West Planning Committee

Council Chamber, City Chambers, Dunfermline Wednesday, 22nd February, 2017 - 2.00 p.m.

AGENDA

Page Nos.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - Members of the Committee are

asked to declare any interest in particular items on the agenda and the nature of the interest(s) at this stage.

3. MINUTE - Minute of West Planning Committee of 18th January,

2017. 3 - 5

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

4. APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION - Reports by Head of

Economy, Planning & Employability Services.

(a) 15/00453/FULL - Erection of 14 dwellinghouses with

associated roads, parking, garages and landscaping at land to west of Burnbrae House, Burn Brae Park, Kincardine.

6 - 24

(b) 16/02529/ARC – Approval required by condition for the

erection of 100 houses with associated engineering, landscaping and infrastructure works (14/04038/PPP) at land to south of Pitdinnie Farm, Pitdinnie Road, Cairneyhill.

25 - 59

(c) 16/00418/FULL - Change of use from agricultural land to

remembrance garden and formation of vehicular access and erection of log cabin at land at B913 to southwest of Saline, Fife.

60 - 77

(d) 16/00998/FULL - Erection of 44 residential units, suds, open

space and associated roads infrastructure at land site 1 Fulmar Way, Donibristle Industrial Park.

78 - 104

(e)/

1

- 2 - Page Nos.

(e) 16/01887/FULL - Erection of 51 residential units, suds, open

space and associated roads infrastructure at land to south of Fulmar Way, Donibristle Industrial Park.

105 - 134

(f) 16/01927/FULL - Extension to retail park involving the construction of 9 no. class 1 and class 3 (with takeaway and drive through facility) units, car parking, servicing, landscaping and ancillary works including retention and regrading works with new substation at land to the north of Halbeath Retail Park, Dunfermline.

135 - 174

(g) 16/02689/FULL - Erection of (75m) wind monitoring mast

(field to west of Little Raith Windfarm), Gleniston, Auchtertool.

175 - 184

(h) 16/02341/FULL – Construction of 90 residential units, SUDS and ancillary infrastructure at land to east of Old Duloch House, Dunfermline.

185 - 218

(i) 16/03630/OBL - Discharge of planning obligation for planning

application 04/04012/WOPP relating to upgrading of footpath, pond clearance, erection of fence, grazing of livestock and payment of legal expenses at land at Capledrae Farm, Cardenden.

219 - 224

5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION, BUILDING

WARRANTS AND AMENDED BUILDING WARRANTS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATED POWERS - Lists of applications dealt with under delegated powers for the period 26th December, 2016 to 27th January, 2016. NOTE: These lists are available to view with the Committee papers on the Fife Direct website.

Linda Bissett Head of Democratic Service Fife House North Street Glenrothes Fife KY7 5LT 15th February, 2017. If telephoning, please ask for:- Emma Whyte, Committee Administrator, Fife House, Glenrothes Telephone: 03451 555555 Ext. 442303 or E-mail: emma.whyte@fife.gov.uk Agendas and papers for all Committee meetings can be accessed on www.fifedirect.org.uk/committees

2

2016.W.P.C.135

THE FIFE COUNCIL - WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE - CITY CHAMBERS, DUNFERMLINE 18th January, 2017 2.00 p.m. – 2.45 p.m. PRESENT: Councillors Bob Young (in the Chair), Alistair Bain, William

Campbell, Bobby Clelland, Ian Ferguson, Mark Hood, Helen Law, Alice McGarry, Mike Shirkie and Sharon Wilson.

ATTENDING: Mary Stewart, Service Manager (Major Business & Customer

Service), Natasha Cockburn and Alex Laidler, Planners, Economy, Planning and Employability Services; Mary McLean, Solicitor, David Henderson, Team Manager/Adviser (Committee Services) and Emma Whyte, Committee Administrator, Finance & Corporate Services.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Alice Callaghan and William Ferguson. 140. DECLARATION OF INTEREST Councillor Law declared an interest in paragraph 142 (c) - 16/03892/FULL –

Alterations and change of use of public bar to retail unit (Section 42 application to vary condition 8 of planning permission reference 16/02125/FULL) to allow a morning delivery to take place between 0430 and 0630 hours at East End Inn, 10 Mercer Place, Dunfermline, as she was known to the applicant.

141. MINUTE� The Committee considered the minute of the West Planning Committee

meeting of 23rd November, 2016. Decision The Committee agreed to approve the Minute. 142. APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION The Committee considered reports by the Head of Economy, Planning and

Employability Services on the following applications together with the associated representations.

(a) 16/03290/FULL – Change of use of retail unit (class 1) to restaurant

(class 3) and external alterations including extraction system at 11 Bridge Street, Dunfermline.

Decision/

West Planning Committee 22nd February, 2017 Item 03

3

2016.W.P.C.136

Decision

The Committee agreed to approve the application subject to the five conditions and for the reasons detailed in the report.

Councillor Hood joined the meeting during consideration of the above item. (b) 16/03438/FULL – Erection of 137 dwellinghouses, formation of

new vehicular accesses with open space, landscaping and other associated engineering operations (Section 42 to delete condition no. 30 of 15/01222/FULL) at land to north of B925 and east of Curling Knowe, Crossgates.

Previous minute reference: paragraph 90 (d) of 2015.W.P.C.96 refers. Decision The Committee agreed to approve the application subject to:-

(i) the thirty-five conditions and for the reasons detailed in the report (including an amended condition no. 30); and

(ii) conclusion of a legal agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing and monetary contributions for the Strategic Transport Fund and the upgrade of play facilities.

During their consideration of item b), Members of the Committee

expressed disquiet that the developers had disregarded conditions of the previous planning application and instructed officers to write to the developer in this regard, following consultation with members of this Committee.

Councillor Law left the meeting before consideration of the following item having previously declared an interest. (c) 16/03892/FULL – Alterations and change of use of public bar to

retail unit (Section 42 application to vary condition 8 of planning permission reference 16/02125/FULL) to allow a morning delivery to take place between 0430 and 0630 hours.

Previous minute reference: paragraph 134 (b) of 2016.W.P.C.131

refers. Decision The Committee agreed to approve the application subject to the eight

conditions and for the reasons detailed in the report (including an amended condition no. 8).

143./

4

2016.W.P.C.137

143. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION, BUILDING WARRANTS AND AMENDED BUILDING WARRANTS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

Decision The Committee agreed to note the lists of applications dealt with under

delegated powers for the period 7th November, 2016 to 23rd December, 2016.

____________________________

5

ITEM NO: 4 (A) APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 15/00453/FULL

SITE ADDRESS: LAND TO WEST OF BURNBRAE HOUSE BURN BRAE PARK

KINCARDINE PROPOSAL : ERECTION OF 14 DWELLINGHOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED

ROADS, PARKING, GARAGES AND LANDSCAPING APPLICANT: BURNBRAE PARTNERSHIP

WATERSIDE STUDIOS COLTBRIDGE AVENUE EDINBURGH WARD NO: NW01

West Fife And Coastal Villages CASE OFFICER: Nicolas Lopez

DATE REGISTERED:

27/02/2015

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: Kincardine Community Council has submitted an objection as a statutory consultee

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for:

Conditional Approval ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.0 BACKGROUND

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

6

1.1 Site Description 1.1.1 The application site mainly relates to an area of open grassland within the settlement boundary of Kincardine, though the site also covers part of a tree-lined footpath at its western edge. The site extends to approximately 1.5 hectares, though the majority of the development is concentrated in an area of approximately 0.8 hectares at the north-eastern corner of the site. The site would be accessed from Osborne Drive which has terraced housing on its northern side and mature hedging at its southern edge, though part of this has been removed in conjunction with construction works at a neighbouring site. To the south of the site is the Category B Listed Burnbrae House and more modern residential properties at James Wylie Place and Burnbrae Park. The site rises from east to west towards an isolated dwellling at Whistleberry and, in a less pronounced manner, from north to south towards a neighbouring site which is the subject of a separate planning application. There is also a mobile mast at the northern edge of the site and a small playpark within the site which is currently in a poor state of repair. 1.1.2 The eastern part of the application site is allocated for the development of 36 affordable houses and a possible care home within both the Adopted Local Plan and the Proposed FIFEplan, whilst the western part is identified as protected open space. The Proposed FIFEplan also identifies a green network opportunity linking the open space within this site with the woodland to the north of Osborne Drive. Part of the site has also been identified as at high risk from the impact of a legacy of coal mining in the area. 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 The applicant seeks full planning permission for the erection of 14 private dwellinghouses, along with associated surface water drainage facilities, roads, landscaping and open space provision. The proposed housing is contemporary in design with the exteriors finished in a simple palette of materials, identified as timber cladding, white render and grey concrete roof tiles. The majority of the housing will be built within the allocated site, though part of plots 1, 13 and 14, along with the access from Osborne Drive and the SUDs pond, would be formed within the area of protected open space. Upgraded play facilities are also proposed along with extensive hedge and tree planting. 1.3 Site History 1.3.1 Planning permission was previously granted for the erection of a care home at the site under 13/00735/FULL in 2014. Whilst this planning permission remains valid, it is understood that a decline in the care home market has made the site unviable for this purpose. To the immediate west there is a site which is currently being developed for five dwellings, approved under 14/02859/FULL, though a change to the design of three of the dwellings was subsequently approved under 16/02022/FULL. To the south, planning permission was granted for four detached dwellings in 2013 under 13/00737/FULL. Two further applications were approved on neighbouring sites to the south in 2016: 15/04274/ARC Approval Required by Condition for erection of 35 affordable residential units with associated access roads, landscaping and infrastructure (14/04252/PPP): Granted 1/12/2016 16/02440/FULL Proposed erection of affordable dwellinghouse and car port: Granted 30/11/2016

7

2.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 2.0.1 The issues to be assessed against the development plan and other guidance are as follows: - Principle of Development; - Design and Layout; - Parking and Road Safety - Residential Amenity; - Private Garden Ground; - Land Stability and Contamination; - Drainage and Flood Risk; - Open Space Provision - Developer Obligations; - Natural Heritage and Trees 2.1 Principle of Development 2.1.1 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development within settlement envelopes, subject to detailed siting, design and compatibility considerations, where it complies with the relevant development plan policies and proposals for the site. Policy H1 (Maintaining an effective 5 year land supply at all times) of the Adopted Local Plan states that the Council shall prepare supplementary guidance within 1 year of adoption of the Plan to address mechanisms to enable the delivery of brownfield opportunity sites and other sites from the established land supply and a detailed framework to guide the release of additional housing land. 2.1.2 Fife Council's Maintaining an Effective Five year Land Supply at all times Supplementary Planning Guidance (2013) has been created in accordance with policy H1. This states that a release of further effective housing land may be acceptable where a shortfall is identified. In accordance with the SPG, prospective developers seeking to develop greenfield sites will have to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Fife Council as planning authority, that they have first tried the following means in the following sequence to deliver houses by: - Assessing sites within the established land supply that have stalled or have no current planning permission to see if these sites can be developed; then - Assessing Local Plan brownfield development opportunities; then - If no opportunity to use brownfield development opportunities presents itself, assessing unallocated sites within settlement boundaries. 2.1.3 Policy 1 of the Proposed FIFEplan, as amended through Examination, notes that, housing development on a site which is not allocated for that purpose may be supported subject to compliance with Policy 2. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) states that housing development will be supported to meet strategic housing land requirements and provide a continuous 5-year effective housing land supply; 1. On sites allocated for housing in this Plan; or 2. On other sites provided the proposal is compliant with the policies for the location. Where a shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply is shown to exist, housing proposals will be supported where they meet the sequential test for housing shown in Figure 2.1 (at the end of this policy section) and in paragraphs 1-5 of 'Applying Policy 2'.

8

2.1.4 However, Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan has also been amended through the Examination and the Reporter has proposed that the policy states that housing development will be supported to meet strategic housing land requirements and provide a continuous 5-year effective housing land supply; 1. On sites allocated for housing in this Plan; or 2. On other sites provided the proposal is compliant with the policies for the location. Where a shortfall in the 5 year effective housing land supply is shown to exist within the relevant Housing Market Area, housing proposals within this Housing Market Area will be supported subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: 1. the development is capable of delivering completions in the next 5 years; 2. the development would not have adverse impacts which would outweigh the benefits of addressing any shortfall when assessed against the wider policies of the plan; 3. the development would complement and not undermine the strategy of the plan; and 4. infrastructure constraints can be addressed. 2.1.5 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) notes that, where there is a shortfall in housing land supply within a housing market area, current development plan policies for the supply of housing land will not be considered up-to-date. In such circumstances, the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. The development should therefore comply with the 13 policy principles of Sustainable Development set out within paragraph 29 of SPP: - giving due weight to net economic benefit; - responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, as outlined in local economic strategies; - supporting good design and the six qualities of successful places; - making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure including supporting town centre and regeneration priorities; - supporting delivery of accessible housing, business, retailing and leisure development; - supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; - supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk; - improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation; - having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment; - reducing waste, facilitating its management and promoting resource recovery; - and avoiding over-development, protecting the amenity of new and existing development and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality. 2.1.6 Protected Open Space is protected from development under Policy C4 of the Adopted Local Plan. Policy 3 of the Proposed FIFEplan also safeguards existing and proposed open space unless equivalent or better provision is provided elsewhere in a location convenient for users, or the Council accepts that there is over-provision. Furthermore, Policy 10 states that development should not have a significantly detrimental impact on amenity by virtue of a loss of public open space. The Examination of the Proposed FIFEplan does not recommend any changes that would alter the protection given to protected open space by these policies.

9

2.1.7 As noted above, the application site straddles an area of safeguarded public open space and land allocated for the provision of affordable housing and a possible care home. This application does not accord with either of these land use designations and has therefore been advertised as being potentially contrary to the development plan. However, Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan, as amended through examination, notes that residential development may be supported contrary to other land use policies where there is clear evidence of a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the relevant Housing Market Area. In that regard, the Fife Housing Land Audit 2016 (HLA 2016) identifies a significant shortfall between the Housing Land Requirement set by SESPlan and the current 5 year Effective Housing Land Supply. The current shortfall within the Housing Market Area is as follows: 5-year Effective Housing Land Supply 2016-2021 Housing requirement (2016-2021) 10,372 Total Supply (2016-2021) 5,361 5-Year housing shortfall 5,012 Percentage Shortfall 48.3% On that basis, and in accordance with Policy 1 and Policy 2, it may be appropriate to support housing in this location despite its non-compliance with the land use designations for the area. In terms of the tests detailed in the amended Policy 2, the HLA 2016 indicates that all of the proposed 14 units are programmed to be completed in 2017. Furthermore, the development would not have an adverse impact on the site or surrounding residential land uses and there are no infrastructure constraints that cannot be addressed satisfactorily. The development also does not raise any concerns with respect to the strategy of the plan. Furthermore, Scottish Planning Policy notes that, where there is a shortfall in the Effective Housing Market Supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development becomes a significant material consideration. In that regard, it is considered that the application site is a suitable and sustainable location for residential development given the surrounding residential context, its proximity to local amenities and facilities and the lack of infrastructure or environmental constraints. Also, whilst compliance with Policy H1 and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance has not been demonstrated by the applicant, given that FIFEplan has been through Examination and SPP post-dates the Supplementary Planning Guidance, it is considered that FIFEplan and SPP should be attributed greater weight in this instance. The majority of the residential development will also be outwith the area of Protected Open Space and the proposed detention basin, which will be located within the Protected Open Space, will generally be dry and thus available for recreational use. The principle of development within the area of open space has also been accepted for other developments, including the care home approved under 13/00735/FULL which was proposed for the same site. On balance, and taking into account all material considerations, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable despite it not fully complying with the terms of development plan or the emerging plan. 2.2 Design and Layout 2.2.1 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development within settlement boundaries should respect the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape. Policy E4 requires proposals to achieve the highest standard of design so that new developments can make a positive contribution to the surrounding environment. 2.2.2 Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan requires development to demonstrate the six qualities of successful places detailed in SPP. Policy 14 is also supported by 'Making Fife's Places'

10

which provides detailed guidance on creating, and evaluating, successful places. Making Fife's Places emphasises the importance of a holistic approach to designing new development that takes account of the site's attributes and its surrounding context. The Proposed FIFEplan Examination Report does not recommend any changes to Policy 14 that impact upon this proposal. 2.2.3 The application site is, as noted above, sloping in nature and has existing landscape, access and open space features. It is these features which have informed the design and layout of the site and, in part, constrained it. The orientation of development broadly follows the contours of the site which slopes up from west to east, meaning that the development will appear to work with, rather than against, the natural slope of the site. The development is also oriented to face the open space both to provide a pleasant aspect for residents and to provide passive surveillance of the open space. However, the physical implications of the engineering works necessary to create relatively flat plots and an access road which meets the standards necessary for adoption will still be evident in the form of a retaining wall at the eastern boundary of the site of between 0.6m and 2.2m in height. As the retaining wall will mainly be contained within the gardens of plots 5-8, it will only have a limited impact on the streetscape in this location. Attractive and high quality hard and soft landscaping will also help to create an attractive streetscape, soften the appearance of built development and provide biodiversity benefits (discussed further below). 2.2.4 The units themselves are well designed with active frontages on to the access roads and simple but elegant facades which will contribute positively to the built character of the area. The house designs and boundary treatments also harmonise with those on the adjacent affordable housing sites to the south (16/02440/FULL and 15/04274/ARC) and the private housing site to the west (14/02859/FULL and 16/02022/FULL) to ensure that a consistent character is achieved across the wider development area. In terms of permeability and ease of movement, a footpath connection is proposed to link the site with the affordable housing site to the south and the development will benefit from an upgraded footpath at the western extent of the site. It is therefore concluded that the application is acceptable in design and layout terms, and complies with the above noted policies in these respects. 2.3 Transport, Parking and Road Safety 2.3.1 Policy T1 requires development to be permeable, accessible and to be located where road capacity is available, or can be made available. Policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan requires that road layout, construction, access and parking provision conforms to Fife Council's Transportation Development Guidelines, and Supplementary 'Designing Streets' Guidance, and other National Policy Standards where appropriate, in the interests of traffic safety. Latterly, the above noted local guidance has been subsumed into Making Fife's Places. 2.3.2 Policy 3 of the Proposed FIFEplan requires development to deliver the required level of infrastructure, including local transport and access routes linking with existing networks designed in accordance with Making Fife's Places. Development should also address any impacts on road safety. The Proposed FIFEplan Examination Report recommends some changes to Policy 3 but these do not alter the assessment of this proposal. 2.3.3 The land allocation for the site in both the Proposed FIFEplan and the Adopted Local Plan require development proposals to include footpath and vehicular access improvements in the vicinity of Dewar Avenue, Osborne Drive and Toll Road to be funded by the developer. A

11

footpath link should also be formed to the proposed development at Burnbrae East (KCD 001) to connect with Toll Road. 2.3.4 Six objections have been received, including an objection from Kincardine Community Council, all raising concerns about the suitability of Osborne Drive and the surrounding road network to accommodate traffic, including construction traffic, associated with the proposed development. However, the Council’s Transportation Development Management team has reviewed the submitted Transport Statement and the team is satisfied that there is sufficient capacity within the road network to accommodate the development. They have also reviewed parking and access arrangements and, while it is noted that further integration of the site with the adjacent affordable housing site (see 15/04274/ARC) is possible, parking and access arrangements are nonetheless acceptable subject to the below noted conditions. In terms of the transportation requirements for the site in the adopted and emerging plans, widening works have already been undertaken on Osborne Drive and the adjacent affordable housing site provides a road and footpath link to site KCD001. In relation to construction traffic, however, and given complaints from residents of Osborne Drive about construction vehicles, the Transportation Development Management Team has requested that construction traffic is routed across KCD001 from Toll Road. However, it is recognised that this would be a gesture of goodwill from the applicant as KCD001 is not under the applicant’s control so cannot be the subject of a planning condition. Alternatively, to reduce inconvenience for neighbours, it is suggested that all deliveries and parking for site staff and construction vehicles be accommodated within the site. To ensure that this is the case, a condition is proposed requiring submission of a construction management plan prior to development works commencing. Subject to this, and the other conditions below, it is considered that the application complies with the above noted policies with respect to transport, parking and road safety. 2.4 Overlooking and Daylight/Sunlight 2.4.1 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development proposals where they are compatible with neighbouring uses and do not adversely affect the privacy of neighbours. Policy E4 also protects privacy and amenity, whilst Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2010) and Minimum Distances between Window Openings (2011) provide additional guidance on the design of residential areas that incorporates concerns surrounding residential amenity. 2.4.2 The Proposed FIFEplan Policy 10: Amenity also seeks to ensure that new development does not impact on the privacy, sunlight or daylight enjoyed by existing properties. The Examination Report of the Proposed FIFEplan does not recommend any changes that would alter the assessment of this application in relation to overlooking and daylight/sunlight. 2.4.3 The development layout has been designed to ensure that window separation distances between all of the proposed dwellings are approximately in line with the above noted guidance, with a minimum distance of circa 17.2m achieved compared to 18m in the guidance. The existing house at Whistleberry would previously have enjoyed a relatively secluded location with no immediate neighbours who could have visibility of their windows or garden. This development, in conjunction with neighbouring developments, will obviously change their immediate environment, however the houses on the abutting plots 5-7 are sufficiently distant, and set down, to not raise any overlooking concerns. The "25 degree rule" in relation to daylight/sunlight and windows will also be met across the development. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of daylight/sunlight and overlooking, and is in broad compliance with the above noted policies and guidance in these respects.

