they've had to say on the feedback that went back to ISC. So I didn't invite anyone in now that hasn't contributed or has already to ensure that your thoughts are fully recorded, please. Thanks so much. Thanks, Chair. I'm a member of ISC, so I'll get a second chance. Does it work? Yeah. So, I agree. You're currently much who came to the Simpson and her comments. I'm a bit of a project and medical brain. I'm reassured by what I've heard in telling the response to the objections that were raised. I suspect it's more a question of the climate process rather than anything else. And as it's been highlighted, we have to decide the applications in front of us. And it was into account. And I'm sure as we all know, there's a lot going on in the fucking area in terms of energy and renewable developments. I'm not sure there'll be a lot of conversations and cooperation taken place. So I'm reassured by what I've heard and I'll be able to indicate support for the recommendation going forward. Thank you very much. Councillor Schmuth. Okay. I've seen no further indications. Thank you. Oh, I do. Councillor be here, please. Thanks, Chair. I'm not sure who we don't, who would best place to answer this question, but just for information. Is the proposed substation have the capacity to deal with. The amount of interest in the green vote would generate and then potentially. Four times more are coming from ocean one. So that be James. James, can you assist there? So, um, the way a lot of these projects are working is you will have a great operator substation, which will be the SSC one, which is what then draws these projects to these specific locations. And then generally what you will also have is a project specific one adjacent to it. And which is what we're saying proposed here. So the question and my capacity to capacity itself would be more tied to the SSC one than to this particular project subject substation. So the substation proposed as part of this application will be designed solely for green vault. Green vault itself. And then the SSC ones are the ones that kind of have the multi base or have the wider capacity for other projects to plug into. So what you're looking at here is just for green vault. And then whether or not SSC, the SSC substation has that capacity itself. And that really part of the national grid considerations, but whenever they're looking at agreements as to which projects are being directed to which substation. It's considered that stage, which is quite with planning. But there, you know, that will be taken account of in that process. Thanks, James. I apologize. Thank you very much. I'm here. I see no further indications. So the recommendation 10.1 that members agreed that the application be referred to the infrastructure services committee for determination. And confirm their support for the application by agreeing that authority to grant be delegated to the head of planning and economy subject to the conditions detailed in the report. And Teresa will have a record of the comments from the community. Thank you all very much. And can I confirm the committee's decision? I think Dr. Redfield misses the flight. Listen down. I'm missing the cloud for the time. You can leave the meeting if you so wish. Thank you very much. Can we take Council James back in, please? Okay. Good. And I would suggest that we take a short. Thank you very much. And we come back five minutes to that. And these are some of the report in place. I will very much like 10 minutes. it was important to me. And...
Transcript
[inaudible] Well, should we have a move on to item six? Aberdeenshire Development Plan Scheme 2024. Can I ask the peers what starting leader to present the support? Good afternoon, over to yourself. Thank you, Chair. This morning, I'd like to present the draft, Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan Scheme to you. I'd like to highlight some important points from that document and receive your feedback on the proposals. As noted at paragraph 3.1 of your report on page 89 of the papers, the development plan scheme is a document that we're required to publish annually. As a new requirement introduced by the 2019 Planning Act, planning act 2019, we are required to seek the views of the general public on this document. Last year, even though we weren't required to consult on the development plan scheme, we still went through that process. But now we formally, we legally have to undertake consultation on its content. The draft development plan scheme was considered by ISC on the 25th of January, and it's now in its first week of a six-week consultation period. As well as providing general publicity on the opportunities to comment in this document, we've released a press release, for example, made a comment in our newsletter. We've also undertaken a direct mailing shot to our 800 community groups and other stakeholders whom we've invited to respond. These stakeholders are people that we have maintained a long relationship with during local development plan and are specifically subscribed to that that address list. As I say, the development plan scheme, draft development plan scheme, was formally published on Friday. But over the weekend, we've had 122 people visited already, and 63 of these have actually downloaded the draft scheme. That's quite encouraging for just a weekend's activity. But less encouraging is the fact we only have one response so far, but they still have another five weeks in which to put in their comments. Turning to the draft development plan scheme itself, in section four and appendix one on page 98 of your papers, and in section 3.4 of the report itself, we've identified that progress has not been running particularly smoothly on the stage that we're in at the present time, the production of the evidence report. For a variety of external factors we've experienced significant delays in the program that we envisaged this time last year and was agreed in May. In table one was in section four of the appendix on page 99. We've identified that the collection of new data on open space by my team has taken significantly longer than we originally anticipated. We've also encountered our average