12

2.5 Garden Ground 2.5.1 Fife Council's Guidelines on Garden Ground advise that new developments should provide appropriate private garden ground in order to safeguard the amenity of new residents in accordance with Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan. New developments should achieve standards of 100 sqm for houses and 50 sqm for flats. Rear gardens should be at least 9m deep and front gardens should be at least 4.5m deep. Plot ratios, the ratio of buildings to the gross size of the plot, should also be a minimum of 1:3. 2.5.2 In line with Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan, Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan also seeks to protect the amenity of existing and proposed land uses. The Examination Report of the Proposed FIFEplan does not recommend any changes that would alter the assessment of this application in relation to garden ground. 2.5.3 Rear garden sizes vary across the site however all generally meet or exceed the 100sqm minimum detailed in the guidelines, with the smallest garden being circa 96sqm on plot 9 and the largest being circa 190sqm on plot 4. Plot ratios are also generally in the region of 1:3 or greater. Rear garden depths, however, fail to meet the guidelines in most cases, though by only 1.5m or less. Given that this does not result in any overlooking or overshadowing issues, and given that the garden sizes and plot ratios generally meet the guidelines, it is considered that this deficiency is acceptable. It is therefore considered that, on balance, the application provides sufficient garden ground to safeguard the amenity of future residents in accordance with Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan. 2.6 Land Stability and Contamination 2.6.1 Policy E6 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to consider the risk posed by historic land uses and underground coal workings for redevelopment and to investigate the risks and implement any recommended mitigation measures. Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan also requires developments to address any potential impacts resulting from contaminated or unstable land. The Examination Report of the Proposed FIFEplan does not recommend any changes that would alter the assessment of this application in relation to land stability and contamination. 2.6.2 The Coal Authority and Fife Council's Land and Air Quality Team have been consulted on this application. The Land and Air Quality Team is satisfied with the outcomes of the submitted desktop study, which suggests that intrusive site investigations should be undertaken and have suggested a number of conditions be applied should planning permission be granted. The Coal Authority has also not raised any objections subject to conditions requiring a detailed site investigation be undertaken along with any associated remedial works. These conditions form part of the recommendation and, subject to compliance with them, it is considered that the application accords with the above noted policies. 2.7 Drainage and Flood Risk 2.7.1 Policy I3 of the Adopted Local Plan requires development to connect to a public sewer unless there are exceptional circumstances, whilst Policy I5 requires new development to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs). Policy 3 of the Proposed FIFEplan also requires development to utilise SUDS systems for surface water drainage. The

13

Examination Report of the Proposed FIFEplan does not recommend any changes that would alter the assessment of this application in relation to drainage. 2.7.2 The Council's Harbours, Flood and Coast Team has reviewed the submitted drainage details. The Team notes that the identified SUDS pond has been designed using a discharge allowance based on an assumed extent of impermeable area on the application site, alongside detailed runoff calculations for the neighbouring sites to the south (15/04274/ARC and 16/02440/FULL). It is considered that this information is sufficient to grant planning permission, however a condition is proposed requiring details and calculations to demonstrate that the assumption is valid (i.e that the storage provided remains satisfactory) and that the development is not at risk from back up flooding of the proposed drainage system. Subject to compliance with this condition, it is considered that the application accords with the above noted policies with respect to drainage. 2.8 Open Space Provision 2.8.1 The SPP sets out the national advice on the provision of open space and opportunities for sport and recreation within new developments. Following the SPP, Policy E5 of the Adopted Local Plan requires development proposals of 10 houses or more to provide adequate areas of open space within the development. Policy E5 states that flexibility on the amount of open space provided is allowed for small sites, brownfield sites and sites adjacent to existing public open space. The level and type of facilities required will vary with location, type of housing and market segment. As a minimum, 0.6 hectares of usable open space will be required for every one hundred houses proposed on greenfield sites. 2.8.2 Policy 14 and supporting supplementary guidance, Making Fife's Places, sets the same requirement for the provision of open space but provides flexibility in provision depending on the proximity of the site to existing green spaces. The Examination Report of the Proposed FIFEplan does not recommend any changes that would alter the assessment of this application in relation to the provision of open space. 2.8.3 Approximately 0.6ha of open space is identified within the site boundary which far exceeds the policy requirement above. Whilst part of this open space is a detention basin and an existing footpath, the footpath is due to be upgraded and the detention basin will, when dry, be available for recreational use and, when wet, will provide amenity value. The Council's Parks and Countryside Team has been consulted on landscaping and play park provision, and notes that a lack of information has been provided on both aspects of the development. Conditions are therefore proposed to secure this information. Subject to these conditions, it is considered that the application complies with the above noted policies with respect to the provision of open space. 2.9 Developer Obligations. 2.9.1 Policy D1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires developers to make a contribution, financial or otherwise, in instances where the development creates adverse impacts that need to be mitigated. Policy H1 of the development plan looks to secure appropriate provision of affordable housing in all new residential developments. 2.9.2 Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan also requires developer contributions where development will have an adverse impact on strategic infrastructure or an adverse community impact. However, the policy also sets out exemptions, including development of fewer than 10

14

houses. Policy 2 requires development to provide affordable housing at an appropriate rate, which, in the case of Kincardine, is set at 25%. The Examination Report of the Proposed FIFEplan recommends that significant changes are made to the policy. These changes alter the emphasis of the policy; while the current policy is categoric in terms of its requirement for development to mitigate its impact on infrastructure through contributions, the revised policy states that "contributions will be sought", acknowledging that contributions will not always be required where they could undermine development viability. However these changes do not impact upon the contributions sought in relation to this application. 2.9.3 The above policies are also supported by the current Planning Obligations Framework and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. In relation to education provision, the Planning Obligations Framework notes that planning obligations will be sought by the Council's Education Service on a catchment wide basis taking into account the cumulative impacts of development planned in the Local Development Plan. The Planning Obligations Framework also provides a methodology for the calculation of contributions on a zonal basis towards strategic transport works which, in the west of Fife, are focused around Dunfermline. The Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance confirms that, for sites in urban areas, sites of between 10 and 19 units will be expected to makes an off-site contribution towards affordable housing need in the form of serviced land or a commuted sum. 2.9.4 Circular 3/2012 sets out the policy tests all planning obligations under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 must meet: - necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; - serve a planning purpose and, where it is possible to identify infrastructure provision requirements in advance, should relate to development plans; - relate to the proposed development either as a direct consequence of the development or arising from the cumulative impact of development in the area; - fairly relate in scale and kind to the proposed development; - be reasonable in all other respects. 2.9.5 Transportation Development Management has commented on the application in relation to contributions towards strategic transport interventions and note that, as the site is within the "Outer Zone" as defined in the Planning Obligations Framework, a contribution of £700 per house is sought, giving a total of £9800 for the proposed 14 house development. The Council's Affordable Housing team has also commented and note that the expected commuted sum towards affordable housing in the West Villages Area, which includes Kincardine, is £9000 per unit. On the basis of a contribution at 25% of the capacity of the site (3.5), a total contribution of £31,500 is sought from this development. The applicant has provided written confirmation of their intention to pay both of these contributions (a total of £41,300) subject to the appropriate legal agreement. 2.9.6 The Council's Education Service has also commented and note that the site is within the catchment of Tulliallan Primary School, Dunfermline High School, St Serf's Roman Catholic Primary School and St Columba's Roman Catholic High School. Tulliallan Primary School, St Serf's Roman Catholic Primary School and St Columba's Roman Catholic High School all currently have capacity to accommodate the projected pupil numbers associated with the development and no capacity risk has been identified. Dunfermline High School currently has a total capacity of 1750 pupils, and a current school roll of 1511 pupils, and thus capacity to accommodate up to 239 additional pupils. However, the school roll is projected to increase and exceed 95% of the total capacity in 10+ years. In light of this projected capacity risk, Education

15

has requested that contributions be provided by this development towards creating additional secondary education capacity. However, the Council's Legal Service has been consulted to garner their view on whether a contribution is justified both in terms of the current policy context and the tests set out in Circular 3/2012. They note that, given the scale of the development and the current capacity at Dunfermline High, a contribution towards education infrastructure could not be reasonably sought in this instance. They note the fundamental test within Circular 3/2012 is whether contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. In that regard, given the minor scale of the development and the available capacity at Dunfermline High, a contribution towards education infrastructure is not considered necessary to make the proposal acceptable in this instance. Also of relevance is the projected build out rate (all 14 units to be delivered in 2017 according to the Housing Land Audit 2016), which suggests that the development would be complete many years in advance of the projected risk and thus a contribution based on its contribution towards a cumulative impact on school capacity would not be justified. It is therefore considered that contributions towards education infrastructure are not justified in this case. 2.9.7 In summary, and subject to a legal agreement to secure the above noted contributions towards affordable housing provision and strategic transport interventions, it is considered that the development accords with the current policy context with respect to developer obligations. 2.10 Amenity 2.10.1 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan requires development to be compatible with surrounding uses and Policy E4 looks to protect residential amenity from negative impacts associated with development, including noise. Policy 10 of the FIFEplan also expects new development to consider amenity. The Proposed FIFEplan Examination Report does not recommend any changes that would impact the assessment of this development with respect to amenity. 2.10.2 The application has been reviewed by the Council's Public Protection team which has not raised any concerns with regards the proposed use, but has recommended conditions be applied regarding construction noise and the submission of a scheme of works designed to mitigate the effects on sensitive premises of dust, noise and vibration. Subject to the imposition of conditions which address these matters, it is considered that the application complies with the above noted policies with respect to amenity. 2.11 Green networks and natural heritage 2.11.1 Policies E21 and E22 of the Adopted Local Plan protect European Protected Species', and local biodiversity and geodiversity sites from negative impacts associated with development. Policy E23 also provides broader protection to national and local priority habitats and species. Policy E25 of the Adopted Local Plan seeks to retain and protect mature and semi-mature trees on development sites, and others that are likely to provide some amenity value. Where development is likely to affect trees, a comprehensive tree survey and associated tree protection and landscaping proposals will be required. 2.11.2 Policy 13 of the Proposed FIFEplan also requires development to protect or enhance natural heritage assets, including trees and hedgerows. The Proposed FIFEplan also introduces the concept of the 'green network' as a key natural heritage, amenity and access attribute that should be incorporated into, and enhanced by, new development. The green network priority for site KCD005 is to establish a high quality landscape edge with a strong rural character along

16

eastern boundary of the site, which incorporates north-south access provision to link to the core path north of the site and provides a strong landscape setting of the development. The potential to enhance the wider woodland habitat network through appropriate planting proposals is also identified. 2.11.3 No felling or pruning of the trees at the western periphery of the site is proposed, with the only works in the vicinity of these trees being the installation of lampposts along the footpath. Elsewhere the submitted landscaping plan identifies additional tree planting in various locations across the site, as well as structural hedge and tree planting at the eastern periphery of the site adjacent to Whistleberry. Although the proposed landscaping does not provide access benefits as described in the green network priority, various linkages through the site are proposed elsewhere. Also, while no formal ecological assessment has been undertaken, existing features of ecological interest, such as the mature hedge at the northern periphery of the site, are to be retained and the planting of native trees and hedging will provide biodiversity benefits. On balance, it is therefore considered that the development is acceptable in terms of green networks and natural heritage.

CONSULTATIONS

Scottish Water No comment Scottish Environment Protection Agency No comment Community Council Raises concerns about the capacity of the

road network to accommodate the development. Suggests that Toll Road would be an appropriate alternative access point.

Land And Air Quality - EPES No objection subject to conditions requiring a Site Specific Risk Assessment to be undertaken.

Education (Directorate) Contributions are required to address a projected capacity risk at Dunfermline High School

Housing And Neighbourhood Services Off-site contributions in the form of a commuted sum are required towards affordable housing provision.

Structural Services - Harbours, Flood And Coast

Further details required in the form of detailed runoff calculations for the site.

Transportation No objection subject to conditions Environmental Health (Public Protection) - EPES

No objection subject to conditions

Transportation And Environmental Services - Operations Team

No comment

Parks Development And Countryside Further details required in relation to landscaping and play provision.

17

The Coal Authority No objection subject to a condition requiring intrusive site investigation works to be undertaken.

REPRESENTATIONS Five valid representations have been submitted objecting to the proposal, along with a further objection from Kincardine Community Council as a statutory consultee. These objections raise the following material planning matters: - loss of public open space (see paragraph 2.1.7); - Osborne Drive and surrounding road network do not have capacity to accommodate the development without adversely affecting public safety, Toll Road would be a more appropriate location for the site access (see paragraph 2.3.4); - impact of the legacy of coal mining on the site (see paragraph 2.6.2); - loss of green corridor along Osborne Drive to accommodate road widening (see below); - footpath between Osborne Drive and Burn Brae is neglected and unsafe (see paragraph 2.8.3) - impacts on wildlife (see paragraph 2.11.3) The above matters have been dealt with in the body of the report with the exception of the loss of the green corridor along Osborne Drive due to road widening. The road widening works referred are in the process of being undertaken and were secured in relation to previous planning permissions. This matter is therefore not relevant to the determination of this application. CONCLUSIONS

The application has been assessed against the terms of the development plan and the emerging plan with respect to the principle of development; design and layout; parking and road safety; residential amenity; private garden ground; land stability and contamination; drainage and flood risk; open space provision; developer obligations; natural heritage and trees, and; amenity. While the principle of development is not fully supported by the Adopted Local Plan and the Proposed FIFEplan, the site is nonetheless considered to be an acceptable and sustainable location for the proposed residential development that will contribute to meeting a deficit in the effective housing land supply. Also, while the submitted objections, which particularly raise concern about the capacity of Osborne Drive and the surrounding road network to accommodate the development, are noted, it is considered that existing capacity in the road network is sufficient to accommodate the development and construction traffic can be managed to limit detrimental impacts to neighbours. In all other regards the proposal is found to be acceptable and in broad compliance with both the Adopted Local Plan and the Proposed FIFEplan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the below noted conditions and a legal agreement to secure financial contributions towards affordable housing provision and strategic transport interventions. RECOMMENDATION

That the application be approved following the conclusion of a legal agreement to secure Affordable Housing and a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure and subject to the following conditions and reasons:

18

1. Prior to the occupation of the first house, details of the specifications of the play park equipment, future maintenance details and a timescale for delivery of the play area, as identified on the approved site plan (plan 2C), shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, Fife Council as planning authority. The play park shall be designed to avoid any health and safety concerns in conjunction with the Council's Parks and Countryside Team. Thereafter the play park shall be delivered, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt the details submitted in that regard are not approved. Reason: To ensure that the play park delivered is of an acceptable standard. 2. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, a scheme of landscaping indicating the siting, numbers, species and heights (at time of planting) of all trees, shrubs and hedges to be planted, and the extent and profile of any areas of earthmounding, shall be submitted for approval in writing by this Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include confirmation of the final planting arrangement for the landscape strip at the eastern boundary of the site. For the avoidance of doubt, the submitted landscaping details are not approved. The scheme as approved shall be implemented within the first planting season following the completion or occupation of the first house, whichever is the sooner. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 3. All planting carried out on site shall be maintained by the developer in accordance with good horticultural practice for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. Within that period any plants which are dead, damaged, missing, diseased or fail to establish shall be replaced annually. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and effective landscape management; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term. 4. PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 14TH RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE SITE the footpath link to the neighbouring site to the south(currently the subject of planning permissions granted under 14/04252/PPP) shall be completed in accordance with the approved site plan (plan 2D) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In the interests of permeability and pedestrian access; to secure the delivery of the footpath link to the neighbouring site. 5. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, an intrusive site investigation shall be undertaken to assess the coal mining risks for the site. A report of the site investigation shall be submitted for the written approval of Fife Council as planning authority in consultation with the Coal Authority. In the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat any of the mine entries or areas of shallow mine workings to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development then details of the proposed remediation shall be provided within this report for written approval. Should shallow coal be found on the site consideration shall be given to its removal as part of the remediation. The remediation measures shall be carried out prior to development starting on site and shall be carried out in accordance with the details agreed through this condition. Reason: To ensure the site is free of risk from coal mining legacy.

19

6. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, details of the following, including construction specifications and elevations where relevant, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the existing details are not approved: - all walls, gates, fences and other means of enclosure Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved unless changes are subsequently approved in writing by this Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that boundary treatments enhance the character of the surrounding area. 7. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, a construction management plan including traffic management proposals, pedestrian management proposals, the contractors' site facilities including storage, parking provision and areas for the storage of top soil and sub soil shall, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, Fife Council as Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the management plan shall ensure all deliveries and parking for site staff and construction vehicles is accommodated off the public road. Thereafter, all construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved construction management plan. Reason: In the interests of amenity; to ensure the construction phase of the development is managed in order to mitigate against any negative impacts on neighbouring properties. 8. All works done on or adjacent to existing public roads shall be in accordance with the current Fife Council Transportation Development Guidelines. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 9. Prior to occupation of the first house, one pair of speed cushions shall be formed between plots 13 and plot 14 in accordance with Fife Council's Transportation Development Guidelines. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 10. Prior to occupation of the each house, all access driveways shall be constructed to the satisfaction of Fife Council as Planning Authority at a gradient not exceeding 1 in 10 (10%) and shall have appropriate vertical curves to ensure adequate ground clearance for vehicles prior to house occupation. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 11. Prior to occupation of the first house, visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 25 metres shall be provided with no obstructions exceeding 600mm in height above the adjoining road channel level, at the junction of the vehicular access at Osborne Drive and the internal junction, in accordance with the current Fife Council Transportation Development Guidelines. The visibility splays shall thereafter be retained throughout the lifetime of the development.

20

Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visibility at junctions. 12. Prior to occupation of the each house, there shall be provided within the curtilage of the site 2 parking spaces per house Type A (and house Type B in plot 5) for vehicles in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The parking spaces shall be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 13. Prior to occupation of the each house, there shall be provided within the curtilage of the site 3 No parking spaces per house Type B (except house Type B in plot 5) for vehicles in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The parking spaces shall be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 14. Prior to works starting on site, adequate wheel cleaning facilities approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority shall be provided and maintained throughout the construction works so that no mud, debris or other deleterious material is carried by vehicles on to the public roads. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to eliminate the deposit of deleterious material on public roads. 15. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE a Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Fife Council as Planning Authority. Where site remediation is recommended in the approved Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report development shall not commence until a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by Fife Council as Planning Authority. The Remediation Strategy shall include a timetable for the implementation and completion of the approved remediation measures. Remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or contamination not previously considered in either the Preliminary Risk Assessment or the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report is identified or encountered on site, all works on site (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the local planning authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, works shall not recommence until proposed revisions to the Remediation Strategy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Remediation of the site shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy. Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a Validation Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, no part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures for the whole site have been completed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or the approved revised Remediation Strategy and a Validation Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the local planning authority. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT all

21

contamination reports shall be prepared in accordance with CLR11, PAN 33 and the Council's Advice for Development documents or any subsequent revisions of those documents. Reason: To ensure that any coal mining legacy constraints on the site are appropriately dealt with. 16. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, full details of a SUDS system used to manage surface water runoff from the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, Fife Council as planning authority. The submitted information shall include details and calculations to demonstrate that the storage assumptions accepted in relation to 15/04274/ARC are valid (i.e that the storage provided remains satisfactory) and that the development is not at risk from back up flooding of the proposed drainage system. Thereafter, the drainage system shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the site is drained in an appropriate manner in accordance with Council policy. 17. BEFORE THE OCCUPATION OF ANY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THIS SITE, a 2 metre wide footpath constructed to adoptable standard shall be provided between Osborne Drive and Burnbrae Park. Reason: In the interests of permeability and pedestrian safety. 18. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, full details of the proposed management and aftercare of all landscaping areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the management and aftercare of the landscaping and planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term.

STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS

In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National policy/guidance: Scottish Planning Policy 2014 Development Plan: Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 Emerging Plan: Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan 2014 Proposed FIFEplan Examination Report 2016 Non-statutory Guidance: Fife Council Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight 2010 Fife Council Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground 2011

22

Fife Council Planning Customer Guidelines on Minimum Distances between Window Openings 2011 Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2014 Planning Obligations Framework: Guidance 2015 Maintaining an Effective 5 Year Land Supply at all times - Supplementary Planning Guidance 2013 Making Fife's Places 2015 Report prepared by Nicolas Lopez (Planner) Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

Date Printed 07/02/2017

23

24

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

ITEM NO: 4 (B) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL REQUIRED BY CONDITION(S) REF: 16/02529/ARC

SITE ADDRESS: LAND SOUTH OF PITDINNIE FARM PITDINNIE ROAD

CAIRNEYHILL PROPOSAL : APPROVAL REQUIRED BY CONDITION FOR THE ERECTION

OF 100 HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING, LANDSCAPING AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS (14/04038/PPP)

APPLICANT: AVANT HOMES

ARGYLL COURT CASTLE BUSINESS PARK STIRLING WARD NO: NW01

West Fife And Coastal Villages CASE OFFICER: William Shand

DATE REGISTERED:

03/08/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: The application has attracted more than 5 objections.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for:

Conditional Approval ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

25

1.0 BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL 1.1 Site 1.1.1 The application site is approximately 13 hectares of predominantly agricultural land located to the north and east of Cairneyhill. The site boundary also contains Pitdinnie Road where improvement works would be carried out and access to the site would be taken from. Pitdinnie Road travels through the site with the proposed residential area being on the western side and a proposed flood attenuation and SUDS feature being on the eastern side. The residential area of the site is bound to the west and north by further agricultural land and to the south by residential properties within Cairneyhill. To the east of the site are some isolated residential properties with Forrester Park Resort (a leisure and recreational facility) to the north east. Within the grounds of Forrester Park Resort is Category B listed Dovecot. The land for the proposed residential area rises in a northerly direction. The eastern part of the site is bordered by agricultural land to the north, east and south although the Torry Burn separates the site from the agricultural land to the east. This part of the site is generally flat. 1.1.2 The site is designated as countryside within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 but is designated for residential development within the Proposed FIFEplan 2014 through policies CNH005 and CNH006. 1.2 Planning History 1.2.1 The site benefits from Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) for residential development through planning permission 14/04038/PPP. This was approved subject to the conclusion of a legal agreement on 29 July 2015 at West Planning Committee however the decision was not issued until 19 July 2016, following the conclusion of the legal agreement. The Planning Permission in Principle was approved for up to 100 units, and a SUDS and flood attenuation area, along with the upgrade of Pitdinnie Road. This application deals with the Matters Specified in Conditions of that PPP. The legal agreement required that 25% of the units be for affordable housing, a financial contribution toward the strategic transport fund and a contribution towards the provision of a Multi-Use Games Area. 1.2.2 There is no other relevant planning history for this site however it is noted that planning permission (15/01138/FULL) has been approved for the erection of 4 residential units taking access from Pitdinnie Road. This development is under construction. 1.3 Proposal 1.3.1 The proposed development includes the construction of 100 residential units along with associated SUDS, access, footpaths, landscaping, flood attenuation area and upgrade works to Pitdinnie Road. The development consists of two areas, the residential area on the western side of Pitdinnie Road and a SUDS and flood attenuation area on the eastern side of Pitdinnie Road. The residential area is split into two streets with two accesses taken from Pitdinnie Road. The northern most access would be considered the main access with the southern access designed to be a minor access point. The southern boundary of the residential area would contain an area of open space with a footpath and landscaping and the western boundary would be landscaped. A play area would be positioned within the open space along the southern boundary. The northern boundary would also have a landscaped edge.

26

1.3.2 On the eastern side of Pitdinnie Road would be a SUDS basin to contain the surface water drainage from this development site. To the south of this would be an area of flood attenuation and SUDS. This would comprise of a depressed area of land with SUDS basins. Landscaping would be provided within and around the flood attenuation area and SUDS. 1.3.3 In terms of Pitdinnie Road, following the road north from Main Street, the first significant change to the road would be on Walk Bridge where the carriageway would be widened with a footway on the western side. After the bridge the road would be widened to 4.5m and a 2m wide footway would be created on the western side of the road. As the road travels north it would widen to 5.5m with the 2m wide footway continuing. This would continue until the southern boundary of 13 Pitdinnie Road where the road would initially narrow to 3.5m wide, before widening again to 4.5m and then 5.5m. The road would be 5.5m for the rest of its length until the northern boundary of the application site. A 2m footway would be created along the full length of Pitdinnie Road from the Walk Bridge. This does not currently exist. 1.4 Application Process 1.4.1 The determination of this application would usually be a delegated matter however the application is before committee as more than 5 letters of objection have been received and the application is for approval. 1.4.2 The development was screened for EIA during the Planning Permission in Principle application and was not considered to require EIA. This application has also been screened and the conclusion of that EIA is not considered to have changed following the submission of the detailed application. 1.4.3 The application was advertised on 11 August 2016 for neighbour notification purposes and then subsequently on 15 December 2016 following the receipt of additional information with regards to works to Pitdinnie Road. Due to the delay in re-advertisement and the concern of the community that the neighbour notification was occurring over the Christmas period, comments on the application were accepted beyond the advertised end of consultation date. 1.5 Emerging Local Development Plan 1.5.1 The Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014) is a material consideration but at the current stage in the process which leads to adoption of the plan it does not have the same status or carry the same weight as the current Development Plan. In the context of this report the Proposed FIFEplan will only be referenced where it conflicts with the current Adopted Local Plan position. The examination of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) is now complete and reference may be made to any changes proposed through examination that would change a policy position. 1.5.2 This site is now designated for residential development through policy CNH005 which is part of a larger designation for the expansion north of Cairneyhill within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 2.0 Planning Assessment 2.1 The key issues relevant to an assessment of this application are - Compliance with PPP and principle of development - Design and Layout - Open Space, Play Provision and Landscaping

27

- Transportation - Residential Amenity - Flooding and Drainage - Landscape Impact - Natural Heritage - Public Art - Affordable Housing 2.2 Compliance with PPP and principle of development 2.2.1 The principle of this development has been established through the approval of the Planning Permission in Principle (PPP). Since this application was determined the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) has been through examination and the site remains part of an allocation for 250 units. This Local Development Plan is soon to be adopted. While the principle of development does not need to be revisited for an application of Matters Specified in Conditions, the proposal still needs to comply with the conditions set out in the original PPP in order for it to be considered acceptable. In this regard, the current application has been submitted under conditions 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) of the original PPP which requires further applications for market and affordable residential units, access and roads, play provision, SUDS and compensatory flood area. 2.2.2 Condition 2 of the PPP sets out certain plans and documents required with any application. This includes layout plans, elevations, landscaping plans, updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan, updated surveys for otter and water vole and site sections. This condition has been complied with. 2.2.3 Condition 3 sets out information required to be submitted with any application for market and or affordable housing. Condition 3(a) includes a requirement for the intended methodology for the delivery of affordable housing. This has been provided and the details shall be discussed in section 2.11 of the report. Part (b) requires the submission of a statement showing compliance with the terms of Fife Council's Sustainability Checklist 2010 or any document which supersedes this. This document has been superseded by the Making Fife's Place Planning Policy Guidance and a statement has been submitted with the application outlining compliance with this document and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). This statement is considered acceptable. The application submission confirms that no previous applications have been constructed or approved as required by part (c) of this condition. Conditions d) - g) require the submission of a design and access statement, details of roads, footpaths, buildings, open space etc and a drainage strategy. This has all been provided. Part h) requires the submission of a public art strategy which has been submitted and will be discussed in section 2.12 of the report. Part (i) requires the submission of a landscape impact appraisal which has been submitted and will be discussed in section 2.8 of the report. Parts (j) and (k) require details of the upgrade works to Pitdinnie Road and Main Street and the landscape buffers on the northern and western boundaries. This has been submitted and will discussed in sections 2.5 and 2.4 of the report respectively. Sufficient detail has been submitted to discharge these matters. 2.2.4 Condition 4 of the PPP requires that the first detailed application includes the submission of an integrated design framework for the whole site dealing with open space, landscaping, play provision, roads, phasing and SUDS/ drainage. This has been submitted through various documents within the submission which are sufficient to discharge this condition. It should be noted that this condition is used to provide an integrated design document for a full site where there is a likelihood of multiple applications to be made for different phases of development. For this site, one application has been made for all of the residential units within the PPP and therefore

28

this is less relevant, however it is noted that the requirements of the condition have been met in the submitted details. 2.2.5 Condition 5 limits the development to 100 units. The application proposal does not exceed this number and therefore is in compliance. Conditions 6 and 7 require the site to be constructed in a specific manner to mitigate flood risk. SEPA has confirmed that these conditions have been complied with and this will be discussed further in section 2.7 of the report. Condition 10 of the PPP requires the flood attenuation area to be designed to incorporate water vole habitat. Details have been provided in compliance with this condition and this will be discussed further in section 2.9 of the report. Condition 11 requires the Biodiversity Enhancement Plan to include specific details and this has been provided and will also be discussed in section 2.9 of the report. Condition 15 of the PPP requires details of the landscaping within the SUDS basin and flood attenuation which has been provided. 2.2.6 Condition 16 sets out the details of the transportation information required for conditions 3(e) and (j). Parts (a), (b) and (c) require the upgrade details for Pitdinnie Road, the junction improvement works for A994/ Pitdinnie Road and the other improvement works for the A994. This has been submitted and will be discussed in section 2.5 of the report. Condition 2(d) requires the submission of a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit considering the details provided for parts (b) and (c) and this has been provided and complied with. Condition parts (e) and (f) required a Construction Management Plan and a timetable for the phasing and completion of the works on Pitdinnie Road. This has been submitted and will be discussed in section 2.5 of the report. 2.2.7 Condition 18 sets out the transportation design criteria for the development including visibility splays, driveway gradients etc. Parts (a) and (b) require that a footpath/ cyclepath/ emergency and potential public transport access be provided from Drummormie Road and that a footpath link with Grey Craigs be formed. Both of these have been shown and will be discussed in section 2.5 of the report. 2.2.8 It is noted that the application boundary for this application does not include the full boundary of the PPP. This is acceptable providing that the application is in compliance with the conditions of the PPP. Applications for detailed matters of PPP can be submitted in a number of applications and do not always cover the full extent of a site. The non-inclusion of the area to the west does not prejudice the overall PPP or the delivery of this development particularly as the 100 units can still be developed along with the tree line buffer along the west of the site as required. 2.2.9 Overall it is considered that the proposed development complies with the terms of the Planning Permission in Principle and sufficient information has been submitted to discharge the relevant conditions. Whilst the application may be in accordance with the Planning Permission in Principle, an assessment must still be undertaken as to the acceptability of the development on detailed matters and the impact that this development might have now that the full details of the proposal have been submitted. 2.3 Design and Layout 2.3.1 The SPP (Placemaking) advises that planning should take every opportunity to create high quality places by taking a design-led approach and planning should support development that is designed to a high-quality, which demonstrates the six qualities of successful place. These six qualities are distinctive; safe and pleasant; welcoming; adaptable; resource efficient and easy to move around and beyond. This is further expanded upon within the Scottish Government Policy document Designing Streets which states that an emphasis should be placed on design providing

29

a sense of place and taking cognisance of the history and context of the surrounding area and design should connect and relate to the surrounding environment. 2.3.2 The Adopted Local Plan includes two key policies relating to design. Policy E3 requires new developments to respect the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. Policy E4 requires new development to make a positive contribution to its environment in terms of high standards of architecture, best use of site attributes, safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. The Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance provides further assessment considerations in this regard and provides a local context for national policy. Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the Council will apply the six qualities of successful places when considering development proposals. The development should also relate to the Indicative Development Framework approved through the Planning Permission in Principle. 2.3.3 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) advises that new dwellinghouses shall have private garden ground of at least 100 square metres per dwellinghouse with 50 square metres of private amenity ground for flats. Rear gardens should be a minimum of 9m in length. 2.3.4 The Proposed FIFEplan (following examination) sets out requirements for this site which should be considered in the design and layout. This includes providing a high quality edge and strong landscape framework along the northern and western boundaries. Cycling and pedestrian links are required from the site to the area to the south. This has been provided and will be set out in the report below. 2.3.5 The development takes place on both the western and eastern side of Pitdinnie Road. The development on the western side comprises the residential development. The residential development takes two accesses from Pitdinnie Road with one main access towards the north of the site and a secondary access to the south. The main access sweeps from north east to south west as a single street with another street branching from this around half way down and also continuing in a westerly direction. The secondary access connects into this main street from the east. This would create two small cul-de-sacs, although the main street does continue to an exit to Drummormie Road to the south. This would be controlled to be for emergency/ bus vehicles only along with pedestrians and cyclists. Internally the development is set out as a rough grid pattern with units facing onto these internal streets. The site has a mixture of conventional streets with footways and shared surfaces. The main street through the site has a single conventional carriageway with footway and a detached footway separated by a tree lined grass verge. The two street approach to the development with one to the north and one to the south has been adopted to largely find the best solution for the levels of the site and the levels will be discussed later in the report. The general development layout is considered acceptable, with distinctive streets being provided with a good use of junction nodes and units stepping forward and back due to the geometry and position of the street. The layout would create an attractive setting with a good variety of detailing in terms of house position relative to nodes, front boundary treatment and landscaping. The overall layout is considered acceptable. 2.3.6 The majority of units proposed for the site would be two storeys in height, although single storey bungalow units are proposed as part of the affordable housing mix. The units would range from 1-5 bedrooms and are predominantly detached properties although there are some semi-detached, terraced and cottage flat units. While it would have been preferred for there to be a greater mix of unit heights, there is a good mix of unit types which provides variation throughout

30

the site and avoids bland street frontages. Dual frontage units have also been employed at corner plots or where an active gable could be advantageous. It is also noted that a conventional layout has been chosen in terms of front garden lengths and the positions of houses within the plot for most properties. This would reduce the interest of the street to some degree, however it is considered that the impact of this has been reduced somewhat through the introduction of frontage boundary treatment such as hedges, the non-continuous line of houses created by the alignment of the road and the use of street trees. Features such as this should reduce the impact of rows of cars parked in front gardens which is often created by a more conventional plot layout. The proposed units and street makeup is thereby also considered acceptable. 2.3.7 The proposals for Pitdinnie Road are particularly important for this development as this would provide the current entrance to the northern expansion of Cairneyhill and should integrate the site with the rural edge of the settlement. The Council's Urban Design officer indicated that the units along this stretch of road should be situated behind a stone wall with hedge combination to retain a rural feel along this route. Given the northern edge would be the new settlement edge of Cairneyhill, this may not be fully appropriate, particularly as road frontage helps to delineate the start of a residential area for vehicles. The applicant has thereby proposed a compromise whereby the units along the site frontage would be a combination of dual frontage units sitting gable end onto the road and units fronting onto the road. These units would be set back from the road and a detailed stone wall would act as the boundary for the plots. Through this only the upper portions of the units would be seen, apart from where the units fronting onto Pitdinnie Road would have their driveway access. Along with this would be tree planting, open space, a footpath, public art detailing and replacement hedgerow. This would create a strong frontage and entrance to the site which identifies itself as a further residential area taking frontage onto Pitdinnie Road while noting the former rural location with its landscaping and boundary treatment. The entrance to this residential estate from Pitdinnie Road would be pleasant and defining and would help create a strong sense of place for future residents. 2.3.8 The majority of units within the site meet the Council's minimum standards in terms of garden ground. The only exceptions to this are units 90-92 which are short of the minimum standard. Units 90 and 92 are only marginally short while unit 91 is more significantly short. These units are small terraced units with unit 91 being the mid terrace. Achieving the minimum standard for garden ground is more difficult with smaller units and particularly mid terraced units as the proportion of garden ground to house size becomes skewed with a small dwelling sitting in a large garden plot. The minimum garden area proportions are difficult to achieve without causing difficulties for adjoining property boundaries or extremely elongated gardens. As these three units are the only units to be short of the minimum standard and given their relative size it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted in this instance. It is also noted that some gardens would contain gradient changes due to the change in levels on site. The majority of this change has little impact on garden areas however for plots 24-28 the gradient change covers a more significant area. These gardens appear to have been made longer with this in mind and it is noted that if this gradient change is not included in the usable garden area calculation, the gardens would still meet the minimum standards given the extent of garden provided for these units. All of the gardens meet the minimum 9m garden length requirement. 2.3.9 The site shows a mix of different boundary treatments. Along the frontage of the site onto Pitdinnie Road there would be a high quality stone feature wall which would provide some screening to the units while providing a decorative frontage to the site. This would help retain some sense of the rural setting by placing units behind a robust boundary feature while accepting that the character of this area has changed through the expansion of the settlement into this location. The details of this wall have not been finalised as it would incorporate some of the public art and

31

thereby these details should be requested through condition following conclusion of the public art exercise. Front gardens within the site have a combination of hedges, post and wire fences and no boundary treatment. This would create a varied street frontage and provide screening for parked cars where necessary. Hedges are proposed throughout the site and around more sensitive locations such as open space. Where side gardens front onto junction nodes or are prominent, a 1.8m high wall is proposed to provide a more decorative feature than timber fences. Timber fences are proposed along the rear boundaries of most properties, however where these would be visible, there is screen planting proposed to reduce their visual prominence and impact. Overall, the proposed boundary treatment for the site is considered acceptable and would help enhance the appearance of the development and provide variety. 2.3.10 The site has a significant gradient change, with the site rising from south to north. The higher portion of the site sits higher than the majority of Cairneyhill. The site has been designed to resolve the levels issue in terms of providing two relatively flat areas of development. This would involve the cutting of land at the northern street of the site with fill being placed along the southern street of the site. The level of the land at the northern and southern boundary will remain unchanged from their current heights with the cut and fill occurring more internally within the site. This would require the height of the land at the northern most street being lowered by between 1.6m and 1.9m and the height of the land at the lower street increasing in height by between 2.6m and 3.4m. It should be noted however that the increase in height of 3.4m would be within the open space area. The result of this would be a more gradual decline from north to south creating a gentle step change from the north of the site to the south which would help integrate the site better with the adjoining settlement. The regrading is not considered unacceptable or excessive. This change would change the appearance of this area of the settlement however it is not considered that this change would be detrimental. Keeping the current gradient and integrating units into this would have created a more detached development from the settlement with the northern units being more prominent and likely to be more detached from the units on the southern areas. The separation between the units on the southern street helps create a more gradual change between the site and the existing residential area and helps the site integrate with the existing settlement. The landscape impacts and potential impacts on residential amenity from these changes will be discussed later in the report. Overall, while it is accepted that significant regrading would be required to accommodate this development, this is not considered unacceptable for the expansion of a settlement on this scale. The end product would be a development which is sympathetic to the current gradients while integrating with the settlement to which it relates by creating a more gradual shift from high point to the low point of the settlement. 2.3.11 The general density of the overall site would be acceptable. The submitted B-plan shows that there is a good proportion of open space and landscaping to built area. The built area is generally concentrated within the north east corner of the site with landscaping wrapping round the built area. A large expanse of open space is shown in the south west corner. The northern boundary shows a landscaped edge which integrates well with the adjacent countryside. While the built area is concentrated to one area of the site, the units are all situated in relatively generous plots which nearly all exceed the minimum requirements. The areas of open space have extensive planting and all help screen and reduce the visual impact of the density of the urban area. By virtue of the strong landscaped edges and extensive open space, the site is considered to be appropriate in density. 2.3.12 The proposed house types for the site are considered appropriate. A varied group of house types have been chosen which all include effective detail such as stone lintels, eaves details and stone surrounds. The predominant facing material within the site would be white render and dark grey concrete roof tiles. The tiles chosen for the roof have a mock slate look and would be an

32

effective finish for long distance views of the site particularly where screening is provided by landscaping. The unit types and proposed materials are generally suburban in nature however there is some variety in scale and height, albeit this is created by varied heights within the two storey range rather than a variety of single and one and a half storey units. The more suburban house types can be accommodated on this settlement edge more easily with the dense landscape edges which are being proposed which would soften the impact of these buildings. Variety is provided in the materials where units are proposed in prominent locations such as corner plots or at the frontage of the site. Internally in the site, corner plot units would be finished with Anstone on their front elevations and have terracotta ridged roofing tiles. On the frontage of the site the units would be finished with Anstone on all elevations. This would help pick out these units and provide a sense of place and act as way makers when travelling through the development. It also provides some visual interest around nodes and at corner plots. In terms of the materials relationship to neighbouring properties to the south, it is noted that there is no consistency with materials on existing properties. There is no predominant material with a variety of brick, timber and render in a range of different colours. The roofing tiles are generally dark in colour however there are some terracotta and lighter coloured roofing materials. Overall, the house types and materials proposed for the site are considered acceptable. 2.3.13 The proposed residential area would sit to the north of Cairneyhill although there are some individual properties to the east of the proposed residential area. In terms of relationship with the existing properties, as noted in section 2.3.10 the site has been designed so that it would step down from the north gradually towards the existing properties to the south. While the nearest properties to the existing settlement boundary would be sited higher, due to the intervening distance these would not appear overbearing or out of place. Between the existing properties and the proposed properties would be a new footpath link set within landscaped open space. The open space while creating a separation between new and old properties, would also create a shared amenity space resource for existing and future residents. A footpath and emergency vehicular link is proposed into the existing residential area in two locations providing permeability and connectivity for pedestrian and cyclist traffic. While vehicular links would have been preferred from the south, these pedestrian links ensure that the site has connectivity with the settlement and is not seen as a separate entity. Future links can be considered should the northern expansion continue. It is considered that the development would have an acceptable relationship with the existing settlement providing connectivity and a shared resource for all residents. Once constructed it is considered that the development would also integrate well with the settlement in design and visual terms and appear as a natural continuation of the settlement with a new defensible settlement edge. 2.3.14 Consideration should also be given to the SUDS and flood attenuation area. This area would largely appear as an area of countryside. The flood attenuation area is designed as an area of depression and would include landscaping to promote biodiversity. A high standard of landscaping is proposed in this area. The SUDS basin would appear more engineered however again a high standard of landscaping is proposed within the basin and around it to help it integrate with the countryside. It is considered that this area of the site would be designed to a high quality with a good standard of landscaping which would help promote biodiversity and help integrate it with the countryside. 2.3.15 An indicative development framework was submitted with the Planning Permission in Principle and this set out the general themes for development of this site. It is noted that the detailed proposal largely follows this development framework. Both accesses from Pitdinnie Road are shown in approximately the same location although the secondary access is further north. The open space and landscape edges have been provided and the development follows the same

33

street pattern. It is noted that this application does not include the full PPP area with the western end of the PPP being excluded from this site. This has pushed much of the development eastward. The Council's Urban Design Officer noted that the vehicular link shown at the western end of the development framework was not being delivered and that a footpath link linking the northern and southern street was missing. The applicant has indicated that the vehicular link on the framework was within the PPP boundary but not the boundary of this application site and would be delivered should the northern expansion continue. The footpath link has been provided but has been moved westwards on the edge of the urban area where the gradients are more accommodating of a footpath. The Urban Design officer has commented that having the link further to the east could have reduced the density of the built up area more but was content as the footpath connection was being provided and that the proposal was largely in accordance with the framework. The Urban Design officer also expressed concern with the relocation of the secondary access further north as it meant that units would not be fronting onto the open space. This is not considered a significant concern as it is noted that habitable rooms are included within the rear of the unit types proposed and active surveillance will still be possible. Overall, the development is considered to largely follow the general principles set out for the site within the indicative development framework and therefore would be in compliance with the PPP. 2.3.16 The proposals are considered to accord with the requirements of policies E3 and E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). The proposed design and layout of the development is acceptable and the development would meet the six tests of place making in this regard. The development would create an effective extension to the settlement with an attractive layout which has good quality landscaping and open space and includes many principles of good place making. 2.4 Open Space, Play Provision and Landscaping 2.4.1 The SPP in terms of sustainable development advocates the protection of, enhancement and promotion of access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, open space and the wider environment. The part of the policy aimed at maximising the benefits of Green Infrastructure sets out a set of policy principles to help guide the delivery of this. The planning system should ensure that Green Infrastructure is an integral element of places, facilitate the long term integrated management of Green Infrastructure and provide for easy and safe access to Green Infrastructure. 2.4.2 Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan is concerned in part with residential amenity. More particularly the policy is concerned with the need to preserve acceptable levels of residential amenity when new developments are proposed. Policy E5 of the Adopted Local Plan states that housing proposals of 10 houses or more are required to provide a minimum of 60sqm of total open space per household, alongside accessible and secure equipped play, sport and recreational facilities commensurate to the scale of development. Flexibility can be applied for small sites, town centre sites, brownfield sites and where sites are adjacent to existing public open spaces. It also insists that maintenance arrangements are established for public and common areas, and where it is proposed to pass such spaces to the Council, a 25 year maintenance fee shall be passed to the Council. Further guidance has been provided in the Making Fife's Places Planning Policy Guidance (2015). 2.4.3 The proposed development includes an extensive area of open space which provides significantly more than the 6000sqm of open space required for this development. The area at the south west corner provides a large amenity space which also includes a play area. This development did not require to provide play equipment in accordance with the Making Fife's Places Planning Policy Guidance, however a small play area is proposed. This is well placed to

34

provide amenity for existing residents to the south. In terms of the play equipment, it is noted that this is aimed mainly at younger children. It is considered that further consideration should be given to the play equipment with some of the equipment replaced for items which can benefit different age groups and children with disabilities. A condition should be added to any consent requiring updated play equipment details be provided taking this into account. It is considered however that the location and general layout of the play area is acceptable. The details would meet the requirements of conditions 1(f) and 3(f) of the PPP. It should also be noted that in addition to the on site play area, the applicant is to make a monetary contribution to the Council to install a Multi-Use Games Area within Cairneyhill. 2.4.4 The site provides extensive landscaping. The PPP requires the provision of a landscape buffer along the northern and western boundaries in condition 3(k). This has been provided through the proposed planting of tree belts along with mixed planting along the northern boundary. Similar planting, although not as extensive, is proposed along the southern boundary. The woodland mix includes some 9805 No. trees. Additional trees are proposed throughout the site and this includes street trees and individual trees throughout the open space areas, along the footpaths and within the flood attenuation/ SUDS area of the site. Condition 20 indicates that the western landscape buffer is not required if the full northern expansion area of Cairneyhill is within the Adopted FIFEplan. The northern expansion of Cairneyhill remains allocated following examination and thereby this buffer could be removed, however it is considered that a denser landscaped area in this location would help reduce the density of the overall northern expansion if it progresses. Instead, the applicant has proposed to continue the road through small areas of this landscaped areas keeping much of the buffer area intact. The proposed buffer areas are considered to be of high quality and contain species which are native and would provide biodiversity benefits as well as reducing the visual impact of the proposal. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with condition 2(k) in this regard. 2.4.5 The general planting throughout the scheme includes a variety of species and areas of amenity grass, trees, shrubs and wildflower planting along with hedgerow. Amenity grass would be provided in the main open space area and along the site frontage however around the other edges of the site would be a combination of wildflower mixes, hedges, trees and woodland planting. The variety of species would provide a site with great visual appeal and an urban environment which is softened by the landscape and open space. The SUDS and flood attenuation area also has significant planting proposed. Wetland flower mixes are proposed in these areas along with areas of shrubs and trees. More defensive plants such as shrubs and hedges are proposed next to existing neighbouring properties to provide them with security and privacy. When complete this area is likely to provide an attractive amenity space which would greatly enhance this area. 2.4.6 The proposal includes the removal of areas of hedgerow and vegetation along Pitdinnie Road. This includes along the site frontage and in the areas of Pitdinnie Road where road alterations are being undertaken. Around 390.5m of hedgerow is proposed to be removed, however replacement hedgerow would be provided at a ratio of 2.8m for every 1m lost. This would be provided in linear hedgerow and hedgerow mixes. The developer was asked to translocate the hedgerow however the applicant has been advised that this has a low success rate and providing new hedgerow can provide greater enhancement over time. The intention is to replace hedgerow which is lost with new hedgerow in roughly the same location. Where this is not possible or desirable the hedgerow would be planted elsewhere. Some of the replacement hedgerow would be provided in corridors along the northern and southern boundaries of the site to act as wildlife corridors and enhance the boundaries of the site. In terms of the hedgerow to be removed, the majority of hedgerow for removal is along the frontage of the site. This appears to be by choice

35

rather than necessity. Hedgerow would be removed along the eastern and western side of Pitdinnie Road at the southern end of the residential part of the site to accommodate road widening. Replacement hedging would be provided behind the new road verge on the eastern side of the road. The plans show plants to the front of 4 and 6 Pitdinnie Road however Transportation Development Management have indicated that the new road alignment can be adjusted to retain this in order to resolve an issue with this properties pedestrian access to Pitdinnie Road. This would be resolved through the Roads Construction Consent (RCC) process. On the western side of the road some planting would be removed to accommodate a temporary access. While replacement planting is not shown here, this could be provided following replacement of the access with a new footpath. This again would be resolved through the RCC process. Other hedgerow in this location lost through realignment is to be replaced in this location. New hedging would be provided between 6 and 4 Pitdinnie Road on the eastern side of the new road. In the area just north of Walk Bridge around 37m of hedgerow would be removed and then replaced along the edge of the new road. 2.4.7 In terms of hedgerow loss it is noted that a significant length of hedgerow would be lost. The majority of this would be along the frontage of the site. Where any is lost along the southern part of Pitdinnie Road, this is mostly replaced in roughly the same location. The loss of hedgerow and planting along this stretch, where it is not replaced, would to some degree change the character of this stretch of road from a rural road to a more urban access. Hedgerow is still being provided along this stretch and the replacement hedgerow would help create a more continuous and healthier hedge. It is not considered that the areas of total loss at the southern end of Pitdinnie Road would have a significant detrimental impact. The most significant impact would be the loss along the frontage of the site. The loss of the rural feel in this location is less significant as this would be the new entrance to Cairneyhill, with the northern expansion being the start of the settlement. A more urbanised feel should help to reduce car speeds along the frontage of the site. As replacement hedgerow is being provided throughout the site at almost a 3/1 ratio with that which is lost, it is not considered that the proposed hedgerow removal is significant. The replacement hedgerow would more than compensate and with enhanced planting it is likely to provide betterment both visually and for biodiversity and providing better linear corridors for wildlife. 2.4.8 Overall, the development provides more than sufficient open space and a play area which is of a good size and located in an appropriate location for this development. The proposed landscaping is of a high quality and would provide a high degree of visual amenity and wildlife betterment. The proposal is therefore in compliance with the PPP, Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 2.5 Transportation 2.5.1 The national context for the assessment of the impact of new developments on transportation infrastructure is set out in SPP (A connected Place). The overarching aim of this document is to encourage a shift to more sustainable forms of transport and reduce the reliance on the car. Planning permission should be resisted if the development would have a significant impact on the strategic road network. 2.5.2 Policy 8 of SESplan states that Local Authorities should ensure that new development minimises the generation of additional car traffic through applying car parking standards that relate to public transport accessibility. In addition the policy states that LDP's should also ensure that the design and layout of new development demonstrably promotes non-car modes of travel and,

36

should consider the merits of protecting existing and potential traffic free cycle and walking routes (such as disused railways) affected by any development proposals. 2.5.3 Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to be located where it is accessible to the public transport network; where there is capacity in the road network and where there is no road safety problem. New development should provide safe and convenient cycle and pedestrian access; a safe route to school; cycle parking; the protection and integration of existing routes; a safe route to stations and public transport interchanges; and multiple points of access to the road network. Policy T2 requires new developments to make provision for pedestrians; traffic calming and a road layout that is in accordance with the Transportation Development Guidelines and the supplementary Designing Streets guidance. 2.5.4 The traffic impacts of this development were largely considered through the PPP. Transportation Development Management (TDM) concluded that the road network had sufficient capacity to accommodate this development however improvement works would be required to the surrounding road network. This included the upgrading of Pitdinnie Road and improvements to Main Street (A994), including the junction of Main Street and Pitdinnie Road. Looking at the improvements to Main Street first, this is required through condition 16 of the PPP. Details of the upgrade works have been submitted and this would include the relocating of the gateway/ entrance feature to the east of Cairneyhill further east along the A994 with the advanced repeater signs also relocated. Around the junction to Pitdinnie Road anti-skid surfacing would be provided on Main Street and Pitdinnie Road. The stop line from Pitdinnie Road would be pushed forward providing a visibility splay of 2.4m x 60m to the west and 4.5m x 60m to the east. A new puffin crossing would be provided to the west of the junction. These matters would all be agreed through a separate Section 56 Consent however TDM have confirmed that they are acceptable for the purposes of providing a junction that would provide adequate access to Pitdinnie Road for the volume of traffic resulting from the development. A stage 2 Road Safety Audit has been submitted which covers this junction. This found two potential issues. The first potential issue was the interaction of the proposed puffin crossing with No.9 Main Street. The audit suggests that this is repositioned and TDM have indicated that this is possible and would be dealt with through the Section 56 Consent application. The second point identified the potential for cars to have minor accidents after installation of the puffin crossing due to it being new to the road network. The solution identified for this is to provide temporary warning signs identifying the new crossing, which is a standard requirement for new pedestrian crossings. TDM have considered the proposed improvements and the Road Safety Audit and consider this to be acceptable for the proposed development. 2.5.5 The proposed upgrades to Pitdinnie Road are outlined in section 1.3.3 of the report. In brief these would result in the following for Pitdinnie Road: - A continuous 2 metres wide footway on the west side of the carriageway; - Widening the existing carriageway to between 4.5 - 5.5 metres over the majority of the site; - Two sections of carriageway width of 3.5 metres, both less than 30 metres long; - The carriageway kerb on the east side of Pitdinnie Road fronting 1 - 3 Pitdinnie Farm Cottages being relocated some 3 metres from the existing public road boundary fronting the cottages. The 3 metres wide strip would be constructed as a grass verge with reconstructed vehicular crossings to the existing properties being provided; - The carriageway kerb on the east side of Pitdinnie Road fronting both 4 and 6 Pitdinnie Road would located some 1 metre from the existing public road boundary fronting the property. The 1 metre strip would be formed as a footway with dropped kerbs at the pedestrian access and driveways to the cottages.

37

- Traffic calming measures in the form of speed cushions are being introduced, although the locations and type of the proposed measures are to be finalised. - Removal and replacement of hedgerows. 2.5.6 The result of these alterations would be for Pitdinnie Road to become a two lane carriageway for the majority of the site between the junction with Main Street and the northern end of the residential site. Two sections of carriageway would not meet this requirement. TDM have considered the proposed improvements and consider that this would be adequate in order to provide access to this site. The speed limit along this stretch is set at 20mph and these measures would improve the road to provide for vehicles to continually pass one another for almost the whole stretch of road and provide a dedicated footway for pedestrians. It is recognised that this would change the character of this road however as this road would now be part of the northern expansion of Cairneyhill and integral to this, it is considered appropriate for this to be brought up to a standard appropriate for being within the settlement. In accepting the principle of development within the north of Cairneyhill, as the Proposed FIFEplan does, there needs to be a recognition that this area of Cairneyhill and indeed Pitdinnie Road would be subject to change. These enhancements create a road appropriate for the settlement expansion and to a standard suitable for being within the settlement boundary. A Stage 2 Road Safety Audit was also carried out for this stretch of road. This identified a number of issues with regards to previous plans submitted. These have been resolved through the current proposals for the upgrade of Pitdinnie Road and TDM are content with the Road Safety Audit and the proposals. 2.5.7 Objections have been received from some residents on Pitdinnie Road who currently use passing places and laybys as on street parking. They are concerned that these works would remove these parking areas. It is noted that there would no longer be dedicated laybys on Pitdinnie Road to the front of any of the existing residences. The improvement works along Pitdinnie Road however would ensure that the road was wide enough to allow for a vehicle to continue to be parked on Pitdinnie Road and allow other vehicles to pass. These works thereby would not remove the existing resident’s ability to park on Pitdinnie Road and the road would remain a public road with no parking restrictions. The individuals in these properties would not be forced to travel further for any on street parking they wish to utilise. The proposed works also ensure that existing pedestrian and vehicular access from the properties on Pitdinnie Road would be retained.

2.5.8 Pitdinnie Road crosses over the Torry Burn and Walk Bridge is used as the crossing point for vehicles. Consideration was given to widening the Walk Bridge to provide a 4.5 metres wide carriageway with 2m footway on its western side thereby providing an improvement to this bridge for the additional vehicle trips. This would have required extensive engineering works. Instead it has been agreed to provide a 3.5m wide carriageway and a footway on the west side. Concerns have been raised that the bridge cannot take the additional trips proposed for this development however given that there is no existing weight restriction on the bridge and that the carriageway narrowing will act as a traffic calming feature, TDM concluded that they could not insist on the bridge being widened. The condition of Walk Bridge would be monitored during the whole construction period however and any damage attributable to construction works would need to be made good by the developer. 2.5.9 The vehicular access from the site would involve two points of access onto Pitdinnie Road. The southern access has been designed to slow traffic as it is not the primary access but would be the most convenient access point for those travelling from the south. The secondary street has been designed as a 5 metres wide shared surface carriageway with 2 metres wide pedestrian routes/service strips on both sides with contrasting materials being utilised. Trees are also proposed within the carriageway to provide further traffic calming. The internal road is

38

largely conventional however the use of nodes and traffic calming would ensure traffic speeds are reduced. The use of the conventional layout is more acceptable from the entrance to the development from the wider street network however it would be expected that any continuation of the northern expansion area would accommodate less conventional street layouts. In terms of parking it is noted the site provides sufficient in parking provision. TDM note that garages can be counted as parking spaces as sufficient space within the garages have been provided in order for a car to be adequately parking within it. TDM note that the affordable housing within Plots 82 – 85 & 90 – 98 require 19 communal car parking while 18 spaces are shown. TDM consider this to be acceptable. The proposed 87 houses with allocated parking require 22 visitor parking space and 20 visitor car parking spaces which is acceptable albeit distribution of spaces is not great. TDM consider that the parking proposed for the site is acceptable.

2.5.10 Condition 18 of the Planning Permission in Principle requires connections to be made to Drummormie Road and Grey Craigs. The Proposed FIFEplan also states that pedestrian and cyclist connections need to be made to these locations. The plans show an emergency/ bus/ cycleway/ footpath connection to Drummormie Road as required, although TDM note that they would have preferred this to be another permanent full access for vehicles to provide further permeability. Details of how this emergency access would be managed should be requested as a condition. The proposal also includes a link to Grey Craigs with a raised area being provided over the swale along the southern boundary. This would attach to an area of green space allowing connection to Grey Craigs. These connections would provide connectivity and permeability for the scheme and are in accordance with the PPP. 2.5.11 The proposal includes a number of internal footpaths connecting to proposed and existing footpath networks out with the site. The site would promote walking and contains a number of routes which would be remote from the road network. Safe routes to school are provided within and out of the site. Pitdinnie Road is a Core Path and National Route cycleway. Neither of these would be diverted or realigned. The upgrading of Pitdinnie Road would be of benefit to pedestrians as a Core Path as a 2m wide footway would now be provided for a significant length of the Core Path. The enhancements to the carriageway would also lessen the conflict for cyclists through providing a wider carriageway for vehicles to pass cyclists safely. The additional traffic on this route is not considered to cause any significant risk to cyclists on this route particularly given that the road would be widened to allow two vehicles to pass over most of its route. The road is also within the settlement boundary and has a 20mph limit. The speed cushions would be designed and placed taking into account the National Cycle route and this would be considered through the RCC. 2.5.12 A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted over a number of documents in accordance with condition 16 of the PPP. This covers aspects of the construction including site traffic, site management and site compounds. This shows that there would be a parking/ compound/ storage area towards the central area of the site adjacent to Pitdinnie Road. The construction traffic would leave the site and head south down Pitdinnie Road towards Main Street. The CMP includes a timetable and phasing for the works to Pitdinnie Road. Phase 1 and phase 2 would be the works carried out along the frontage of the site. This would be done in two phases which would allow traffic to continue to use Pitdinnie Road although this would be traffic controlled. This would occur over an 8 week period. It is noted that there is a need for a temporary access to be created from Rose Gardens for a temporary period of around 4-5 weeks. This is to account for the upgrade works being undertaken around the Walk Bridge area where works cannot be undertaken while allowing vehicles to safely pass. A temporary access has previously been taken from Rose Gardens during previous works the Council undertook. TDM have indicated that this

39

temporary access is possible and would be acceptable. It should be noted that this temporary access would essentially be a diversion for current traffic that use Pitdinnie Road. No construction traffic would use this as they could still access the site from the south of Pitdinnie Road. A temporary road closure requires a separate application in terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and is dealt with by the Roads Network Management team. A minimum of 6 weeks notice is required and the applicant will be expected to carry out a full consultation with affected residents and businesses on both Pitdinnie Road and the diversion route. This shall be carried out prior to the application being submitted. A condition should be applied stating that no construction traffic should use the temporary access. Safe vehicular and pedestrian access to all existing premises on Pitdinnie Road would have to be maintained during the temporary closure. An application for a temporary road closure would not be granted if the temporary arrangements are not acceptable to Roads Network Management. The applicant would be asked to discuss separately with Forester Park the proposed schedule for these works to ensure that no coaches or large vehicles inappropriate for the residential streets are required during this time. Mini buses would however be considered a reasonable alternative. This would be added as an informative to any consent. Good traffic management and communication locally would ensure that this temporary access is utilised with minimal impact and this would be assessed as part of the application for temporary closure. The overall construction period for this road would be some 18 weeks with the temporary access only being a maximum 5 weeks. While it is accepted there would be disruption during this period, it is considered by TDM that this would be reasonable and not unacceptable. 2.5.13 This site is required to provide £1800 towards the Strategic Transport Fund in accordance with Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan and the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015). This is required to provide strategic interventions in the wider road network to mitigate the cumulative impact of the additional trips on the road network from the sites proposed within the Proposed LDP. This contribution has been secured through the PPP and therefore the site is in compliance with these requirements. 2.5.14 The proposed development is considered to comply with the Planning Permission in Principle, Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan on transportation matters. The proposal includes an acceptable internal road design and two vehicular accesses onto Pitdinnie Road along with multiple footpath connections and an emergency access connection to the south. The proposed enhancements to Pitdinnie Road and Main Street are acceptable and would be sufficient to accommodate a development of this scale. It is accepted that the improvements to Pitdinnie Road would change the character of the road from a rural road to an urban carriageway however this would be reasonable in the context of the overall expansion of the settlement and would provide some betterment in terms of providing a continuous footway for pedestrians. 2.6 Residential Amenity 2.6.1 Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development proposals which protect personal privacy and amenity. Policy E2 of the Local Plan supports development proposals where they are compatible with neighbouring uses and do not adversely affect the privacy of neighbours. Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that development will only be supported if it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses. The policy sets out the considerations in this regard which includes impact from noise, traffic movements, construction impacts, impacts on the operation of existing or proposed businesses and commercial operations and loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that developments will include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance

40

2.6.2 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) complement the aforementioned policies by advocating that design of residential environments must seek to ensure that adequate levels of natural light can be achieved within new development and unacceptable impacts on light to nearby properties are avoided. Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings sets out British Industry Standards on the accepted distance between windows to ensure personal privacy is maintained. 2.6.3 In assessing residential amenity, attention should be paid not only to existing adjacent neighbours to the site but also to the interaction of the proposed houses to each other within the site. All plot layouts and housing units have been designed to ensure that the windows of the proposed dwellings would be in compliance with the distances set out within the aforementioned Customer Guideline. The minimum 18m window to window distance has been achieved internally within the site due to the minimum garden lengths being achieved and the position of units relative to another. Due to the block pattern of the development, there would be instances where units back onto the side of the neighbouring properties causing a number of units to overlook some properties rear gardens. This would occur for plots 39, 58, 59, 97 and 98. Given the extent of the gardens being proposed this would not cause a significant privacy issue. As the neighbouring units also have at least 9m long rear gardens a good degree of privacy could be achieved. Future residents would also be buying the units with the knowledge of the arrangement of this unit relative to other properties. Again due to the block pattern of the layout and the design of some of the streets, there is the potential for some units within the site to cause some overshadowing of neighbouring properties. This would be most prominent where units are to the south of the neighbouring unit. No plot would suffer significant overshadowing in terms of habitable rooms or gardens that could be considered unacceptable and again the future residents would be purchasing their property on the knowledge of the position of neighbouring properties. 2.6.4 In terms of the impact on existing properties neighbouring the site, it is noted that all properties proposed within the development are a considerable distance from existing properties. The nearest properties to external plots would be plots 57 and 60 which border Pitdinnie Road however they would be at least 25m from the existing properties at Pitdinnie Farm Cottages to the east. On this basis there would be no significant privacy or sunlight/ daylight issues caused by this development to existing neighbouring properties. Consideration has also been given to the change in levels between the site and the properties to the south. While the units within the site would be raised relative to the existing properties, there would be at least 46m between any two units. This along with the proposed landscaping would avoid any significant privacy issues from being created. 2.6.5 The works to Pitdinnie Road would change its character and create a different appearance and environment for those which already reside on Pitdinnie Road. The upgrading to this road would result in additional traffic with the development on the site. Pitdinnie Road has always been a through route and is an access to Forester Park resort and Carnock beyond. The traffic on this road while relatively low, has always been more than just as an access for the properties on Pitdinnie Road. There should be no expectation that the traffic on this road would remain at a constant level given that existing neighbouring land uses or events and development in settlements to the north could lead to an increase in traffic on this road. While the nature of the road would change from being a rural road to a more urban road, this would not significantly affect amenity. The residents would note a change in their immediate environment however this is a public road and could be upgraded at any point to provide street lighting and a footway and thereby their amenity in this regard is not protected. It is not considered that the works would have a significant detrimental impact on amenity.

41

2.6.6 A scheme of works was requested by Public Protection and this has been submitted. This sets out the working practices for the site in terms of noise and dust suppression along with working hours. The working hours are within the specified acceptable range by Public Protection and are considered acceptable. The scheme of works would be monitored during construction to ensure that residential amenity is protected during the works. Some disruption is likely for residents on Pitdinnie Road during the upgrade works. This would be for a short period and continued access to their properties would need to be retained through any road closure process. The temporary access would also lead to an increase in traffic through Rose Gardens. This is unlikely to be significant given the road traffic numbers on Pitdinnie Road are not currently very high and this would be complete prior to any units being inhabited within the development site. In addition, no construction traffic would be allowed through the residential area. 2.6.7 The proposed development would not lead to any significant impact in terms of loss of residential amenity through overshadowing or loss of privacy or daylight for existing or future residents or the works The proposed development would therefore meet the development plan and Proposed FIFEplan requirements in this regard along with according with the provisions of the PPP in terms of the submission documents. 2.7 Flooding and Drainage 2.7.1 The SPP (Managing Flood Risk and Drainage) indicates that the planning system should promote: a precautionary approach to flood risk taking account of the predicted effects of climate change; flood avoidance by safeguarding flood storage and conveying capacity, and locating development away from functional flood plains and medium to high risk areas; flood reduction: assessing flood risk and, where appropriate, undertaking flood management measures and avoidance of increased surface water flooding through requirements for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and minimising the area of impermeable surface. 2.7.2 Policy 15 of the SESplan states that LDPs will be required to avoid allocating areas that are in medium to high flood risk areas and should safeguard areas that will contribute to reducing overall flood risk and promote enhancement of the water environment in new developments. 2.7.3 Policies I3, I4, and I5 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that developments should not place unacceptable demands on public infrastructure including drainage systems, that developments will not be supported if they would increase the risk of flooding, nor will they be supported if Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or other similar appropriate measures are not undertaken. Consideration should also be given to the guidance contained within the Council's advice note on flooding and drainage. Policy 12 of the Proposed FIFEplan does not fundamentally change these considerations. 2.7.4 In terms of flood risk, the site has areas of flood risk along the southern boundary of the site, on the Walk Bridge and in the field to east of Pitdinnie Road. Conditions 2(g), 6 and 7 require details of flood risk, drainage and also set out requirements of SEPA in terms of mitigating against flood risk. SEPA and the Council's Harbours, Floods and Coast Team have considered the submitted information and consider that the development is not at risk of flooding and would not cause any significant flood risk elsewhere. The area of the site along the southern boundary which is at risk of flooding would not be developed on. Instead this area would be developed as a swale and flood attenuation area which would provide some betterment in relation to flood risk. The swale would help assist in the slower proliferation of water into the adjacent watercourse while the flood attenuation feature would provide additional storage for flood events. The area in the eastern

42

part of the site which is at risk of flooding would be re-profiled as a flood attenuation area to provide betterment in this regard. The SUDS area has been kept away from the area of flood risk.

2.7.5 There has been significant concern raised by objectors with regards to the potential of this development causing further flooding within Cairneyhill which currently suffers from flooding and a flood defence scheme having been created for the settlement. This proposal introduces built development onto greenfield land and where this occurs the development is required to provide a drainage solution which results in the discharge of surface water to a maximum of greenfield levels. Currently the water from the site as an agricultural field flows downhill in a southerly direction towards the settlement edge and the FRA indicates that this adds to the flood risk for these immediate areas. Following development all the water landing on the developed surfaced would be collected and piped to the SUDS basin to the east. This would thereby remove the volume of water from the field currently flowing towards the properties to the south. The SUDS basin would be designed to attenuate water and discharge the water to Torry Burn at a low discharge rate given the Torry Burns history of flooding. SEPA and the Council's Harbours, Floods and Coast Team have considered this solution and indicate that the development would not cause any significant flood risk elsewhere within the settlement. The SUDS basin would be out with the flood risk area to the east of the site. A swale would be introduced along the northern boundary to take the current runoff from the northern part of the site and slowly discharge it in situ and heavy tree planting is proposed in this area which would also absorb more runoff. This would reduce any runoff travelling south. The runoff from the other greenfield land would discharge toward the Rushy Burn but would be captured by the swale along the southern boundary creating a relatively slow discharge rate. Overall, the proposal would reduce the current runoff from the field entering the residential area to the south, deal with the built area through means of a SUDS basin before discharging at a lower rate to the Torry Burn and deal with the greenfield run off by way of swales. It should be remembered that the purpose of SUDS is to attenuate water and ensure that it discharges to water courses at a slow discharge rate to ensure that the water courses are not inundated with water which could cause or add to flooding. In total, SEPA is confident that this development would not cause any additional flood risk to Cairneyhill whilst the applicant considers that there could be some betterment through the slower discharge from the site. 2.7.6 The development site has shown that it can attenuate and mitigate the drainage from the site so as to not cause any additional flood risk for Cairneyhill, however the applicant has proposed some flood mitigation as a betterment for Cairneyhill. This field is currently at flood risk and has flooded in the past. The developer has proposed to create a depression in the field which would increase the storage that the field could manage thereby creating greater flood attenuation. The flood attenuation would be adjacent to Torry Burn and would be upstream from Cairneyhill thereby reducing the volume of flood water that might enter Cairneyhill and in particular reducing the flood risk to the Gala fields. The assessment with the application indicates that this would bring the flood prevention measures within Cairneyhill back to their original levels when the flood prevention system was installed. The submitted information also indicates that if this is proved successful there would be scope to increase the capacity for storage within the site for further betterment. This area would be maintained by the applicant in the long term and thereby this could be discussed at a later date if necessary. Overall, this part of the proposal is likely to create some betterment for Cairneyhill in the long term. 2.7.7 As noted, Pitdinnie Road around the Walk Bridge is at flood risk and has a history of flooding. The applicant in their proposals has shown that they would be providing additional drainage to this road which would take any surface water to their SUDS basin. This detail would be approved through the RCC process and should reduce the likelihood of flooding on the road. As no development is proposed in this location, the development would not place any property at risk

43

however consideration should be given to the safe access of the site by vehicles, pedestrians and emergency services. If the Walk Bridge area was still to flood following improvements, there are alternative accesses to the site via Pitdinnie Road from the north or via the emergency access at Drummormie Road. There is a risk that Drummormie Road may also be at flood risk during heavy rainfall however as noted there is an alternative from the north in that instance. The flood risk in this location is therefore not considered significant. 2.7.8 The proposed development is in accordance with the Planning Permission in Principle and the Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan as the development would not introduce built development in an area of flood risk and would attenuate and mitigate the drainage from the site to an acceptable level. The inclusion of the flood attenuation could create a betterment for Cairneyhill. 2.8 Landscape Impact 2.8.1 Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to make a positive contribution to its environment in terms of high standards of architecture and best use of site attributes. Policy 13 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) states that development proposals will only be supported where they protect or enhance natural heritage and access assets including landscape character and views. 2.8.2 Condition 3(i) requires the submission of landscape and visual appraisal and this has been submitted. A number of viewpoints were submitted with the appraisal and the appraisal includes how the development might look when finished without the vegetation being established to 10/ 15 years in the future when the landscaping has been established. The appraisal concludes that the development would not have any significant visual or landscape impact once the landscaping is established. It also concludes that the appraisal confirms that the height, massing and density of the proposal is in keeping with that of the existing settlement. It also shows that while the northern part of the development is elevated, it is not out of keeping with the rest of the settlement and the landscaping would provide a backdrop so as to lessen any dominance of buildings. 2.8.3 Viewpoint 1 is taken from around 100m north of the site. This shows that the units would be clearly prominent from this view on completion, with much of Cairneyhill in the background obscured. The units however do not break the skyline created by the Pentland hills. The Urban Design officer has indicated that they would have preferred more variation on unit types and heights which would have provided a more varied roofline particularly in this location. It is noted that the most north easterly units are more prominent and their preference would have been for one or one and a half storey units to be provided here to lessen the overall heights of the units. The northern boundary of the site includes an extensive woodland corridor as required by the Proposed FIFEplan to create a new settlement edge. The viewpoint of 15 years in advance notes that the units would almost be completely obscured by trees at this point thereby removing any potential impact from this direction. It is important that this tree plantation is formed quickly and a condition should be applied requiring planting to be carried out following completion of the associated unit in that location. The proposal is therefore likely to have a short term visual impact from this direction but this would be mitigated over time and thereby it is concluded that there would be no significant impact from this development from this direction. 2.8.4 Viewpoint 2 is taken from the west and shows that the development would appear as an expansion of the settlement. The units would not break the treeline currently to the east of the site which provides the backdrop to the site from this direction. Over time views to the units would be obscured by a tree buffer and potentially by further expansion of residential units should the whole

44

northern expansion be developed. The change in levels is not significantly apparent from this viewpoint. There is considered to be no significant impact from this direction. Similarly in viewpoint 3 taken from a longer distance to the north, the development appears as an extension to Cairneyhill and does not appear out of place or incongruous with the existing settlement. Viewpoint 4 is taken from the junction of Pitdinnie Road and Main Street and shows that the development would successfully continue the building line and built form already established on Pitdinnie Road. No significant impact is likely from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 5 considers views from the south on the A985. The development site is not easily apparent from this viewpoint and no significant impact is likely. The final viewpoint is taken from Grey Craigs and shows how the development would look relative to the existing units. The separation distance lessens the impact of the gradient change and the development appears as an extension. The viewpoint chosen shows the open space area rather than the most intensive area of development however it is not considered that the site would be incongruous to the existing settlement and would appear as an appropriate expansion. 2.8.5 Overall, it is considered that the development would have some visual impact from more direct viewpoints and this would be most visible during and shortly after construction is complete. This impact however would not be significant given the sensitivity of the landscape and the planting mitigation proposed. In wider views of the development the visual or landscape impact is not considered significant, with the development appearing to fit with the existing settlement in scale and density. Cairneyhill has in the past tended to develop in this direction and following establishment of the vegetation it is likely that this area would appear as a further natural extension of the settlement and not out of place with the context. The Council's urban design officer has concluded that they would have preferred more variation in the heights of the units but that they do not consider it likely that there would be any significant landscape impact. The northern tree plantation has been expanded to provide further mitigation in this regard and lessen the impact of the larger units on the northern slopes. 2.8.6 The development would therefore be in accordance with the Planning Permission in Principle, Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 2.9 Natural Heritage 2.9.1 SPP (Landscape and Natural Heritage) aims to raise awareness that both development and conservation of the natural heritage can be compatible through careful planning. Policy E21 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development that will have an adverse effect on European Protected Species will not be permitted unless the developer meets the specified criteria. Policy E23 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development that may affect national and local priority habitats or species, as identified in the Scottish Biodiversity List or Fife Local Biodiversity Action Plan, will not be permitted unless the developer submits an appraisal showing that there will be no adverse effect on the habitat or species within the ecosystem or, any significant adverse effect is clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of significant local importance. The policy concludes by stating that all development should contribute to the overall environmental enhancement by taking into account the benefits to biodiversity as per Policy E3. Policy 13 of the Proposed FIFEplan also outlines that development proposals will only be supported where they protect or enhance natural heritage. This policy sets out the requirements in terms of site appraisals and habitat surveys. 2.9.2 The original application undertook site surveys which found there to be no significant risk to any protected species. The PPP required updated surveys for otter and water vole to be undertaken under condition 2. These have been carried out and confirm that the conclusions of

45

the original assessment remain. The PPP also requires further survey work to be carried out prior to any works starting on site. It is therefore concluded that the development would not raise any risks in terms of habitat or protected species loss or disturbance. 2.9.3 Condition 2 requires the submission of a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) which has been submitted. This sets out the site proposals in terms of biodiversity enhancement and this centres around the planting of species rich vegetation areas including woodland mixes, scattered trees, wildflower meadows and hedgerow mixes. The BEP outlines the creation of wildlife corridors to allow wildlife to travel between habitat areas and promote biodiversity. The flood attenuation area would include the creation of a water vole habitat through engineering parts of this with steeper walls to promote the use by water voles which were thought to be present in the water course catchment at one time. This was a requirement of the PPP. Overall, the BEP outlines that a diverse and mixed habitat would be created in the open space areas of the site and the SUDS/ flood attenuation area along with water vole habitat. The BEP is considered to achieve the aim of biodiversity enhancement and the RPSB have commented on the application indicating they support the conclusions and proposals within the BEP. 2.9.4 The development would not place any protected species or habitats at significant risk and would be in accordance with the Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan (2014) in this regard. The proposal is in accordance with the Planning Permission in Principle in that further survey work has been carried out and a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan has been submitted which successfully shows that the development would provide betterment in terms of biodiversity. 2.10 Public Art 2.10.1 Policy E14 of the Adopted Local Plan requires all major developments or prominent sites to make provision for public art. This policy has largely been superseded by Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEPlan and the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) which are material considerations of significant weight. Details on how public art should be achieved is set out within the Making Fifes Planning Policy Guidance. 2.10.2 Condition 3(h) of the Planning Permission in Principle requires the submission of a public art strategy and this has been submitted. This has set out the general themes of the public art for the site and set the budget for the site as £300 per market unit which is in accordance with the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance. A budget of £30,000 has therefore been set and half of this would be targeted at the sculpted walls and the rest spread over the other elements. The public art would be focused along the site frontage and would be delivered by landscape architects and an artist. The theme which has been settled on is that of 'weaving' which is based on what the applicant considers to be the history of the settlement and its purpose at inception as a settlement for local weavers. The public art would include sculptured walls, entrance features and seating areas. This would be delivered through consultation with the local community with detailed proposals being presented for comment and discussion with local groups. 2.10.3 The submitted public art strategy would meet the requirements of the condition of the Planning Permission in Principle and the strategy is in accordance with the Proposed FIFEplan and Planning Obligations Framework in terms of budget, public consultation and requirements. 2.11 Affordable Housing 2.11.1 PAN2/2010 sets out government advice on the provision of affordable housing. Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that housing proposals must accord with the strategic plan

46

housing land requirement and this is further considered in Fife Council's Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011). There is a requirement for 25% of the housing on site to be provided for affordable housing and this is set within a legal agreement. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that open market housing development must provide affordable housing at the levels shown in Figure 2.2 for each Housing Market Area (HMA), consistent with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance. This should be fully integrated into new development and be indistinguishable from other forms of housing. In order to achieve mixed and balanced communities, mixed tenure developments will be promoted. 2.11.2 The site requires 25% affordable housing and this was secured through legal agreement on the Planning Permission in Principle. Condition 3(a) of the PPP requires a statement to be provided which sets out the means of delivery of the affordable housing and this has been provided. This statement outlines that 25 units would be provided on site and these would be delivered and provided to Kingdom Housing Association for social rent. This would include 1 and 2 bed cottage flats, 2 bed bungalows, 2 and 3 bed terraced and 2, 3 and 4 bed semi-detached units. The units are positioned at the south west corner of the site and would benefit from a high degree of landscaping and would have the benefit of close proximity to the main amenity space. The units are designed so as to be indistinguishable from the market units. 2.11.3 The affordable housing team has been consulted and has expressed concern that the mix shows 1 bed cottage flats. This mix however has been agreed with Kingdom Housing Association as the mix they want on the site. The affordable housing element can therefore be delivered and a suitable Rented Social Landlord (RSL) is in place. 2.11.4 The proposed development would provide a suitable solution for affordable housing in accordance with National Policy, Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan. The proposal is also in accordance with the Planning Permission in Principle as 25 affordable units would be delivered by an appropriate RSL.

CONSULTATIONS Transportation No objections subject to conditions. Consider

the upgrade to Pitdinnie Road and Main Street sufficient for this development. Consider the internal layout and parking provision acceptable.

Environmental Health (Public Protection) - EPES

No objections subject to securing a scheme of works.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency Initially objected as there were some outstanding matters to address. Following the submission of further information they removed their objection and indicated that they conditions they required on the PPP had been complied with.

Structural Services - Harbours, Flood And Coast

No objections. The development would not pose any significant flood risk to Cairneyhill and sufficient drainage is proposed. Two final

47

pieces of information are required in terms of the drainage however these are minor details relating to the internals of the site and can be requested as conditions.

Scottish Water No Comments Community Council No Comments Land And Air Quality - EPES Note that condition 13 applies the controls

they require. Housing And Neighbourhood Services Raised concerns with the mix of units being

proposed. This has been agreed with Kingdom Housing Association.

Transportation And Environmental Services - Operations Team

No comments

Parks Development And Countryside No comments

REPRESENTATIONS

A total of 82 letters of objection have been received for this application with objections also being received from Cairneyhill Residents Association and Muir Homes. A portion of these are further representations from the same parties following re-neighbour notification. The points of objection raised include: Transportation (General):

- Additional traffic would have impact on safety of residents and local accesses; - There is no commitment to a second access from the west; - This development would only have a single access contrary to Designing Streets; - A secondary access to the west is required before the occupation of the 100th unit; - Two access onto the same road creates a cul-de-sac effect contrary to Designing Streets; - Road Safety Audit is deficient as does not consider all aspects as required by conditions; - Pitdinnie Road is not suitable for HGV’s; - Risk to safe route to school; - Traffic surveys were undertaken at the wrong time of day; - The road safety aspects of Pitdinnie road when it leaves Cairneyhill toward Carnock has

been given no consideration. - Traffic measurements are inaccurate; - Street that school is on is a no through route and with additional cars from this development,

there will be additional road impacts from parents dropping children off. Response:

The majority of these matters are addressed within section 2.5 of this report. The impact on the local road network has been considered and the wider impact on the road network was considered during the PPP application. The commitment to the secondary access from the west is not required to implement this development alone but would be required for subsequent phases. The development has two permanent vehicular access, an emergency vehicular access and multiple pedestrian and cyclist connections in accordance with Designing Streets. There are multiple vehicular accesses should any part of the main route to the site (travelling north from Main Street) be blocked. While the Proposed LDP specifies that an access from the west is required prior to

48

the occupation of the 100th unit, TDM considered at the PPP stage that this was not required. Consideration of this will be required for future phases however. TDM consider the Road Safety Audit’s, traffic surveys and traffic measurements to be acceptable. Pitdinnie Road will be upgraded to be suitable for construction traffic to the site. The Transport Assessment did consider traffic travelling north from the site but indicated that this would likely be low. This is a public road and future residents will have the choice of travelling north or south along Pitdinnie Road however TDM consider the majority of trips will be to the south. This therefore was considered. The school would be within walking distance of the site and therefore should not increase traffic to the school. It is likely that some parents may drive to the school however the number would be difficult to quantify for any meaningful assessment.

Transportation (Pitdinnie Road):

- Vehicle trips to and from the site will have been underestimated due to distance of site from public transport links;

- Too many additional vehicle on Pitdinnie Road which is a single track country road; - The 20mph is not adhered to on Pitdinnie Road; - Previous Council decisions have stated that Pitdinnie Road is not suitable as a primary

access; - Initial consideration of Pitdinnie Road for LDP purposes concluded it was inadequate. - Safety concerns for residents and children in Rose Gardens from increase in traffic on

Pitdinnie Road; - The upgrade proposals for Pitdinnie Road are inadequate; - Concerns for pedestrian safety on Core Path; - The site accesses would create conflict with Forester Park and existing driveway as they are

uncontrolled; - Negotiating Pitdinnie Road in winter months will be difficult; - The other development on Pitdinnie Road will cause a negative cumulative impact; - No provision for cyclists on Pitdinnie Road; - The Walk Bridge has load limitations; - Pitdinnie Road was never designed for this volume of traffic; - Loss of parking spaces on Pitdinnie Road; - Inadequate provision for residents accessing driveways on Pitdinnie Road; - No provision for farm traffic on Pitdinnie Road; - Speed bumps are required on Pitdinnine Road;

Response: TDM consider the vehicle trip assessment to be acceptable. Pitdinnie Road would be upgraded making it suitable for this development and traffic volume and thereby a suitable solution has been found to alleviate previous concerns. The upgrading of Pitdinnie Road would resolve many of the issues expressed in the application. There would be an increase in traffic on Pitdinnie Road however these would be required to adhere to the traffic laws on speed and road discipline. Pedestrians on the Core Path will benefit from a dedicated footway and cyclists will benefit from the widening of the road. Conflict between the accesses would be infrequent and not cause any significant risk. The other development on Pitdinnine Road has been considered with this application. Pitdinnie Road already requires negotiation by current residents. While there would be further traffic on Pitdinnie Road this would not alter the current situation. Walk Bridge is covered in section 2.5.8 of this report. There are currently no parking spaces and the parking and driveway access on Pitdinnie Road is considered in section 2.5.7 of this report. Farm traffic has been provided for by widening the road and traffic calming is to be provided.

49

Transportation (Pitdinnie Road/ Main Street)-Junction from Pitdinnie Road to Main Street is not suitable;

- There have been a number of accidents at the junction of Pitdinnie Road and Main Street which shows it to be unsuitable;

- Lead to congestion on Main Street; - Safety concerns of using access onto Main Street from Pitdinnie Road and counter to

previous Council decisions; - Pitdinnie Road and its junction with Main Street has many constraints which makes it

unsuitable for access for this scale of development including poor visibility, thin footways etc; - Improvements to Main Street will not assist as vehicles are above speed limit on entering

settlement; - Lack of traffic control at top of Pitdinnie Road; - Greater congestion on Main St affecting Stagecoach’s timetable;

- There are a number of potential conflicts on Main Street adjacent to the junction with Pitdinnie Road including property accesses, cyclepath exit and thin footways;

- Conflict for cyclists at end of cycleway; - Pedestrian crossing may cause issues for road network; - Inadequate visibility splay being proposed as junction between Pitdinnie Road and Main

Street; Response:

Accidents at the junction between Main Street and Pitdinnie Road does not dictate that a junction is not suitable and indeed improvements are proposed to alleviate deficiencies in the junction. The change in the stance of how this junction and Pitdinnie Road should be delivered is not material as a suitable solution has been found and standards change with time. The proposed upgrades to this junction are considered in section 2.5.4 of the report. The junction when enhanced would be sufficient for this development and has sufficient visibility. The existing hazards identified would not warrant the use of this junction unacceptable. The proposal to move the 30mph signage further east is to promote vehicles slow down before this junction. The additional vehicles on the road are not considered to be of a sufficient scale to cause any significant impact to Stagecoaches services. Transportation (Emergency Access)

- The use of Drummormie Road for pedestrians, buses and emergency vehicles should not be allowed as this road is busy enough with parked cars and other vehicles;

- Emergency access will be impossible to supervise causing a rat run; - Will traffic measures be employed to control parking on Drummormie Road; Reason:

In terms of car parking and difficulty of manoeuvrability on Drummormie Road, this in itself would not be a reason to not permit access from this residential area. This is a public road and thereby is designed to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist movement. The use as a bus route would require further assessment in this regard. A condition is applied requiring details of the management of the emergency access as this will not be permanently open. No traffic control on Drummormie Road is proposed.

Transportation (Temporary Access)

- The temporary access is not suitable - Temporary access will add additional traffic to residential streets and risk pedestrians and

other road users; - Lack of detail of temporary access;

- Lack of detail on how long the temporary access would be in place;

50

- Temporary access would encourage large vehicles through residential streets; - Risk to elderly and children from temporary access with sheltered housing being close by; - There is significant level difference between Pitdinnie Road and Rose Gardens as well as

other geometry issues which would make this access difficult. - Mitigation measures are needed for the temporary access; - The gradient between Pitdinnie Road and Rose Gardens would make any temporary link

unviable; - No assessment of impact of temporary link in terms of traffic movements; - The temporary access would be added to a cul-de-sac which has traffic problems and not

designed for through traffic.

Response: The temporary access is discussed in detail in section 2.5.12. Should this temporary access be chosen for traffic management a further consenting process will be required.

Flooding/ Drainage:

- Concerned that the development will result in further flood risk to their property; - Runoff from the site being directed to the water course could increase flood risk; - SEPA are objecting to the application; - Inadequate information has been provided for the consultees; - Water from site is being directed eastward to an area that floods; - Will cause additional flooding on school fields; - Do not consider the proposed flood attenuation will provide betterment; - No proposals to upgrade current flood defences; - The flood defence scheme is working well below its intended specification; - The Rushy Burn cannot accommodate further flows; - No account has been taken of the pumped systems in Cairneyhill; - Insufficient detail on design of swale; - Additional flood risk will cause a rise in insurance; - There are discrepancies between the FRA and engineering information; - A precautionary approach should be taken here; - Existing flood prevention measures within settlement should be upgraded; - No details of maintenance/ management of flood attenuation area; - No details of how the drainage facilities would be maintained and kept free from vegetation; - The adjacent water courses are at capacity; - Adjacent water courses are not being properly maintained; - Land is being raised in site and this should only be done for flood reasons in exceptional

circumstances; - Proposal should be put on hold until flood defence scheme is upgraded; - Flood assessment relies on flooding models rather than experience; - Locals have more knowledge of the flooding and drainage issues; - Global warming will increase flood risk further; - Increase in sewage; - Concern regarding when the SUDS needs to be completed; - The proposal includes drainage being discharged to Rushy Burn which is not appropriate; - Pitdinnie Road is subject of flooding and this has not been addressed; - Primary and Secondary drainage facilities not being constructed early in development; - Insufficient consideration given to flooding and flood risk; - Concerned that a blockage of Rushy End Burn has not needed to be considered;

Response: Flood risk is considered in section 2.7 of the report. The main consideration of this application is that the development would not add to the current flood risk of the area. The

51

development would not add any additional runoff to the watercourses in the area as the site is already in the catchment of these watercourse. There could actually be some betterment in that the runoff from the site will be slowed to a lower rate of discharge. SEPA initially objected to the application on lack of information and the Harbours, Floods and Coast team have also requested additional information throughout the process. The last response from SEPA removed their objection and the last response from Harbours, Floods and Coast required one final piece of information to be requested prior to works starting on the main site. The Precautionary Principle has been adopted here in that if any doubts had been raised by either of the drainage consultees that this proposal would have a possibility of causing a flood risk then it is unlikely that the proposal would be supported. Neither of these consultees have raised a concern let alone an objection. The proposal does not propose to upgrade the existing flood prevention scheme but does provide flood attenuation. Scottish Water are also intending to carry out an Integrated Catchment Study for Cairneyhill considering their infrastructure as well as the flood prevention scheme. This may raise issues to be resolved either for Scottish Water or the Council in this regard which may be a consideration for later phases of development in terms of betterment for Cairneyhill. This development however does not require any upgrade to the existing infrastructure to adequately function without significant flood risk. On the comments on Rushy End Burn being at capacity, the consultees have indicated that this development would not add any significant additional load to this burn even although the greenfield runoff would be directed there. In addition further flood attenuation is proposed there to help alleviate any potential surcharges from high rainfall. The concern with regards to the completion of the SUDS relates to a condition of the PPP. This condition requires the SUDS to be completed contemporaneously with development and fully complete by 50 units. This means that the development will always need to deal with its own drainage impact thereby removing the any flood risk but that regardless of this the full SUDS solution for all 100 units needs to be in place earlier.

Principle of Development

- Loss of agricultural land for residential development is not appropriate as there are more suitable housing sites.

- SPP states that significant travel generating development should not be approved at locations which would promote car use and are 400m from public transport links and a TA does not address this;

- Site is more than 400m from public transport links and has limited connections to other sustainable links;

- Bus penetration through site is not an option; - Loss of Prime Agricultural Land; - This number of units is not required, smaller number should be considered; - Will increase settlement by 30% when whole expansion is complete; - Site not easily supported by public transport; - Contrary to Development Plan; - Approval would be premature;

Response:

The loss of agricultural land was considered at the Principle stage and the site allocated within the Proposed FIFEplan which is close to adoption. The distance from bus stops was considered during the principle stage and public transport links are promoted through the site along with other sustainable links such as cycling. The number of units is set out within the Proposed FIFEplan. As this is an application for Matters Specified by Condition it would not be contrary to the principles of the Development Plan or premature. The detailed matters are also not considered contrary to the development plan.

52

Natural Heritage - Loss of hedgerow; - Loss of hedgerow which is habitat for bird species; - No consideration of natural heritage, landscape impact or loss of habitat; - Impact on migratory birds; - Loss of green space

Response:

This was considered in the Planning Permission in Principle application and considered further in sections 2.4 and 2.9 of this report. The proposed landscaping on both the east and west of Pitdinnie Road has the potential to create good habitat for natural heritage and the flood compensation area would become suitable habitat for migratory birds.

Infrastructure:

- Impact on schools; - Lack of facilities such as shops, leisure facilities to accommodate this development; - Need for additional nursery provision; - No need for a community hall

Response:

The impact on schools was considered at the Planning Permission in Principle stage. Nursery provision is a consideration of education when they consider the impact on schools. A community facility is a requirement of the Proposed LDP. With this application the applicant has provided a monetary contribution to a Multi- Use Games Area for the community.

Residential Amenity

- Loss of privacy and increase in noise and disturbance from removal of natural screening along Pitdinnie Road adjacent to their property;

- The raising of levels will create privacy issues; - Noise and disturbance from additional traffic on Pitdinnie Road; - Noise and disturbance from creation of flood attenuation area which will promote people to walk in the area; - Impacts from construction disturbance - Boundary treatment along the southern boundary needs to be improved to protect security for properties; - Coating from anti-skid material will increase noise disturbance for residents; Response: Impact on residential amenity is considered in section 2.6 of the report. The anti-skid material will not significantly increase noise. The flood attenuation may become attractive as an area to visit and the landscaping around the existing properties has been proposed to provide security and screening. Residents to the south feel the landscaping should be denser to provide privacy and screening. It should be noted that the landscaping here includes a hedgerow mix along with individual trees. This is would be relatively wide and include a number of large species and species that would be difficult to negotiate to enter a garden to the south. The mix in this location is considered adequate to provide security and screening. Design and Landscape Impact:

- Re-grading of site would have detrimental visual impact; - Elevation of site would have an overbearing effect and impact on existing settlement;

53

- Design and layout does not take account of current levels but rather engineers levels to suit;

- Does not relate well with settlement; - Site raised relative to adjoining settlement; - Visual impact on existing houses; - Visual impact from land raising; - Visual impact from density of housing; - Loss of views - Changing shape of settlement; - High level screening not being provided; - Height of houses will tower over neighbouring properties; - Loss of character;

Response: These matters are considered in sections 2.4 and 2.8 of the report. Other matters:

- Consultee concerns not addressed; - The southern open space area would create an unlit, secluded area which would provide access to properties to the south which would create security concerns; - Culture of village will be lost be additional development with this only being phase 1; - Neighbour notification carried out during holiday periods and other inappropriate times; - Safety of flood attenuation and SUDS basin; - Lack of details on the provision of the Multi-Use Games Area; - No commitment for the Community Hall; - The swales could lead to the attraction of insects; - Cairneyhill has already provided enough affordable housing; - Loss of dark sky; - Too many of the conditions are vague; - Developers told residents it was a ‘done deal’ Response: The consultee responses have been satisfactorily addressed. The southern open space would contain landscaping which would not make it easy to enter gardens to south. The expansion of the settlement and its resulting character and culture is dependent on how the site relates to the settlement and how the community integrates. The relationship of the proposal is considered acceptable. The Neighbour notification has been carried out in accordance with the regulations. The design of SUDS basins are regulated with safety in mind and the flood attenuation area would provide not further hazard than when this field floods naturally. The Multi-Use Games Area will be delivered by the Council and an application made for this separately. The community hall is will be a consideration of any future applications. Insects associated with swales would not be a material consideration. There is a requirement for 25% affordable housing for any development in this area. The loss of dark sky was considered at Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) stage. The conditions of the PPP have been complied and it is for the detailed applications to provide the information on how a development would be implemented. The Council has no influence over the conduct of a developer and this would not be a material consideration. Concern is raised regarding the lack of shops and other facilities to cope with this development. Facilities such as shops require sufficient custom to survive and therefore it is unusual for shops to open prior to there being sufficient custom. The increase in the settlement may provide additional capacity to support further infrastructure.

54

None of these matters raise issues which would warrant refusal of the application. CONCLUSIONS

The application is considered to be in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) that preceded it, and in accordance with the Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in terms of detailed considerations. The general layout of the site is acceptable and the detailing within the proposal including the high degree of landscaping, boundary treatment and finishes would create a residential area with a strong sense of place. The proposed development adheres closely to the indicative development framework of the PPP and adheres to conditions on connectivity and permeability. Strong landscape edges are proposed which will integrate the site with the countryside edge. The development is considered to comply with the PPP in proposed upgrade works to Pitdinnie Road and Main Street and all transportation related matters are considered acceptable. It is not considered that the development would result in a significant additional flood risk while the proposed flood attenuation system could provide some betterment for an existing risk. The proposal would comply with all technical matters of the PPP and other material considerations including landscape impact, ecology, impact on residential amenity, affordable housing and public art. The development is therefore considered acceptable in all regards and would comply with the Development Plan and conditions set out within the PPP. RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions and reasons: 1. PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL UNIT, full details of the enhanced wall (including public art element) along the frontage of the site with Pitdinnie Road shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of design and visual amenity. 2. PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL UNIT, a phasing plan for the delivery of landscaping, play area and open space shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt the landscaping shall be planted contemporaneously with the build route and the northern and western tree buffers are expected to be planted in advance of the completion of the last residential unit. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of minimising landscape impact and providing amenity space for

future residents.

3. PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL UNIT, final details of the maintenance and management of the SUDS basin and swales associated with the residential development during and after construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of mitigating flood risk.

55

4. No residential units within the site shall be occupied until the works for the upgrade of Pitdinnie Road and Main Street are complete to the satisfaction of Fife Council as planning authority. Reason: To ensure suitable access is provided prior to the occupation of any residential

units. 5. PRIOR TO THE ACCESS FROM DRUMMORMIE ROAD COMING INTO USE, full details of control measures to be implemented to retain this for emergency, public transport, cycling and pedestrian use only shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition.

Reason: In the interests of vehicular and pedestrian safety. 6. No construction traffic shall use any temporary access through Rose Gardens;

Reason: To protect residential amenity and in the interests of pedestrian and vehicular safety

7. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, final details of the wheel washing facilities for the site shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to eliminate the deposit of deleterious material on

public roads. 8. A minimum of two contrasting colours of blocks and additional trees shall be provided within the three squares within the site. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 9. The locations of the proposed traffic calming measures on Pitdinnie Road as shown on drawing J2829-012 Rev A are not approved through this planning permission. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 10. There shall be provided within the curtilage of the site 2 No parking spaces for vehicles per house type Newton and the houses within Plots 76 – 81 & 86 – 89 in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The parking spaces shall be provided prior to occupation the corresponding unit and be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 11. There shall be provided within the curtilage of the site 3 No. parking spaces for vehicles per house type Ashbury, Durham, Norbury, Rosebury, Tetbury and Westbury in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The parking spaces shall be provided prior to occupation the corresponding unit and be retained through the lifetime of the development.

56

Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 12. Prior to occupation of the first affordable residential unit within Plots 82 – 85 & 90 – 98, the 18 No parking spaces within the adjacent square shall be provided in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The parking spaces shall be for communal use only and be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 13. BEFORE DEVELOPMENT STARTS ON SITE, final details of the equipment for the play area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. For avoidance of doubt this shall include equipment for inclusive play. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved this condition. Reason: To ensure the play area caters for children with different needs. 14. BEFORE DEVELOPMENT STARTS ON SITE, full details of pollution and silt control measures for the drainage infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved this condition. Reason: In order to protect the water environment from pollutants and silt. 15. BEFORE DEVELOPMENT STARTS ON SITE, final details of the depths of individual sections of filter drains shall be calculated and submitted to and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved this condition. Reason: To ensure adequate capacity is provided and no ponding occurs in the interests of flood risk. 16. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, full details of the proposed arrangements for the management and aftercare of all landscaping areas (including the play area) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the management and aftercare of the landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term. STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS

In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National Policy and Guidance: SPP - Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Designing Streets (2010)

57

Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance and other material considerations: SESPlan Strategic Development Plan (2013) Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) Fife Council's Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) Making Fifes Places Planning Policy Guidance (2015) Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan 2014) Fife Council's Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) Housing Land Audit 2015 (July 2015) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings Report prepared by William Shand, Chartered Planner and Case Officer Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

Date Printed 03/02/2017

58

Forrester Park Resort

Torr

y B

urn

Bridge

Hall

El

Shelter

Golf Driving Range

Gardens

Diver's

El Sub Sta

Torry B

urn

Torry Burn

Cairneyhill

Cairneyhill Primary and

Conscience

WalkCommunity School

El Sub Sta

El Sub StaEl Sub Sta

El Sub Sta

Drain

Play Area

Buchanan

Golf Course

The Stewart Trust Hall

Tra

ck

Track

Posts

Post

Centre

Lay-b

y

Sta

Spin

ner's

Playgro

und

Playground

Playground

Pitdinnie Farm Cottages

South Pitdinnie Farm

Path

Path

Path

Governor

Weaver's TerracePentlandPlace

Casakentia

Tank

48.5m

39.3m

39.5m

41.6m

55.3m

47.9m

51.0m

36.7m

48.8m

Garden

GarageGarage

A 9

85

A 994

A 994

Dovecote

MP.75

MP 12

Pond

Pond

Sub

PIT

DIN

NIE

Manse

Lodge

WarMeml

Gas

LB

Rosebank

to

TH

E S

HE

ILIN

G

PIT

DIN

NIE

RO

AD

FB

FB

FB

FB

FB

FB

FB

RIG

GS

VIE

W

TCB

MU

IRS

IDE

MAIN STREET

ESS

11 to

FAIRLEY COURT

GLE

N M

ORIS

TON

DRIV

E

TH

E L

AT

CH

MU

IRS

IDE

RO

AD

77 to 81

71 to 79

50 to 58

57 to 69

STATION ROAD

CA

IRN

WE

LL P

LA

CE

MUIRSIDE GROVE

FO

RD

VIE

W

GREY CRAIGS

GR

EY

CR

AIG

S

GLENAVON DRIVE

GLE

NA

VO

N D

RIV

E

THE WILLOWS

PHPH

PLE

AS

AN

CE

BR

AE

BRANDY WELLS

GARDEN PLACE

PLA

CE

WE

ST

HA

LL C

RE

SC

EN

T

PO

COPPER BEECH WYND

ROSE GARDENS

BRAN

DYR

IGG

S

NORTHBANK ROAD

CLO

VA

GLE

N

MCDONALD COURT

DR

UM

MO

RM

IE R

OA

D

MS

CR

ES

CE

NT

ACRES

BURNBANK

SOUTH

CO

UR

T

CO

UR

T

86c

112c

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

22

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

22

2

2

2

2

2

2

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

6

6

66

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

55

5

76

76

76

28

28

28

28

28

28

28

21

2121

21

21

21

21

71

71

71

90

90

68

6865

65

67

67

67

12

12

12

12

12

12

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

45

45

45

45

45

45

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

77

77

47

47

47

47

20

20

20

20

20

20

2020 2

0

20

36

36

36

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10 10

10

98

44

44

24

24

24

24

31

31

31

31

31

26

26

26

26

26

26 46

33

33

33

33

33

4870

70

70

38

38

38

29

29

29

52

52

51

51

51

51

51

82

82

92

95

95

95

95

70a

23

23

23

2323

23

23

15

15

15

15

15

15

1515

15

15

15

54

54

53

53

53

53

78

78104

10

4

114

107

107

107

40

40

4040

40

25a

30

30

30

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

59

59

35

35

35

35

57

57

13

13

1313

13

13

13

13

13

13

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

55

55

55

55

19

1919

19

19

19

19

74

41

41

41 41

81

81

81

18

18

18

18

18

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

27

27

27

27

27

27

89

89

89

86

86

8666

66

87

87

87

87

88a

34

34

34

34

100

100

61

61

2a

2a

88

30a

21b108112

25

25

25

25

25

25

64

22

22

22

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

91

91

119

119

107a

70b

85

85

85

85

8a

102a

97

42

42

42

21a121

39

39

39

39

109a

83

83

83

94

95d

63

63

105a

109

86a86b

49

49

104a

87a93

95a

84

84

84

112b112a

43

43

43

43

43

117

37

37

37

106

95b

106a

4a

73

73

73

75

75

75

102

80

80

80

111123125

127105

3a

1a

60

60

56

10399

69

7262

96

79

79

7a

107B

CottageHolmes

Bridge

Torry Burn

Shelter

El S

ub S

ta

16/02529/ARC

Land South of Pitdinnie Farm, Pitdinnie Road, Cairneyhill

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 60 120 18030m

Legend

59

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22.02.2017

ITEM NO: 4 (C) APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 16/00418/FULL

SITE ADDRESS: LAND AT B913 TO SOUTHWEST OF SALINE FIFE PROPOSAL : CHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO

REMEMBRANCE GARDEN AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ERECTION OF LOG CABIN

APPLICANT: MR GEORGE KELLY

LAND SALES DIRECT LAUREL HOUSE BISHOPS HULL ROAD WARD NO: NW01

West Fife And Coastal Villages CASE OFFICER: David Shankland

DATE REGISTERED:

15/03/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: There have been more than 5 letters of representation which are contrary to the Planning Authority’s recommendation.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for: Conditional approval

ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

60

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Site Description 1.1.1 The application site relates to an area of undulating woodland and agricultural land measuring approximately 1.9 hectares which is situated immediately to the south of Saline Golf Course, and Core Path 622, outwith the settlement of Saline. The site is defined in the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) as being located within the countryside. The site is semi-woodland in nature, despite its part agricultural use, with shrubs and a number of tall trees, albeit the majority of the latter are located to the north and east of the application site. The woodland area is identified in the SNH Ancient Woodland Inventory (ID33995). There is no Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on the trees either on or within 100 metres of the site. The land slopes on a north south aspect. To the north the site bounds a Core Path, adjacent to which is Saline Golf Course; to the east and west by grazed agricultural land; and to the south the site bounds the B913 Saline to Dunfermline highway. Vehicular access to the site is currently off an existing field access which was granted planning permission for maintenance and agricultural purposes in July 2007, as detailed in section1.3 of the report below. The surrounding area is characterised by its open landscape. 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 Planning permission is sought for change of use of agricultural land and woodland to form a Remembrance Garden including the formation of a vehicular access and erection of a log cabin. In addition to the relevant drawings of the site, the applicant's agent has also submitted a Planning Statement which defines the difference between the current proposals when compared against an earlier refusal for the site, under planning reference 13/00843/FULL, and a Transport Statement which did not form part of the more recent refusal for the site, under planning permission 14/00646/FULL. Additional information has also been submitted within the Planning Statement which addresses the management of the proposed Remembrance Garden which did not form part of the previous submissions. The vehicular access is proposed further west from the location of the existing field maintenance access which would, if planning permission was granted, be stopped up. In addition, 5 off-street parking spaces are proposed to accommodate visitors. The proposed log cabin would have a footprint of approximately 6 square metres with a maximum height of approximately 2.3 metres. It would be located to the north of the proposed parking spaces. It would also act as a store room for a small number of digging implements. An access path created in wood chippings is proposed through the proposed development. It is noted from the submission that other than wooden back stops on the steeper gradient no engineering operations would be required to form the woodland path. Additional information in the form of an arboricultural report with appropriate survey and protection plans, cross-sections drawings, a bat survey, and extended phase 1 habitat survey, visibility splay plan and illustrations of the woodland walk path have also been submitted for consideration.

1.3 Planning History 1.3.1 The recent planning history for site includes the following: - Planning permission was granted in July 2007, subject to conditions, for the formation of an access road for maintenance and agricultural purposes (Reference 07/01517/WFULL). Although formed the access did not conform with the planning conditions;

61

- A pre-application enquiry was submitted by the applicant in 2012 for the development of a cemetery (Reference 12/01364/PREAPP) where, in addition to advice on the principle of the development, the Planning Authority raised concerns on road safety grounds; - Planning permission was then refused in the interests of road safety in September 2013 for the change of use from agricultural land to form a natural cemetery and formation of access road and car parking (Reference 13/00843/FULL); and - A further planning application was refused for the interests of road safety in April 2014 for the change of use from agricultural land to remembrance garden and formation of vehicular access (Planning Reference 14/00646/FULL). 1.4 Application Process 1.4.1Due to the size of the site and the overall scale of proposals, the application constitutes a "Local" application as defined by the Hierarchy of Developments Regulations and as such there was no requirement for a Proposal of Application Notice. 1.4.2 The application was initially advertised as a Potential Departure from the Development Plan as it proposes a business use within the countryside. However, for the reasons identified in section 2.2 of the report below, the principle of the development is considered to conform with the requirements of national guidance and the Development Plan in respect to business proposals within the countryside. 1.4.3 The proposed FIFEplan (Proposed Fife Local Development Plan) 2014 is a material consideration but does not have the same status or carry the same weight at the current Development Plan. The application site continues to be defined as being located in the countryside.

2.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 2.1 The issues to be assessed against the development plan and other guidance are as follows:- - Principle of Development - Design/ Visual Impact on Countryside - Trees/ Ecology - Road Safety - Flooding and Drainage - Land Stability and Contamination

2.2 Principle of Development 2.2.1 The SPP (Promoting Rural Development), amongst other criteria, states that in areas of intermediate accessibility and pressure for development, Development Plans should be tailored to local circumstances, seeking to provide a sustainable network of settlements and a range of policies that provide for economic development, and the varying proposals that may come forward, while taking account of the overarching objectives and other elements of the plan. It elaborates that in accessible or pressured rural areas, plans and decision making should generally guide most new development to locations within or adjacent to settlements. The SPP (Supporting Business and Employment) continues that Planning should address the development requirements of businesses and enable key opportunities for investment to be

62

realised. Sustainable economic growth is supported by providing a positive policy context for development that delivers economic benefits. 2.2.2 Policy 13 of SESplan requires Local Plans to review and justify additions or deletions to countryside designations fulfilling a similar function to those of the Green Belt as appropriate. It elaborates that opportunities for contributing to the Green Network proposals should also be identified in these areas. Policy E1 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that outwith settlement envelopes, development will only be supported where it accords with Policies E15 to E29. Policy 1, Part A, of the proposed FIFEplan stipulates that the principle of development will be supported if it is either (a) within a defined settlement boundary and compliant with the policies for this location; or (b) is in a location where the proposed use is supported by the Local Development Plan. Policy 1, Part B, of the proposed FIFEplan continues that development, in the case of proposals in the countryside or green belt, must be for a use appropriate for these locations and accords with Policy 7. 2.2.3 Policy E15 of the Adopted Local Plan stipulates that development in the countryside will only be supported where it (a) is required for agriculture, horticultural, woodland or forestry operations; or (b) is for new enterprises which either diversify the above land based businesses to bring economic support to the existing business or add value by using the products of, or servicing, land based businesses or other established countryside activities; or (c) diversify or add to the above land-based businesses to bring economic support to the existing business or add local value by using the products of, or servicing, land-based businesses or other established countryside activities; or (d) is for an extension of established businesses; or (e) provides for small scale employment land adjacent to settlement boundaries, which contributes to the Council's employment land supply requirements; or (f) is for facilities for access to the countryside; or (g) is for facilities for outdoor recreation or tourism or other development which demonstrates a proven need for a countryside location; or (h) is for housing (as supported by Policy E16). Policy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of FIFEplan offers similar guidance to Adopted Local Plan Policy E15 on development in the countryside. 2.2.3 As detailed in the opening section of the report, the applicant has submitted a Planning Statement in support of the application. Having considered the reasons for refusal on the earlier 2013 and 2014 planning applications, it seeks to explain the nature of the proposals and to demonstrate that the proposed Remembrance Garden can be managed in a way that justifies its location within the countryside and can also address the principle concern of road safety which was raised by the Planning Authority on the aforementioned previous refused applications. Specific detail relating to road safety is addressed within section 2.5 of the Committee Report below. 2.2.4 In regard to the proposed use, the Planning Statement explains from the outset the importance of acknowledging that the proposed use is not a cemetery. There would be no funerals, ceremonies or large groups accessing the site at any one time. Only individuals or the occasional small groups of people (maximum 5) would visit the proposed Remembrance Garden at any one time. A log book would be held to record the visits as well as details held by the applicant electronically, which could be presented to Fife Council to verify the proposed development is being used as intended. The use itself proposes to provide a service whereby a small amount of ashes or other such memento would be sent to them following the formal cremation/ funeral service in the place of rest (abroad or elsewhere in the UK). The applicant would then arrange for the burial of the small item(s) and would then send a photographic record or place these on a bespoke memorial website. This is noted in the Planning Statement as being a digital process with all the plots having a QR code that can be activated by visitor’s

63

smartphones when visiting. These occasions are noted as not being frequent and there would be no visitors at that time, only the staff working on behalf of the applicant. The proposal, in theory, allows those wishing to have the ashes (contained in biodegradable containers) of a relative or a close friend to be buried on a plot in a peaceful rural setting. Each plot is noted in the Planning Statement as measuring no more than one/ two square foot in surface area and no more than three feet in depth. There would be no headstones marking locations; rather, microchips located beneath the surface to mark the presence of individual ashes / mementos. The Statement elaborates that although there would be no formal ceremonies at the site, on a few occasions, there may be the opportunity for individuals or a small group of people to come personally to bury their personal items or a small amount of ashes. The visits are noted in the Planning Statement as being intended to be a personal, family affair where no more than 2 or 3 cars are anticipated by the applicant to attend per visit.

2.2.5 In this case, whilst it is recognised that there are elements of both national guidance and the Development Plan which discourage development which does not need a rural location from locating in the countryside; at the same time they support development for new enterprises where it diversifies the existing land-based business to bring economic support or for a facility for access to the countryside. The emphasis of this guidance, especially at the national level, is on the importance of supporting rural communities in economic terms. In this instance it is considered that sufficient evidence has been submitted which demonstrates, a proven need for a countryside location given the nature of the proposed development. The principle of the development is therefore acceptable and accords with the provisions of national guidance and the Development Plan in this regard. Notwithstanding this, the overall acceptability of such a development must however also meet other policy criteria and these issues are considered in detail below.

2.3 Design/ Visual Impact on Countryside 2.3.1 One of the aims of SESplan is to conserve and enhance the built and natural environment. 2.3.2 Policy E15 of the Adopted Local Plan stipulates that development in the countryside will only be supported where it is of a scale and nature which is compatible with surrounding uses and will result in an overall enhancement to the landscape and environmental quality of an area. Policy 7 of FIFEplan elaborates that in all cases; development must be of a scale and nature compatible with surrounding uses and will not result in an overall reduction in the landscape and environmental quality of the area. 2.3.3 Policy E3 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to make a positive contribution to the quality of its immediate environment both in terms of its environmental impact and the quality of place it will create. Policy 10, criterion 7, of FIFEplan mirrors the requirements of the Development Plan in this regard. 2.3.4 Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that new development must demonstrate well thought out design and choice of materials; and makes best use of site attributes, particularly landform and trees. It also advocates that the application of innovative design solutions will be supported. 2.3.5 As the site is located within the countryside greater consideration must be given to the visual impact the proposed development would have both in terms of its wider and local impact on the landscape. In this case, following the re-alignment of the proposed access road to reduce the impact on the landscape on the north side of the access road, the proposed

64

development would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding countryside setting. The proposed development would also be integrated sympathetically within the site boundary. Additional landscaping would be provided using mixed native species in line with the character of the area which would enhance the setting of the site. Furthermore, and in order to secure sustainable and safe management in line with the proposed change of use, a woodland management plan is proposed which would be secured by a relevant condition. With respect to the design of the log cabin, its modest scale and design would also sit sympathetically in its countryside setting. In this particular case therefore the proposed development respects the characteristics of the site. In the context, the proposed development therefore responds to its location. 2.3.6 The proposed development, subject to the inclusion of conditions noted above, meets the relevant policies of the Development Plan and national guidance relating to design and visual impact on the countryside. 2.4 Trees / Ecology 2.4.1 The SPP (Valuing the Natural Environment) stipulates that planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. Direct or indirect effects on statutory protected sites will be an important consideration, but designation does not impose an automatic prohibition on development. It elaborates that planning authorities should apply the precautionary principle where the impacts of the proposed development on nationally or internationally significant landscape or natural heritage resources are uncertain but there is sound evidence that significant irreversible damage could occur. The precautionary principle should not be used however to impede development without justification. The SPP continues that if there is any likelihood that significant irreversible damage could occur, modifications to the proposal to eliminate the risk of such damage should be considered. If there is uncertainty, the potential for research, surveys or assessments to remove or reduce uncertainty should be considered. 2.4.2 In regard to woodland, the SPP reaffirms that ancient semi-natural woodland are an irreplaceable resource and, along with other woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees, especially veteran trees of high nature conservation and landscape value, should be protected from adverse impacts resulting from development. Tree Preservation Orders can be used to protect both individual trees and groups of trees considered important for their amenity. Where appropriate, the SPP advises that planning authorities should seek opportunities to create new woodland and plant native trees in association with development. 2.4.3 The Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy includes a presumption in favour of protecting woodland. It details that removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Where woodland is removed in association with development, developers will generally be expected to provide compensatory planting. 2.4.4 Policy E23 of the Adopted Local Plan stipulates that development that may affect national and local priority habitats or species, as identified in the Scottish Biodiversity List or Fife Local Biodiversity Action Plan, will not be supported unless the developer submits an appraisal showing that (a) there will be no adverse effect on the habitats or species; or (b) any significant adverse effect on the habitats or species is clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of significant local importance. Where development adversely affects the habitats or species, the developer's appraisal must show how the damage will be minimised and mitigated, including,

65

where appropriate, replacement habitat for any losses incurred; and proposals for the conservation, protection, enhancement and future management of habitats and species (biodiversity). These must ensure that there is a net benefit to biodiversity within the development site and also in habitat linkages to the site as appropriate. Where appropriate, Policy E23 stipulates that planning conditions and agreements will be used to ensure these proposals are achieved. 2.4.5 Policy E25 of the Adopted Local Plan states that where development is proposed on a site where trees are present, consideration will be given to whether, and in what form, development should be supported, having regard to the desirability of retaining and protecting mature and semi-mature trees, and other examples likely to become attractive in amenity terms, or of a rare species. Trees, woodlands, and hedgerows that have a landscape, amenity and/or nature conservation value will be protected from development. When submitting a proposal for development for a site where trees are present, the developer shall be required to (a) submit a comprehensive tree survey; (b) identify on site any affected trees; and (c) submit for agreement a programme of works, details of tree protection and landscaping proposals, including any appropriate tree planting. This advice is mirrored in Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Trees and Development. 2.4.6 Proposed FIFEplan Policy 13, amongst other criteria, also advises that development proposals will only be supported where they protect or enhance natural heritage and access including woodlands (including native and other long established woods), and trees and hedgerows that have a landscape, amenity, or nature conservation value. Where adverse impacts on existing assets are unavoidable the Planning Authority will only support proposals where these impacts will be satisfactory mitigated. 2.4.7 Fife Council's Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Guidance (2014) sets out guidelines for site appraisal. Appendix A Site Appraisal Information for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity states that applications must comply with the Scottish Government Policy on Control of Woodland Removal. It emphasises that Fife Council has a duty to consider the conservation of biodiversity when determining planning applications. In addition, the Fife Council approved Fife Forestry Woodland Strategy (2013-18) provides a 40 year vision for future development of forests and woodlands in Fife. 2.4.8 The application site in this particular instance is woodland, identified on the SNH Ancient Woodland Inventory as long-established and the Scottish Semi-Natural Woodland Inventory as semi-natural broadleaved woodland. The woodland is also identified on the Forestry Commission Scotland Native Woodland Survey of Scotland as a lowland mixed deciduous woodland. In response, an extensive amount of work has been carried out by the applicant during the assessment of the application to address both the trees and ecology within the site and wider area within the ownership of the applicant. As detailed above, the applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Report, Bat Survey and an Extended Habitat Survey for consideration. 2.4.9 The Arboricultural Report identifies that the site consists of trees, hedges and scrub areas. The trees within the site are of mixed species, age and quality with Beech being the dominant hedgerow species. The significant tree cover is found in this particular case to the north edge of the B913 with a mixed beech hedge and individual mature trees which extends beyond the application site boundary to the west. The loss of trees required to facilitate the development is mainly confined to the tree cover beside the B913 to address the visibility splay. To accommodate the visibility splay, an area of hedgerow would be removed which would be

66

replaced by mixed native hedgerow planted further back from the road edge as appropriate. No tree removal is required to accommodate the proposed access road. The Arboricultural Report continues that only minor remedial work over and above the loss of the hedgerow in the form of pruning tips of Beech in order to accommodate tree protective fencing beside the new access to the site is required. It elaborates that there would be a further requirement, in the future, that roadside tree cover being routinely pruned back to retain adequate visibility splays. Regular pruning of the beech hedge to the east of the access along the roadside is also noted as being required in order to achieve adequate sight lines, with a height of 3 metres being recommended by the tree consultant. The main woodland area of broadleaves of variable stocking and areas of open space is rectangular shaped and covers an area of approximately 1.8 hectares of the overall 1.9 hectare application site. Oak and Beech are noted as being dominant with other species including Horse Chestnut, Sycamore and Ash. The woodland has a northerly aspect with moderate and in places steeply sloping ground. The proposed development, as aforementioned, includes the setting out of a woodland walk with winding wood chip pathways. The tree consultant elaborates that this should provide little conflict or threat to the woodland. The acting agent has also confirmed that no engineering operations are required to provide the footway. Appropriate conditions, in accordance with the advice contained within the submitted Arboricultural Report, have been included within the recommendation that ensures tree protection measures are implemented and that details of the compensatory planting and a Management Plan are submitted for approval prior to any works commencing on site.

2.4.10 As detailed above an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Bat Survey have been carried out and make recommendations of measures to protect wildlife. Overall the submitted information demonstrates that wildlife and biodiversity quality would not be significantly affected as a result of the proposed development. Notwithstanding this, an appropriate condition has been included in the recommendation to ensure the recommendations of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report are implemented in full. This will serve to provide continued ongoing opportunities for preservation of the wildlife habitat in conjunction with the provision of new trees to replace the limited ones that will be removed.

2.4.11 The Forestry Commission Scotland has been consulted and raises no objection to planning permission being granted. The Commission notes that if there is any associated woodland removal they would expect compensatory planting. An appropriate condition, in accordance with the recommendations contained within the Arboricultural Report, has been included in the recommendation in this regard. Fife Council’s Natural Heritage Officer has also assessed the information contained within the application and offers no objection to the proposed development subject to appropriate conditions being attached to the permission relating to the recommendations made within the submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey report and Arboricultural report being carried out in full. They also advise that an appropriate condition should be attached to the planning permission which specifies that no excavation/ engineering works shall take place for the creation of the proposed woodland footway within the proposed Remembrance Garden, all in accordance with the information provided by the agent in this regard.

2.4.12 The application for the proposed remembrance garden and vehicular access, subject to the inclusion of the conditions detailed above, accords with the broad policies of national guidance, the Local Plan and supplementary guidance in this regard.

2.5 Road Safety

67

2.5.1 The national context for the assessment of the impact of new developments on transportation infrastructure is set out in the SPP (Promoting Sustainable Transport and Active Travel). The overarching aim of this document is to optimise the use of existing infrastructure; reduce the need to travel; provide safe and convenient opportunities for walking and cycling for both active travel and recreation, and facilitate travel by public transport; and enable the integration of transport modes. Spatial strategies set of in Local Plans should support development in locations that allow walkable access to local amenities and are also accessible by cycling and public transport.

2.5.2 Policy 8 of SESplan states that Local Authorities should ensure that new development minimises the generation of additional car traffic including applying car parking standards that relate to public transport accessibility. In addition the policy states that LDP's should also ensure that the design and layout of new development demonstrably promotes non-car modes of travel; and, should consider the merits of protecting existing and potential traffic free cycle and walking routes such as disused railways affected by any development proposals.

2.5.3 Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to be located where it is accessible to the public transport network; where there is capacity in the road network and where there is no road safety problem. Policy T2 requires new developments to make provision for pedestrians; traffic calming and a road layout that is in accordance with the Transportation Development Guidelines. 2.5.4 Policy 10 of FIFEplan supports development where it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses in relation to traffic movements. 2.5.5 As detailed above, a Transport Statement has been submitted with the application under consideration to assist decision makers to understand and evaluate the proposal for the Remembrance Garden, in terms of its impact on the transport network. The report first examines the road and network in the vicinity of the site, and summarises the Council’s previous concerns in respect to the most recent 2014 refused planning permission for the site (Planning Reference 14/00646/FULL). It details from the outset that, at the time of the refused 2014 planning application for the site, access to the proposed site was initially from the existing field access and then to address the recommendation of refusal from the Transportation Development Management Team (TDMT) the access was moved further west. Nevertheless, the changes made did not address the TDMT’s three principle concerns which were the (1) sub-standard visibility splays at the proposed access ; (2) the unacceptable junction geometry; and (3) the principle of a new access or the intensification in use of existing accesses on unrestricted distributor roads outwith established built-up areas. The report examines 4 options for new access locations, in addition to the existing field access. It also highlights from a traffic count carried out back in 2012 that appropriate design speeds at the site were calculated at 47 miles per hour for northbound traffic, and 43.2 miles per hour from southbound traffic. In regard to visibility splays, the proposals have now reached the stage where Fife Council accept that the necessary junction visibility splays can be provided within land in the applicant’s control, subject to the removal of foliage. The access is also now proposed to be constructed perpendicular to the B913 to address the TDMT’s second concern as detailed above. In respect to the third area of concern raised by the TDMT relating to the presumption against the formation of a new access or the intensification in use of existing accesses on unrestricted distributor roads outwith established built-up areas, the TS continues that the B913 carries between 500 and 600 vehicles per day in each direction, a total of 1,000 to 1,200 vehicle movements per day. The Transport Consultant advises that this traffic flow could not be considered as “high”. Similarly, the

68

submitted report continues that the proposed development would generate very low volumes of turning traffic. 2.5.6 Since the original planning application was submitted in 2013, objections have been received from concerned 3rd parties relating to road accidents on this particular distributor road which was feared would be further intensified by the proposed development. In response, the submitted TS notes that examination of the injury accident record for the five year period ending December 2014 indicates that there have been no injury accidents on the B913 between Saline and Gowkhall during that time. It continues that only one injury accident had occurred, at the junction of the B913 with Main Street in Saline, and recorded as “slight”. The TS concludes that it has demonstrated that a new access can be provided, meeting the Council’s standards, with no significant risk to road safety.

2.5.7 Fife Council's Transport Development Management Team has assessed the content of the Planning Statement submitted by the agent; the TS; and accompanying drawings and advise in their most recent response of 12th January 2017 that sufficient information has now been submitted where they can now accept that the necessary junction visibility splays can be provided within land controlled by the applicant. Nevertheless, the team maintain their objection to the proposed development from a road safety perspective as the proposals would continue to result in the formation of a new vehicular access on an unrestricted distributor road outwith the established built up area to the detriment of road safety and, in their assessment of the proposal, increase the probability of accidents occurring. Concerns with the lack of information submitted in respect to surface water run-off from the new access and its ancillary slopes prior to reaching the public road also remain a concern for the TDMT. However they acknowledge that this could be addressed by means of an appropriate planning condition. 2.5.8 The TDMT whilst maintaining their recommendation for refusal in the interests of road safety have, given the principle of the development is supported by the Planning Authority and sufficient information has now been submitted to address visibility splays, on the request from the Planning Authority, provided a number of conditions within their response relating to the formation of the access, surface water run-off details being submitted for approval in writing, the gradient of the access driveway, the construction of the parking, visibility splays, the formation of the 5 off-street parking spaces, details of wheel cleaning facilities and no embankment or slope adjacent to the public road being steeper than a 1 in 2 slope. 2.5.9 Saline and Steelend Community Council has also been consulted and whilst acknowledging it is for the Transportation Development Management Team to determine whether the proposed changes to the site meet the Council’s standard, they advise that it was the view of many residents attending their meeting to discuss the proposal that the submitted Transport Statement does not reflect the reality of the situation. They continue that many cars using this narrow unrestricted distributor road are travelling faster than is safe and the precisely dimensioned diagrams, adjustments to the height of the verges and photographs illustrating ‘visibility’ are not, in their consideration, convincing. They also note that people at the meeting were suspicious about the proposed use and were concerned that the applicant’s intention may be to obtain permission for a vehicle access that might in the longer term be used to develop the site. Whilst noted, this latter concern is not a material consideration in the assessment of the current proposal for the Remembrance Garden.

2.5.10 In summary, and although the TDMT have maintained their recommendation for refusal in the interests of road safety, the applicant has, as detailed in section 2.2.1, submitted sufficient information which demonstrates a proven need for a countryside location for the use proposed.

69

In addition, the applicant has also now submitted adequate information that demonstrates that the appropriate visibility splays can be achieved in both a northbound and southbound direction. Overall, appropriate conditions are recommended which address the technical requirements thus allowing the development to accord with the provisions of the Development Plan, national guidance and supplementary guidance relating to road safety. 2.6 Flooding and Drainage 2.6.1 The SPP (Managing Flood Risk and Drainage) requires Planning Authorities to take a precautionary approach to flood risk from all sources, taking account of the predicted effects of climate change. Similar provision is included within SESplan. More specific guidance on flood risk and management is set out in PAN 69. Policy I4 of the Adopted Local Plan states that development will not be supported if it would increase the risk of flood risk; it would be at risk of flooding or; adequate provision is not made for access to watercourses for maintenance. The application site is not shown to be potentially at risk of flooding as per SEPA's Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map (Scotland). 2.6.2 The SPP (Drainage and Culverts) stipulates that planning permission should not be granted unless the proposed arrangements for surface water drainage are adequate and appropriate long term maintenance arrangements will be in place. It elaborates that for large scale development proposals in areas where drainage is already constrained or otherwise problematic or if there would be off-site effects, a comprehensive drainage assessment will be required. Policies I3, I4 and I5 of the Adopted Local Plan state that developments should not place unacceptable demands on public infrastructure including drainage systems. They also stipulate that proposals involving significant surface water run-off will only be supported where Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or similar appropriate measures are undertaken. 2.6.3 Policies 3 and 12 of FIFEplan mirror the aforementioned requirements of the Adopted Local Plan in this respect. Consideration should also be given to the guidance contained within the Council's advice note on flooding and drainage. 2.6.4 Fife Council's Structural Services (Harbours, Flood and Coast Team) has no objection to the proposed development but advise that care should be taken that the design of the car park does not allow surface water to pond at its location or run onto the main road. As detailed above, an appropriate condition is recommended in accordance with the advice received from the TDMT. 2.6.5 The application meets the requirements of national guidance and the Development Plan relating to flooding and drainage. 2.7 Land Stability and Contamination 2.7.1 PAN33 advises that suspected and actual contamination should be investigated and, if necessary, remediated to ensure that sites are suitable for the proposed end use. Policy E6 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that for development proposals involving sites where land instability or the presence of contamination is suspected, the developer is required to submit details of site investigations to assess the nature and extent of any risks presented by land stability or contamination which may be present. Where risks are known to be present, appropriate mitigation measures should be agreed with the Council and where possible remediation strategies should be agreed prior to the determination of any planning application. The application site is defined as being located within a Coal Authority Low Risk Area.

70

2.7.2 Fife Council's Land and Air Quality Team (LAQT) has no objection but in light of the former quarrying activities which have taken place in the vicinity of the site the team recommends that an appropriate condition is attached to any grant of planning permission that requires the developer to notify the Planning Authority if any unexpected materials or conditions such as made-ground, gasses, odours etc. are encountered during development work. 2.7.3 The application, subject to the inclusion of the condition recommended by the LAQT, meets the provisions of national guidance and the Development Plan in regard to land stability and contamination.

CONSULTATIONS Transportation Development Management Team

Recommend the application for refusal.

Forestry Commission Has no objection to planning permission being granted.

Community Council Has raised concerns in the interests of road safety and highlight the suspicions of local people that the proposed vehicular access could in the long terms be used for development on the site.

Land And Air Quality Team Has no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of a suspensive condition.

Structural Services - Harbours, Flood And Coast

Has no objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

A total of 12 letters of objection have been received from a local residents to this application. The concerns raised include: - Road Safety - Auto traffic counter results from 2012 as detailed within the Transport Statement are out of date - Development would further increase the risks of accidents on the B913 - Concern on how mourners could be restricted to the site - Unsympathetic location of the site in close proximity of Bandrum Nursing Home - Detrimental impact on habitat/ vegetation

71

- Approval of the access road could result in further applications being submitted for the wider site

In respect to the concerns expressed above relating to road safety the Transportation Development Management Team has assessed the contents of the planning application and accompanying Transport Statement and, whilst retaining their objection to the proposed development, they have confirmed that the proposal can provide the necessary visibility splays. Appropriate conditions have also been included within the recommendation relating to road safety including the provision of a log book which details the volume of mourners visiting the site.

In respect to the location of the site within the countryside, sufficient evidence has been submitted which demonstrates, given the nature of the proposed development, a proven need for a countryside location. In regard to the concerns relating to the detrimental impact on habitat/ vegetation, the applicant has provided an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey report and an Arboricultural report which demonstrates that the proposed development has been sympathetically designed to ensure minimal loss of vegetation would occur. The recommendations of the reports, which include the provision of compensatory planting of mixed species and the submission of a management plan for the woodland in the interests of enhancing the site and protecting its long term future, can be secured by condition.

The concern that the access road could result in further applications being submitted for the wider site is not a material consideration in the assessment of the current proposal for the Remembrance Garden.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposal for the Remembrance Garden accords with the broad policies of both national guidance and the Development Plan that seek to ensure the countryside is protected from unjustified development. It is accepted and acknowledged that the development is within a woodland area that is identified by SNH as Ancient Woodland, however there are important material considerations that must be given weight in the assessment of the application. Firstly, since its original submission the applicant has submitted a revised layout and provided further information that addresses the sympathetic nature of the proposal in order to both reduce the overall number of trees to be removed and protect the trees within the wider development site. The applicant also proposes to compensate for the loss with compensatory planting and a Management Plan for the wider woodland area which would ensure the overall character and appearance of the woodland is enhanced. Equally, no engineering operations are proposed to form the wood chipped footpath through the site. It is therefore considered that the recommendations of the submitted Arboricultural Report and extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, in conjunction with the enhancement of the woodland with the compensatory planting, provide sufficient evidence to justify the development in accordance with the requirements of national guidance and the Development Plan. Secondly, and at the same time, the applicant has also now provided sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the required visibility splays can be provided within land in the applicant’s control in the interests of safeguarding road safety. The proposal is not a cemetery and there would be no funerals, ceremonies or large groups accessing the site at any one time. Only individuals or small groups of person (maximum 5). It is proposed that persons wanting to visit the Remembrance Garden would need to arrange their visit by prior appointment which is noted in the submitted Planning Statement as being included in the Terms and Conditions of a plot purchase. The proposal would not impact on agricultural

72

productivity locally; would not detrimentally affect the landscape character; and would not cause any detrimental impacts on the local infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions and reasons: 1. The Remembrance Garden hereby approved shall only be used for the purposes identified within the approved Supporting Statement dated 8th February 2016 (Fife Council Reference 03) and shall not be used as a cemetery. For the avoidance of doubt, there will be no funerals or ceremonies and there shall be no more than 5 persons visiting the site at any one time. Documentary evidence in the form of a detailed log book shall be submitted to this Planning Authority on 31 March each year demonstrating compliance with this condition. Reason: In order to ensure that proper control is retained over the development and in the interests of safeguarding road safety due to the limitations of the site. 2. BEFORE ANY EXTERNAL FINISHES ARE APPLIED TO THE LOG CABIN HEREBY APPROVED, details, including samples, of the specification and colour of the proposed external finishes shall be submitted for approval in writing by this Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; an order to ensure that the design and finishes of the proposed units are appropriate to the character of the area. 3. No engineering/ excavation works shall take place for the creation of the proposed woodchip path. Reason: In order to ensure that no damage is caused to the existing trees during development operations. 4. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, all details of the recommendations detailed in Extended Phase I Habitat Survey dated July 2016 (Fife Council Reference 06) shall be implemented in full following the details being submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure actions that will retain and improve habitat is implemented in full. 5. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, all details of the recommendations detailed in Tree Survey & Arboricultural Report dated August 2016 (Fife Council Reference 10) shall be implemented in full, following the details being submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and effective landscape management; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term. 6. BEFORE ANY WORK STARTS ON SITE, a detailed compensatory planting plan scheme and management plan for the Remembrance Garden site shall be submitted for approval in writing by this Planning Authority. The plan will include details of the location of the compensatory areas to be planted, the nature, design and specifications of the proposed woodland to be

73

planted, and timescale for doing so. It should also set out proposals for maintenance and establishment of the woodland, including: annual checks; replacement planting; fencing; ground preparation; and drainage. The scheme as approved shall be implemented within the first planting season following the business coming into use. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality and enhancement to the existing woodland. 7. All planting carried out on site shall be maintained by the developer to the satisfaction of this Planning Authority for a period of 5-years from the date of planting. Within that period any plants which are dead, damaged, missing, diseased or fail to establish shall be replaced annually. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and effective landscape management; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term. 8. BEFORE THE USE HEREBY APPROVED COMMENCES, the construction of the vehicular crossing of the footway shall be carried out in accordance with the current Fife Council Transportation Development Guidelines. For the avoidance of doubt, the existing field access shall be permanently stopped up and the verge reinstated. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 9. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION WORKS COMMENCING ON THE VEHICULAR ACCESS, details shall be submitted for approval by Fife Council as Planning Authority of the measures proposed to ensure all surface water run-off from the vehicular access and its ancillary regraded slopes is intercepted, prior to it reaching the public road boundary. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not acceptable for the water run-off to discharge into the public roadside verge (including the provision of a drainage trench within the verge). Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 10. BEFORE THE USE HEREBY APPROVED COMMENCES, the access shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to Fife Council as Planning Authority at a gradient not exceeding 1 in 10 (10%) (4% for the first 6 metres from the channel line of the public road) and shall have appropriate vertical curves to ensure adequate ground clearance for vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 11. BEFORE THE USE HEREBY APPROVED COMMENCES, the construction and delineation of the parking, manoeuvring, turning and access areas shall be completed to a standard acceptable to Fife Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 12. PRIOR TO THE VEHICULAR ACCESS HEREBY APPROVED COMING INTO USE, a 3m x 120m oncoming visibility splay and a 3m x 160m visibility splay in the other direction (south east)

74

shall be provided and maintained clear of all obstructions exceeding 1 metre in height above the adjoining road channel level, at the junction of the vehicular access and the public road, in accordance with the current Fife Council Transportation Development Guidelines. The visibility splays shall be retained through the lifetime of the use. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visibility at the junctions of the vehicular access with the public road. 13. BEFORE THE USE HEREBY APPROVED COMMENCES, the 5 No off-street parking spaces and associated turning facilities shall be provided in accordance with the layout shown on Drawing No 1698 PLANNING Rev H (Fife Council Reference 02A) and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the use. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 14. PRIOR TO ANY SITE CLEARANCE WORKS COMMENCING, adequate wheel cleaning facilities approved by Fife Council as Planning Authority shall be provided and maintained throughout the construction works so that no mud, debris or other deleterious material is carried by vehicles on to the public roads. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to eliminate the deposit of deleterious material on public roads. 15. No embankment or slope adjacent to the public road shall be steeper than a 1 in 2 slope. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 16. In the event that contamination not previously identified by the developer prior to the grant of this planning permission is encountered during the development, all works on site (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the Planning Authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, works on site shall not recommence until either (a) a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority or (b) the Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that remediation measures are not required. The Remediation Strategy shall include a timetable for the implementation and completion of the approved remediation measures. Thereafter remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy. Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy a Validation Report shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, no part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the whole site has been remediated in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy and a Validation Report in respect of those works has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure all contamination within the site is dealt with.

STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS

75

In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National Guidance Scottish Planning Policy (2014) PAN1/2011 - Planning and Noise PAN 33 - Development of Contaminated Land PAN 69 - Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding Development Plan SESplan (2013) Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) Other Guidance Proposed FIFEplan (Proposed Fife Local Development Plan) 2014 Fife Council's Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Guidance (2014) Fife Council Planning Customer Guidelines on Trees and Development Fife Council Transportation Development Guidelines

Report prepared by David Shankland, Chartered Planner and Case Officer Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

76

Golf Course

Tank

Wester BandrumIssues

146.2m

158.5m

163.3m

128.9m

B 9

13

45

39

51

B 913

Upper Kinneddar House

37

16/00418/FULL

Land at B913 to Southwest of Saline

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 30 60 9015m

Legend

77

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

ITEM NO: 4 (D) APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 16/00998/FULL

SITE ADDRESS: LAND SITE 1 FULMAR WAY DONIBRISTLE INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPOSAL : ERECTION OF 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SUDS, OPEN SPACE

AND ASSOCIATED ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICANT: MUIR HOMES

MUIR HOUSE BELLEKNOWES INDUSTRIAL ESTATE INVERKEITHING

WARD NO: NW06

Inverkeithing And Dalgety Bay CASE OFFICER: William Shand

DATE REGISTERED:

01/04/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: The Community Council has submitted an objection as a statutory consultee and six letters of support have been received whilst the application is recommended for refusal. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for: Refusal

ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.0 Background 1.1 Site

78

1.1.1 The application site is an area of brownfield land within the Donibristle Industrial Park, Dalgety Bay. The site was formerly used for industrial purposes but has been vacant for a number of years. The application site is 1.79 hectares in area and the site is mostly clear of former development however there are areas of hardstanding, fencing and soil heaps within the site. There are also a number of individual trees within and along the boundary of the site. The site includes an area of land currently used for a garage reserve site. The site is bordered by a supermarket to the west, residential properties to the south and existing industry to the north and east. Access to the site is currently taken from Fulmar Way to the north, however public access to the site is currently restricted by security fencing. The site is relatively flat in gradient and is a mixture of regenerated scrubland and hardstanding. 1.1.2 The application site is within an area designated as residential development site DGB 003 within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012. The site remains allocated for residential development within the Proposed FIFEplan 2014 through allocation DGB 002. 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 44 No. residential units with associated car parking, landscaping, SUDS and infrastructure. There is a mixture of detached, semi-detached, and terraced properties proposed for the site with the majority being two storey buildings. The dwellings would be a variety of two, three and four bedroom properties. Access to the site would be taken from Moray Way North through Bouprie Rise and Otterston Grove to the south east corner of the site. Otterston Grove is currently a cul-de-sac which ends in a Council garage reserve site. These garages would be removed to accommodate a new access road directly from Otterston Grove to the site. The garage reserve site would be replaced by a pair of semi-detached properties to the western side of the new access road and an area of six car parking spaces on the eastern side. These properties would be positioned slightly forward of the existing building line of the existing properties to the south. The site would be designed to be two cul-de-sacs with a new internal road system splitting east and west from the access to two communal parking areas. SUDS would be formed in the south west corner of the site and an area of open space and landscaping would run along the majority of the western and southern boundaries. A footpath would also be incorporated into this area of open space. Along the northern and eastern boundary there is proposed to be a 10m wide landscape buffer outwith the gardens of the residential properties. A line of trees would be planted around the edge of the site. 1.3 Planning History 1.3.1 An application (14/01947/FULL) for 47 residential units within this site was refused planning permission on 27 March 2015. The reasons for refusal were: 1) The development would be contrary to Designing Streets and policies E2, E4 and T2 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 as development would take access from an existing cul-de-sac creating a lack of vehicular connectivity and a site which does not integrate well with the existing residential area. The development would lead to a loss of existing residential parking and intensification of an existing cul-de-sac to the detriment of existing residential amenity and would create a residential development of poor form and relationship with the existing residential area. 2) The development would be contrary to policies DGB003, E2 and E4 and Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) in that garden ground for some properties would

79

fall short of the minimum standard and that a required 10m landscape has not been provided. The lower standards of garden ground and lack of stand off from the boundary would result in the proposed noise attenuation feature (2.5m bund and 2.5m fence) being overbearing and oppressive to adjacent future residents and creating a lower standard of amenity space to the detriment of future residential amenity. This application is a resubmission of that previous application with the applicant revising the layout and submitting additional supporting information to address the reasons for refusal. 1.3.2 A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) (15/04058/PAN) was received on 27 November 2015 for a residential development of circa 51 residential units within this site. Subsequently an application (16/01887/FULL) has been submitted for 51 units with the same site boundary. This application however shows the access to the site coming from Fulmar Way rather than Otterston Grove. This application is also before Committee for determination. 1.4 Application Process 1.4.1 The proposal is not categorised as a major development within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) Regulations 2009 as the site is less than 2 hectares in area and the development is for less than 50 units. The application is before committee as more than 5 letters of support and objection have been received and the community council as statutory consultee have objected. 1.4.2 Although no formal EIA screening request has been made, the application was screened under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 and the proposal was considered not to constitute a development which required an Environmental Impact Assessment. 1.5 Emerging Local Development Plan 1.5.1 The Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014) is a material consideration but at the current stage in the process which leads to adoption of the plan it does not have the same status or carry the same weight as the current Development Plan. In the context of this report the Proposed FIFEplan will only be referenced where it conflicts with the current Adopted Local Plan position. The examination of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) is now complete and reference may be made to any changes proposed through examination that would change a policy position. 1.5.2 This site is now allocated as DGB002 within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and is designated as a housing site. 2.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 2.1 The issues to be assessed against the Development Plan and other guidance are as follows: - Principle of Residential Development - Housing Land Supply/ Sustainable Development - Design and Layout - Residential Amenity - Open Space, Play Provision and Landscaping - Transportation - Natural Heritage

80

- Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk - Contaminated Land - Affordable Housing - Education 2.2 Principle of Residential Development 2.2.1 The site is located within the settlement boundary of Dalgety Bay. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014) seeks to promote successful sustainable places with a focus on low carbon place; a natural, resilient place; and, a more connected place. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) promotes the use of the plan-led system with plans being up-to-date and relevant, thus reinforcing the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The SPP (Enabling the Delivery of New Housing) also requires the development plan to identify a generous supply of housing land, within a range of attractive, well designed sites that can contribute to the creation of successful and sustainable places. The Adopted Local Plan is the preferred mechanism for the delivery of housing / residential land rather than individual planning applications. The SESplan Strategic Development Plan (2013) outlines the housing land requirements for each local plan area and requires each local plan area to meet these requirements through the provision of Strategic Development Areas (identified within SESplan) and a housing land allocation which will maintain a five year housing land supply. 2.2.2 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan (2012) states that suitable development within town and village settlement boundaries will be supported where it conforms to relevant Development Plan policies and proposals and seeks to ensure that development respects the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape, complies with any development brief or other planning guidance agreed or issued by Fife Council and is compatible with neighbouring uses amongst other criteria. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) as amended at examination states that all housing proposals must:

1. Meet the requirements for the site identified in the settlement plan tables and relevant site brief; and 2. Include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance.

2.2.3 The application site is located in an area which is identified within the Adopted Local Plan as Proposal DGB 003 (Fulmar Way 2) and is zoned solely for housing, with an estimated capacity of 50 units. The policy also requires a 10 metre wide landscaping belt to Fulmar Way and adjoining industrial premises plus any additional measures required to mitigate noise from traffic or employment uses, such as acoustic fencing. The site should also contain open space near the southern edge of the site along with a path/ cycle link to Meadowfield/ Moray Way North. SUDS are also required. 2.2.4 The application site includes land out with the proposal designation of DGB 003. This includes the former junction head from Fulmar Way which is designated as B1 (Protected Employment Area) and the garage reserve site which has no specific allocation and therefore must be assessed against policy E2. Policy B1 states that allocated and established employment areas, as identified on the Proposals Map, and others that in the view of Fife Council serve a valuable employment purpose will be safeguarded for continued industrial and business use. Policy 5 (Employment Land and Property) within the Proposed FIFEplan replicates Policy B1. Policy 5 has been subject of some change during the examination but these changes do not include anything material to the consideration of the principle of this development.

81

2.2.5 Policy 1 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the principle of development will be supported if it is either within a defined settlement boundary and compliant with the policies for the location or in in a location where the proposed use is supported by the Local Development Plan. The site is allocated as DGB002 within the proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014). The site designation has not changed through examination. This policy has similar requirements to proposals policy DGB 003 within the Adopted Plan. This policy however also states that site access arrangements will not be from the adjacent industrial estate both to avoid detrimental impact on business users and to protect the amenity of residential properties. 2.2.6 The application is for 44 residential units and therefore would be in compliance with the indicative unit number of 50 within the proposals policy. There is a general understanding that there is an allowance for a 20% decrease in unit numbers below the indicative number within the policy before a development would be considered contrary to the development plan. The unit number proposed would be within this limit. In principle the development would comply with proposals policy DGB 003 however this is subject to the proposal also meeting the site specific requirements within this policy. The site requires a 10m wide landscaping belt to Fulmar Way and adjoining industrial premises plus any additional measures to mitigate noise. The 10m wide landscaping belt has been provided along the boundary with Fulmar Way and the adjoining industrial unit to the east. The previously refused application included this buffer area within the rear gardens of the proposed properties which was deemed unacceptable as it would reduce the amenity standards of residents. This aspect has been resolved with the gardens meeting the minimum standard for garden length and the 10m landscaping strip being fully outwith the gardens. The policy also requires the provision of any other noise attenuation required to mitigate noise. This is shown as a 3m high acoustic bund with 2m high acoustic fence on top. The bund would be landscaped to screen both it and the fence. A noise assessment has been submitted with the application which supports the use of the acoustic barrier at this size. The Public Protection Team has considered the assessment but does not consider it adequate to prove that there would be no significant noise impact on future residents from the existing industrial uses. This is discussed further in section 2.5 of the report. It is therefore considered that the proposed noise barrier is not adequate and would not meet the terms of policy DGB 003. Whilst open space, a landscape buffer, a path/ cycle link and SUDS have been provided in accordance with this policy, as the noise barrier is not sufficient to mitigate noise from existing industrial uses, it is considered that the development is not in compliance with policy DGB 003 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012). 2.2.7 Policy DGB 002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) has similar site specific criteria as the Adopted Local Plan. This policy however specifies that access to the site should not be taken from Fulmar Way. The application proposes a site access from Otterston Grove and therefore meets this requirement. This policy also requires that a suitable acoustic barrier is provided. As noted above, this has not been achieved and therefore the proposal would also be considered contrary to policy DGB 002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 2.2.8 The former access to the site has retained a policy designation of B1 (Protected Employment Area) which reflects the former use of the site. It is unclear why this part of the site has been designated in this manner but it is presumed that the Reporter considered this access would be retained as the access to the site. Even if this access was retained for the site, the area of land would serve no purpose for the wider employment area. It is noted that the Proposed FIFEplan has this inclusion as well and thereby assessment against Policy 5 of that document is also required. This designation appears to be an anomaly and this area of land currently has no value for industry or business. The inclusion of this land within the residential development therefore

82

would not adversely affect the wider established employment area and therefore the development would be in compliance with Policy B1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy 5 of the Proposed FIFEplan for that reason. 2.2.9 Whilst the majority of the development is within the area designated for Development Plan proposal policy DGB 003, the site also includes an area of unallocated land which can only be considered under Policy E2. The full site should also be assessed against policy E2 and it is reasonable to include this area of land in the overall assessment of the proposal in relation to this policy. Policy E2 requires a site to be compatible with neighbouring uses and compatible with planning guidance issued by Fife Council. The site is neighboured by residential development to the south and industrial uses to the north and east. While in principle residential development would be compatible with an existing residential area, in this instance there are significant impacts caused by the proposed development that would result in the development not being compatible with the adjacent residential area. Access to the development has been shown to be provided through an existing cul-de-sac (Otterston Grove). It is considered that the intensification of the use of the cul-de-sac at Otterston Grove would lead to an increase in traffic movement through a relatively short, quiet residential street which has existing parking problems. Otterston Grove is not considered suitable as a through route as it was not designed to be extended in this way and the change in the nature of the road would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the area. The applicant contends this assessment and has submitted information which will be discussed later in this report. It is considered however that the change in the nature of the cul-de-sac would have a detrimental impact on existing residents and consequently the development would not be compatible with neighbouring land uses and therefore contrary to Policy E2 of Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012. 2.2.10 As noted the site also neighbours industrial uses. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) as amended through examination states that development should include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance. The developer has indicated in the submitted noise assessment that a noise barrier would be provided and details of this have been provided. The noise barrier is not considered sufficient to mitigate the noise from the neighbouring uses as already noted. While in principle these two land uses may be able to be positioned next to one another, there is a lack of information to indicate that this development could be accommodated next to the existing industrial land uses contrary to Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014).

2.2.11 It is noted that the majority of the site is allocated for residential development within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and therefore in principle this development would be acceptable for this site. Having considered the proposal relative to the specific requirements of policies DGB 003 of the Adopted Local Plan and DGB 002 of the Proposed Local Development Plan and the impact considerations of policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan, it is considered that the proposed development in its current form would not be acceptable for this location. While the site is allocated for residential development, all of the specific criteria of the policy cannot be met. The requirement for measures to mitigate noise from neighbouring industrial premises has not been achieved. While details of a noise barrier have been provided, the Public Protection Team has advised that this is not sufficient to adequately mitigate the noise for future residents. In addition the proposed access to the site would cause a detrimental impact to neighbouring existing residential properties in terms of the intensification of the cul-de-sac which would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and contrary to policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan. The potential impact on neighbouring land uses would also be contrary to policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). Consequently, it is considered that while the

83

site is allocated for residential use, the proposed development cannot be accommodated without detriment to surrounding land uses and future residents contrary to policies DGB003 and E2 of the Adopted Local Plan and policies 2 and DGB002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 2.3 Housing Land Supply/ Sustainable Development 2.3.1 This site is included within the Housing Land Audit (2016) as an ineffective housing site due to access constraints. The site therefore does not currently contribute to the effective five year Housing Land Supply. Housing Land Supply and the implications of this site would therefore be a material consideration for this application. SPP (2014) (Enabling the Delivery of New Housing) requires the planning system to identify a generous supply of housing land, enable provision of a range of good quality housing and contribute to the creation of successful place and have a sharp focus on the delivery of allocated sites. Planning authorities, developers, service providers and other partners in housing provision should work together to ensure a continuing supply of effective land. Where a shortfall emerges, development plan policies for the supply of housing land will not be considered up to date and paragraphs 32-35 (Sustainability) will be relevant. 2.3.2 SPP (2014) paragraphs 32-35 state that where relevant policies in a development plan are out of date then the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. The SPP does not clarify or provide any criteria for a basis for compliance specifically within this paragraph. The development should therefore comply with the 13 policy principles of Sustainable Development set out within paragraph 29. These include: - giving due weight to net economic benefit; - responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, as outlined in local economic strategies; - supporting good design and the six qualities of successful places; - making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure including supporting town centre and regeneration priorities; - supporting delivery of accessible housing, business, retailing and leisure development; - supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; - supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk; - improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation; - having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment; - reducing waste, facilitating its management and promoting resource recovery; - and avoiding over-development, protecting the amenity of new and existing development and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality. 2.3.3 SESplan (2013) outlines the housing requirements for each Local Plan Area and requires that a five year land supply is retained at all times. Policy 5 of SESplan (2013) states that Local Development Plans will allocate sufficient land which is capable of becoming effective and delivering the scale of the housing requirements for each period, which will be confirmed in the Supplementary Guidance. The SESplan Supplementary Guidance Housing Land November 2014 relates directly to this policy. This Supplementary Guidance states that the Fife LDP area has a housing land requirement of 17,140 units between 2009- 2019.

84

2.3.4 SESplan (2013) policy 6 states that each planning authority in the SESplan area must maintain a five years' effective housing land supply at all times. The scale of the supply will be derived from the housing requirements for each Local Development Plan area identified through the supplementary guidance provided for by Policy 5. 2.3.5 Policy H1 (Maintaining an effective 5 year land supply at all times) of the Adopted Local Plan states that the Council shall prepare supplementary guidance within 1 year of adoption of the Plan to address mechanisms to enable the delivery of brownfield opportunity sites and other sites from the established land supply and a detailed framework to guide the release of additional housing land. 2.3.6 Fife Council's Maintaining an Effective Five year Land Supply at all times Supplementary Planning Guidance (2013) has been created in accordance with policy H1. This states that a release of further effective housing land may be acceptable where a shortfall is identified. The SPG sets out criteria with which a site must comply with to be considered appropriate for release. The applicant has not made this assessment as they are not promoting the release of further greenfield land. 2.3.7 Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) states that housing development will be supported to meet strategic housing land requirements and provide a continuous 5-year effective housing land supply; 1. On sites allocated for housing in this Plan; or 2. On other sites provided the proposal is compliant with the policies for the location. Where a shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply is shown to exist, housing proposals will be supported where they meet the sequential test for housing shown in Figure 2.1 (at the end of this policy section) and in paragraphs 1-5 of 'Applying Policy 2'. 2.3.8 Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) has been amended through the examination and the Reporter has proposed that the policy states that housing development will be supported to meet strategic housing land requirements and provide a continuous 5-year effective housing land supply; 1. On sites allocated for housing in this Plan; or 2. On other sites provided the proposal is compliant with the policies for the location. Where a shortfall in the 5 year effective housing land supply is shown to exist within the relevant Housing Market Area, housing proposals within this Housing Market Area will be supported subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: 1. the development is capable of delivering completions in the next 5 years; 2. the development would not have adverse impacts which would outweigh the benefits of addressing any shortfall when assessed against the wider policies of the plan; 3. the development would complement and not undermine the strategy of the plan; and 4. infrastructure constraints can be addressed. 2.3.9 The current Housing Land Audit 2016 (November 2016) has shown that there is a shortfall in the 5-year effective land supply for this Housing Market Area. The current shortfall within the Housing Market Area is as follows: 5-year Effective Housing Land Supply 2016-2021 Housing requirement (2016-2021) 10,372

85

Total Supply (2016-2021) 5,361 5-Year housing shortfall 5,012 Percentage Shortfall 48.3% 2.3.10 Firstly, it is evident that there is a current shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply which requires mitigation in the short term and this is best achieved through the allocation of new sites in the Development Plan, making non-effective sites effective by removing constraints, or bringing forward the phasing of sites currently allocated in plans phased for a later period. As this site does not currently form part of the 5-year effective housing land supply but is an allocated site, it could have a positive effect on the shortfall. Bringing non-effective housing land into use reduces the need for the release of additional sites or release of greenfield sites. This would be considered a positive material consideration of the proposal.

2.3.11 SPP (2014) outlines that where a shortfall in a 5-year effective housing land supply is identified then there is a presumption in favour of development that contributes to Sustainable Development and this will be a significant material consideration. As noted in section 2.3.2 above, the development should comply with the 13 policy principles of Sustainable Development set out within paragraph 29 for this to be considered a significant material consideration. The development is considered to comply with the majority of these principles (where applicable) but would not comply with them all. The proposal is not considered to protect the amenity of new and existing development. These matters will be discussed in more detail later in the report but in brief the proposal is not considered to integrate well with the neighbouring residential area through extending an existing cul-de-sac. This would have a detrimental impact on existing amenity given that this would intensify an existing cul-de-sac and would change the character of the street. The proposal is also unlikely to protect the amenity of future residents as the noise from neighbouring uses cannot be adequately mitigated. The proposal is therefore considered not to comply with this principle of Sustainable Development and thereby there would be no presumption in favour of this development.

2.3.12 The proposal would have a positive effect on the shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply which is a significant material consideration. The proposal however would not comply with all the principles of Sustainable Development as set out within SPP. It is not considered that the positive effect on the shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply would be of sufficient material weight to outweigh the non-compliance with the Development Plan or the issues with regards to access and amenity outlined later in the report.

2.4 Design and Layout 2.4.1 The SPP (Placemaking) advises that planning should take every opportunity to create high quality places by taking a design-led approach and planning should support development that is designed to a high-quality, which demonstrates the six qualities of successful place. These six qualities are distinctive; safe and pleasant; welcoming; adaptable; resource efficient and easy to move around and beyond. This is further expanded upon within the Scottish Government Policy document Designing Streets which states that an emphasis should be placed on design providing a sense of place and taking cognisance of the history and context of the surrounding area and design should connect and relate to the surrounding environment. 2.4.2 The Adopted Local Plan includes two key policies relating to design. Policy E3 requires new developments to respect the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access

86

arrangements. Policy E4 requires new development to make a positive contribution to its environment in terms of high standards of architecture, best use of site attributes, safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. The Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance provides further assessment considerations in this regard and provides a local context for national policy. Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the Council will apply the six qualities of successful places when considering development proposals. 2.4.3 The site layout has been designed to take into account the surrounding local street context and layout while addressing the constraints of the sites shape, requirements and surrounding uses. The units at the access continue the existing stepped building line at Ottertson Grove before opening up in to the main residential development. The site follows a generally regular street pattern with the majority of properties fronting onto the new internal road network in fairly straight building lines. The overall site layout and building arrangement is consistent with the surrounding street patterns. Of particular note is the position and orientation of plots 33- 44 at the western end of the site. These properties do no front onto the internal road system but instead are orientated to give active frontages for the open space and footpath while backing onto a parking court. This provides some variety for the site and provides a strong end to the cul-de-sac in this location. The open space along the southern and western boundary enhances the site and is a pleasant addition to the site. The incorporation of the footpath from Fulmar Way provides good connectivity through the site for pedestrians and cycles and provides permeability for the site and the wider residential area. It would be expected that plots A02, 7, 10, 29, 30 and 32 would have enhanced gable arrangements as these have frontages to streets or provide a gable frontage to the open space. The general internal layout of the site is therefore considered acceptable. 2.4.4 A mixture of properties are proposed throughout the site with the majority of these being two storeys in height, the only exception being a pair of semi-detached bungalows being provided as amenity housing. The design of the properties is generally acceptable with most providing interesting frontages through the use of banding, fascia detailing and porches. These buildings would relate well with the existing residential properties in terms of scale, design and orientation and would help the site integrate with the existing residential area. Full details of the materials have not been provided although the plans show that the predominant external material would be a type of render. The surrounding area is not particularly sensitive in terms of material choice as it is noted that the residential area to the south has a mixture of materials and palette of colours and therefore there is no consistency in material choice in the wider area. External finishes would therefore not be restricted by the sensitivity of the area or an existing consistent material choice. The choice of materials for the site can therefore be considered through condition. 2.4.5 In terms of the sites integration with the existing residential area it is noted that the development would essentially be an extension of an existing cul-de-sac. Designing Streets states that the use of conventional cul-de-sacs is strongly discouraged as they concentrate traffic impact on a small number of dwellings and lead to additional vehicle travel and emissions. The document accepts that cul-de-sacs may be required where there are site constraints and it is accepted here that a through route to Fulmar Way may not be possible due to the conflict between residential and industrial traffic. Only one access is therefore achievable and this in itself is not unacceptable as there are many examples of successful cul-de-sacs particularly in the local area. The issue for the site, in design terms, is that this access is taken off an existing cul-de-sac and therefore is forming a cul-de-sac onto another cul-de-sac which has never been designed to accommodate further traffic or vehicle movements. Due to this, the site does not integrate well with the existing residential area but appears tacked onto an established residential area. This awkward arrangement would also concentrate further traffic impact on the existing residential properties as Designing Streets indicates which would likely lead to a detrimental impact on existing residential

87

amenity. Therefore while the internal layout and design of the site is acceptable, it is considered that the sites integration and connectivity with the wider residential area is not appropriate and does not fully conform with Designing Streets and would also be likely lead to a reduction in existing residential amenity. 2.4.6 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) advises that new dwellinghouses shall have private garden ground of at least 100 square metres per dwellinghouse with 50 square metres of private amenity ground for flats. 2.4.7 In terms of compliance with these guidelines it is noted that some plots need further consideration. Plot A1 and A2 are short of private amenity space. These plots however follow the existing building pattern of Ottertson Grove which also would not meet the current private amenity space standards. It is preferred, from a design perspective, that these properties follow the building pattern of the street rather than adjusting the building line to provide the minimum amenity space standards. The garden depths for the properties would meet the minimum 9m requirement however. Also, it should be noted that these gardens are not significantly short of the minimum standards and would still provide a good standard of private amenity space. A large number of the plots internally within the site are also slightly short of the minimum space standards in area. They all however meet the minimum rear garden depth requirement of 9m. Although it would be preferable for the plots to meet the minimum garden standards in terms of area, it is considered that this pattern follows the wider residential context in terms of private amenity space. The existing residential properties to the south predominantly have smaller private amenity spaces and therefore this site will follow this existing development pattern. It is also noted that the site would contain a large area of high value open space which would also compensate for the lower standard of private amenity space for most plots. As this involves the development of a brownfield site within the settlement boundary there are greater constraints on site size. Consequently a certain degree of leniency can be given to these standards where appropriate future residential amenity can be provided. The smaller garden sizes can therefore be accepted in this instance. 2.4.8 Specific boundary treatment details have not been provided at this stage however indicative boundary treatment has been shown for plots 33-42 to show how these properties would relate to the neighbouring open space. The drawing shows that these plots would have a hedge to the front of their property to define their property line. This would be an appropriate boundary marker and would integrate well with the proposed open space. The properties which front onto the open space are three blocks of four terraced properties. Boundary treatments to the rear of these plots and to the sides of properties which front onto two internal roads will also be important to ensure that the site is not dominated by screen fences. A condition would be required if planning permission was approved requiring the submission of boundary treatment details to further consider these aspects in terms of design and layout and to avoid an over use of timber fencing. 2.4.9 While the overall internal layout of the development is considered acceptable, the integration of the site with the wider residential area is not acceptable as the development would create an unacceptable burden on the existing residential area through the extension of the existing cul-de-sac. Overall therefore, it is considered that the design and layout of the development is not appropriate for these reasons and the development would not comply with policies E3 and E4 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) and Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 2.5 Residential Amenity

88

2.5.1 PAN 1/2011 establishes the best practice and the planning considerations to be taken into account with regard to developments that may generate noise, or developments that may be subject to noise. Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development proposals which protect personal privacy and amenity. Policy E2 of the Local Plan supports development proposals where they are compatible with neighbouring uses and do not adversely affect the privacy of neighbours. Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that development will only be supported if it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses. The policy sets out the considerations in this regard which includes impact from noise, traffic movements, construction impacts, impacts on the operation of existing or proposed businesses and commercial operations and loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that developments will include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance. 2.5.2 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) complement the aforementioned policies by advocating that design of residential environments must seek to ensure that adequate levels of natural light can be achieved within new development and unacceptable impacts on light to nearby properties are avoided. Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings sets out British Industry Standards on the accepted distance between windows to ensure personal privacy is maintained. 2.5.3 In assessing residential amenity, attention should be paid not only to existing adjacent neighbours to the site but also to the interaction of the proposed houses to each other within the site. All plot layouts and housing units have been designed to ensure that the windows of the proposed dwellings would be in compliance with the distances set out within the aforementioned Customer Guideline. The minimum 18m window to window distance has been achieved between all adjacent properties within the site and external to the site. On this basis, there would be no privacy issues caused by this development. 2.5.4 In terms of loss of sunlight and daylight it is noted that the proposed development would be to the north of the existing residential properties. Due to this there would be no loss of sunlight created by this development on existing properties. There is also a sufficient separation distance between this development and the existing properties so as to not cause any significant loss of daylight. The development has been laid out so as to ensure that the proposed properties would not cause any significant loss of sunlight or daylight for one another. The noise barrier required to attenuate noise runs along