accounts, so it was encountered delays in the production of a document called the local housing strategy. This delay was caused by earlier delay in a joint document that was produced by Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Council called the housing needs and demand assessment, and there's been that knock-on effect on the local housing strategy. The local housing strategy is a very important piece of information for us that we need to present in the evidence report. It deals with matters relating to housing land supply, and it's a fundamental piece of information that needs to be included in the evidence report. So the paper is identified that has been a delay of almost a year on the program that we originally set out last year, but we think that the risk associated with this delay is low, very low in fact. This is because the local development plan 2003 was always written as a 10-year plan, and we're confident that important issues such as housing land supply will be maintained to the point of adoption of a new plan, even if it is delayed by a year. Chair, we hope you would agree with us that it's better to be right but late rather than wrong in these matters. Moving on, at paragraph 3.5, we identify that we do not propose to make changes to the processes that we're using to develop the topic papers of the evidence report. The evidence report is the stage in the plan-making process we're at at the moment. It involves the collection of information and its analysis to inform the production of the draft plan itself. We're confident that we'll be able to conclude our research on these topic papers by the end of June with only a very few exceptions. For example, the housing quality paper, which includes the housing land supply targets, will have to be delayed until the autumn to coincide with the publication of the local housing strategy. We're also in discussion with the directorate in planning and environmental appeals regarding the presentation and the scope of the content that will be presented to them for the approval following abidature councils approval of the evidence report that we are most likely to seek in January of this year. Next year, sir. We've started, we also highlight in the development plan scheme, we will be starting the formal process for the identification of what we're calling 'ideas' moving forward. This would include development bits where people wish to see development land promoted, but also ideas from communities of how we should be responding to the issues that are identified in the evidence report in the context of the local community. In this matter, in the call for ideas, we're proposing to build on work that's already been done by Abidature Council and communities on the development of community action plans and other similar exercises. We would hope to be able to go out to communities and discuss with them whether the objectives that were set out in previous documents remain valid or whether new priorities should be identified through the local development plan in the light of changing circumstances. In particular, I think we'll be particularly seeking ideas on how the modern challenges that we have to play to face in terms of challenges of climate change and the challenges of the biodiversity crisis can be addressed by the modern local development plan. Chair, in our integrated impact assessment, we've identified that there were risks that we were not engaging with children and young people sufficiently. The doubt plan scheme highlights our need to improve our engagement with young people, that's mostly upper secondary school, rather than primary school children. We're promoting an awareness-raising program within schools and youth forums to ensure that young people are aware of the plan and it's important for their future. By the time they leave school, it is likely that the plan will just be coming to adoption because it takes that length of time to actually improve the plan, so their involvement while they're still at school is quite important to us. Chair, as a draft document, the development plan scheme and our ideas that are presented in it in this draft are not set in stone and we hope to have further fruitful response to the consultation to inform the final development plan scheme that we'll be considered by the Infrastructure Services Committee on the 16th of May 2022. Chair, those that know me will know that I can talk about the local development plan until nightfall, so I think I'll stop here and through you ask the committee for any comments or queries that they have on this draft document. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, so we'll open up for discussion members, comments or queries. Councillor Smith, please. Thanks, Chair, and thanks for your presentation. It's just a brief comment with regard to the table on page 98, which is fine and those of us I mean, compared to yourself, peers have only been through I think four local plans though, you know, we recognize the stages within it, but I think just in terms of some of the terminology used, if we're going into the public with us, I think maybe some simpler language as to, you know, what is being sought bit of public at each stage and how they can impute into that. I appreciate, you know, that would be contained elsewhere in the document, but just in terms of grabbing people's attention, a timeline is always something people who are interested in off the book for that will look at. And if as much information as possible can be contained within that as to how people can engage and influence the process, I think that'd be helpful for them. I'm not sure if you rocked up your average community council and said, well, the gate check examination stage that would necessarily recognize what that was. I'm sure. If I can respond to that chair. In table one, Councillor Smith, we identify the engagement proposed for each of the stages that we're looking at. To be brutally honest with myself, I'm not entirely sure what engagement we're going to be doing in two, three, four years time. And I think I would be misleading if I put that into a document at this point in time. What we've tried to do in table one is identify in the red boxes there. This is on page 99. We've identified by red boxes the stages that we're anticipating for the next year. And we've tried to be a little bit clearer about what the engagement should be during those stages. Rather than adding it to the graphic on page 98, Councillor Smith, do you think it'd be more appropriate to try and embellish, beef out what we mean when we say we're informing, consulting and involving people in that particular table? Would that be a better way of doing it? Otherwise, my worry would be that the arrow diagram would become very, very busy and would could be misleading in terms of the engagement we're proposing on the late stages of the plan. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Piers. Yeah, I think, you know, simplicity and when it comes to catering with the public on the planning with our friends, so avoided all the complicated diagrams. Maybe instead of including the main document, it might be you know, up to one side of the A4, a sort of simplified version of what we've just outlined, what we're looking for for the public at these stages. Also, just to pick up on your point about not knowing the particular dates, if you like, for different stages of what you're going to be looking for. It might still be useful in terms of setting out the process from start to finish. If there could be some information in that regard included, except, you know, when you say you're not going to necessarily the exact point in time at which you're going to be looking for that, but at least if people know, as part of, you know, this part of the process they've engaged with, follow them, the line, like, you know, opportunity to submit X or comment on Y. I think that's that's still useful information to get out there. All that's helpful. Very. So it's effectively you're suggesting an expanded executive summary, specifically targeting those consultation elements. I think we can probably deal with that. Thanks. I'm not sure I would have called it such, but I'll go along with it. Yes, thanks. Thank you. I'm delighted that you're actually going to get young people involved through the mechanisms that were already caught in the local authority for that, like, looking into our skills. I just want to excuse my ignorance. I wasn't aware of, I just clicked on it, this engagement hub that you have when people can get information about all the progress so far. So I'm not sure whether those counts as we've actually been elected to that already or whether or not it's just me that's missed it. And I wanted to have been any social media and inputs on this process that you've gone through to try and gather community views. We've been using the Engage HQ hub since the middle of the summer for our processes. In the development plan scheme in 2013, we specifically highlighted that we were and sought views at that time as to whether it was appropriate to use this as the primary place where we should be conducting engagement and we got a positive response to that. So we are undertaking that. We are acutely aware of awareness of the local development plan generally being quite low in the general population. And you know all about the development plan because you deal with it on a monthly basis. But it was about to say normal people, but that's probably not true. Your ordinary parent probably doesn't have that same life engagement with the development plan. So one of the things that we're very keen to do is promote the local development plan. And the image that I have behind me is an example of that. It's an image that we've designed to be used for the next five years on the local development plan. And I would hope that you will begin to see it in various diverse places because we've been working with Live Life Aberdeenshire with our own transport colleagues about bus shelters and with the schools to actually get this graphic image up there and prominent with a QR code that takes people directly to the website where they can find out what it's all about. So this idea of promoting the development plan, raising awareness of the development plan is something that is quite important to us. If people don't know what it is, then they won't get involved. So I apologize if you as an elected member, Councillor Simpson, have been made aware of the Engage HQ site. We used to have the LDP GAS banner on the Engage HQ homepage, so to speak. Now we're just one of many hubs. But I'll maybe speak to our colleagues in engagement as to whether we can actually raise our profile again back to that level. The other thing I would say is we also offer a newsletter. We don't automatically send that newsletter out to Councillors. So if you wish to be kept up to date about what's happening on the local development plan on a monthly basis, then I would recommend subscribing to the newsletter details of which are to be found on the website. And that way you would know as much as I do. We try to be very open and what we do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor James, please. Thanks, Chair, and thanks, Pierce, for your presentation so far. I just wanted to kind of bring some of your attention to this list on one of our early applications. I did wonder if it's a document at all. We have to excuse me if you're struggling here. I will try and move on. So the discussion on one of the applications earlier, we refer to the local plan as giving it a 10-year document as a bit more of a living plan than previously considered. And I'm not sure how much that got embedded into the development of that. But if it is considered the living document, I wonder if the process that you're setting out here within the development plan scheme will feed back into the current plan and anything that should and could be updated in the current plan will be done so. Or if it is in isolation. Now, I'm thinking particularly given the examples that we seem to have quite concretely and buck in terms of the disconnect between what are the aspirations of builders in the area for single, what their house developments have decided, and what is our now stricter planning policies around that. I wondered if you have any comment. Thank you. It's very difficult for a local development plan to become a living document just because of the scale of engagement that we have to do in preparing it. The Scottish government requires to talk to everybody about everything all the time. And at the end of the process, the local development plan is subjected to a public inquiry that determines its final content. So having that idea of a living document that can change is a little bit difficult for us to see how we would take that forward. Our view is perhaps that the local development plan should be seen as a strategic document about setting out the overall direction of travel for the Council and for development within Aberdeenshire, rather than being a detailed something to deal with the issues of today and tomorrow. I've already mentioned the issues of climate change and biodiversity and there can be no doubt that these are going to be two very, very important subjects as we move forward. And those are not subjects that we can just take, let's do a small tweak to the plan to resolve a kind of approach. So I have to say that I don't think that local development plans have ever been designed to be living documents in the way that you're suggesting. I would suggest that if communities want to have a living document in that context, then the route that they could think about going down is actually preparing their own local place plans to act as a material consideration alongside the local development plan. My objective for the local development plan is to have a local development plan that is subject to sufficient scrutiny, debate, and ultimately agreement that we get a strategic approach, which is appropriate for the whole of Aberdeenshire. If exceptions need to be made to that strategic approach because of local circumstances and then so be it. But a document that can change on the whim of a particular, in response to a particular event or action or occurrence and kind of devalues it as a strategic corporate document for the council. We don't have, I mean, if you think about it, the local development plan is one of the key strategic documents, corporate strategic documents of the council, and we don't change our council vision from year to year. So I would have a difficulty with changing the principal structures of the local development plan on a rapid basis, particularly when we go through this huge engagement consultation, this huge examination of the evidence to try and come up with something that is an agreed position by the population of Aberdeenshire. So that would be a difficult ask, I'm afraid, Councillor. Thank you. Councillor James, do you want to comment on that? So, thanks for that response. I didn't comment about housing, housing in the countryside, I can say something about that. I'll let you carry on with that and then I'll come back if that's a, thank you. I think I heard some of the debate this morning on the development around Aurora. They concerned me because, as I say, the local development plan is a strategic blueprint for development going forward. When you start talking to communities, to businesses, to indeed to developers, you will get a wide range of views. But the thing that I think we need to remember is that even though you are being petitioned by developers who want to develop houses in the countryside because they are an appropriate approach to take for them, that was not the consensus that we came to and it was not the settled view of the Council when they considered the local development plan. So fundamentally, I think we are trying to move on from the houses in every field perspective that we've had previously to something which is a little bit more strategic and is a little bit more supportive of existing communities where there are services rather than moving down this road of supporting housing development associated with clusters. That is why the current local development plan has moved away from the existing boundary of the rural housing market area and the Aberdeen housing market area is the definitive boundary for different styles of housing in our nature and move towards this much more robust accessible area and remote rural area definition. And that process was debated at each stage in the plan process. It went to examination and was found to be an appropriate approach to take. So moving back from that position would, I feel, be a retrograde step. There's always going to be a case where exception could be made to the rule, but when the exception becomes the rule, that's when we start to devalue the amount of work that's gone in and the expectation of stakeholders in the local development plan. There's some current controversy. Thank you for that response, Pierce, and it's actually on that point that I'll really push back on. I completely accept what you're saying in terms of plans developed and moving away from the housing market areas to the accessible and rural definitions that we're now looking at. I suppose my observation, having, I suppose, joined the Council in the later stages of the option of this plan, is that for Bakken, in particular, we see a situation where both the cohesive group policy that was previously in place and the organic growth policy service, a lot of our settlements is no longer there, which is a massive shift. And I do wonder, given that the plan allows for the variation or space observation of the likes of organic growth policy to change through the, in terms of the identified settlements during the plan. If that sort of thing will be considered alongside the development plans we're here, that we're seeing here, to assess what our provision is. For Bakken, particularly, I think we have one settlement, I think, is new leads that is eligible for organic growth. And I think we're seeing more and more that that's perhaps needs to be looked at and maybe speaking just of myself here. But it's just, as I say, we are collecting evidence. And I do wonder if it's, if it's worth just considering, especially in the light of things like the organic growth settlement list, which is subject to review for the land for the plan. Thank you. Can I just make one final comment, Chair, just to be even more controversial. And the policies that we have on rural development have persisted for the last 25 years. And there is a question as to whether they are actually meeting the purposes that we wish them to. This Scottish government is encouraging us to look at the local development plan through a different lens. So it's not just a case of going back to the old policies and saying, yeah, they're fine, let's move them forward. We don't have to do that because I'm very pleased to say that national planning framework for actually adopted all our rural development policies. And they are now part of national policy. But the approach that we take, the strategic approach that we take to rural development is something that we need to have a discussion about. It's the idea of having clusters of houses spread out through the countryside, an appropriate approach to the future that we are facing where we need to promote resilience and address issues of climate change. Or should we be looking at something that is more radical than that, which, for example, and I'm just throwing this as a suggestion, as an idea, as a thought piece. We should just be thinking about saying, well, you know, our expanded settlements, why aren't we talking about expanding, allowing expanded settlements to occur around any settlement with the quid pro quo that we're reducing the amount of housing that's happening in the remote rural areas and the remote parts of the accessible area. So I would draw your attention to the fact that we're currently drawing up a rural development topic paper. And if you have an interest in this, then I would pay attention to our Engage HQ website and subscribe to the newsletter. And you'll find out when the rural development paper is being published and engage with us on that debate. This is something that is going to be developed over the next five years. But certainly, I think that the existing rural policy is making everybody unhappy. And we need to think of some way of making it looking at rural housing in a slightly different way to achieve not only opportunities for people to live in the countryside, but also to sustain our towns and villages where we desperately need people to live. One of my colleagues, just as an aside, one of my colleagues did a piece of research on the number of properties that were being built in the countryside as opposed to being built in towns. And she found that there was a huge emphasis on housing being built in the countryside and to the detriment of houses being built in our towns. So effectively, we are seeing the deep population of our towns by the rural development. And rather than seeing rural development or people wishing to live in these rural areas, that's an opportunity that we should be exploiting to promote development in the towns and promote services that are accessible and all the rest of it. That's one of the issues, one of the debates that we need to have moving forward about what are the outcomes that we're looking for for rural development. So yes, I listened to the debate with interest on where I thought, yes, this is somebody who wants a plan, the last plan, the new plan, so to speak. Anyway, sorry, I'm overstepping the money. Thanks, Joe. And thank you for answering my question without fuming it on top before I even got the chance to ask it. It was about the noodle and the opportunities to build. I do think the plan seems a lot better. I'm not supposed to worry about that. Not very flexible for somebody who wants to build that used in the country, say, just because they went to the house and they went to the house a little bit, but it always seems there have to be some unloved reason. They have to justify why they went to the house in the country. So that's something I would like to do with that in the plan. After everything that's been said in this past conversation, I think probably we just need to get it, because in the building process of that, well, if councilors bring in the committee, and they see the benefits of also in the development, then we can't get it through the business there. But not for a lot of justification. So I find that over the heart of those in the plan, and just be able to see something that otherwise seems a sensible proposal. If I can respond to that, individual decisions in themselves do no harm. But when you're making those individual decisions year after year after year after year, then that becomes the strategy. And that is what we have seen over the last 25 years. We have seen this move away from consolidated villages, which are self-sustaining to development pattern, which is scattered housing throughout the landscape. I think what we need to be talking about is if people want to live in the countryside, can we just can we go back to that basic point? If they're living in the countryside, would it not be an appropriate policy approach to say, well, yes, you can live in the countryside, you can have your fuel for your horses, or you can have that, you know, you can play your electric guitars without upsetting your neighbors, or whatever. But you should be in close proximity to settlements and change the policy approach that we're having. So that we're saying, you're not at least a car journey away from services. You're within that walking icicle and off the services that you need to have. And have a strategy that is based on that outcome, rather than a random scattering of development throughout the countryside with no real rank, no reason about where it goes. Food for thought, anyway. Watch out for the Rural Development paper. I'm sure we will be continuing this discussion at length in the future. If you're saying the search something, there's a lot of main stuff, please. It's probably going to be published at the end of this month, so. Yeah, so Pius, if you can remind the Councillor, thank you very much. I see no further indications. That was a good discussion. Thank you very much for joining us, and I look forward to having you back another time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Cheerios. So apologies, Pius, I've got to do my recommendations. One way to point one, consider discussing providing comment on the draft development landscape for 2024, which is the appendix one to the support to infrastructure services committee at the meeting on the 16th of May 2024, which we have done. So thank you all very much. And we move on to item seven, the statement about starting business. Can I ask Amanda, earlier manager, to take us through the statement about starting business. Thank you, Chair, just as a reminder for committee, statement of outstanding business is designed to allow you to track any actions that came through the consideration of all our reports at an earlier committee. We are trying to avoid verbal updates. It's almost impossible to do so. We have managed to get more updates within the paper directly this time, but I do have some verbal updates to share that we'll go in with the next publication of this report. So in relation to action three, and we are going to adjust the action because we have now been advised by the Director of Education that during the forthcoming round of informal sessions with Councillors and for Bakken, this is planned for the 5th of March 2024. That session will pick up on the attainment to ensure that Councillors have an appropriate means of scrutinizing locally attainment and achievement within the area. So the timeline for that one is March. In relation to action eight, all members should have received an email from Raymond Terrace on the 30th of January 2024, which provides an update and an anticipated completion date of the 13th of June 2024. So the timeline is being adjusted throughout July 2024. In relation to action nine, apologies, and the narrative that sits within the progress today column is erroneous. However, members don't receive an email from Raymond Terrace on the 13th of January 2024, which providing an update that concluding that further update would be preparing you in three months. So the timeline is now really long now in May 2024. And in relation to action one, and having managed to clear down a lot because it was one that had a number of actions within it, and that we had so we would be sure we picked off. We were a bit premature in removing one of them, which related to the request for the consideration of bound were crossing. And I have had enough date from officers to confirm that that is being looked at and there is service going to be undertaken, so I will read and insert that particular action into action one, so that we can maintain and watching before that for members. And no further updates. Sure. Thank you very much, Amanda. I can confirm that the public section or senior indications apologies. Okay, I can confirm that the public section of this meeting has now concluded. Thank you for your interest. Members of the committee will now go on to consider exempt business and private. Can you stop the recording please? [BLANK_AUDIO]
Summary
The council meeting focused on several key planning applications and community concerns. Notably, the committee deliberated on the GreenVOLT offshore wind farm project, which involved discussions on the onshore infrastructure necessary for connecting the wind farm to the national grid.
GreenVOLT Offshore Wind Farm Project: The committee reviewed the planning application for the GreenVOLT project, which proposed the installation of underground cables and a new substation. Proponents argued the project was crucial for decarbonization and would significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Concerns were raised by Ocean Winds, suggesting potential spatial conflicts with their Caledonia project, which could impede access to the New Deer substation. The committee decided to refer the application to the Infrastructure Services Committee for determination, emphasizing the project's alignment with national development goals and its environmental benefits.
Planning Permission for Dwelling House: Another significant decision involved a planning application for the erection of a dwelling house. The application had previously been refused due to sustainability concerns and its location outside the designated settlement boundary. However, after hearing from the applicant and considering the local support and potential benefits to the community, the committee overturned the initial decision and granted planning permission, citing material considerations that justified deviating from the local development plan.
The meeting was marked by active participation from various stakeholders, including detailed presentations and debates on the implications of the proposed developments. The decisions reflected a balancing act between adhering to planning policies and addressing community needs and development aspirations. The council meeting focused on the Aberdeenshire Development Plan Scheme 2024, discussing its draft and the consultation process. The meeting also reviewed the statement of outstanding business, updating timelines and actions for ongoing projects.
Decision on Aberdeenshire Development Plan Scheme 2024: The council discussed the draft development plan scheme, emphasizing the need for public consultation as mandated by the 2019 Planning Act. The draft had been published with initial public engagement showing low response rates. The discussion highlighted the importance of strategic planning over scattered development, particularly in rural areas. The implications involve balancing development with environmental and community sustainability.
Review of Statement of Outstanding Business: Updates were provided on various ongoing actions, including educational attainment and infrastructure projects. The council adjusted timelines for certain actions and reintroduced previously omitted items. This decision ensures continued oversight and progress tracking on key council activities, aiming for transparency and accountability in council operations.
Interesting Occurrence: A notable discussion emerged around rural housing policies, with suggestions to rethink housing strategies to prevent depopulation of towns and manage countryside development more sustainably. This reflects a shift towards more strategic, long-term planning considerations within the council.
Attendees










Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents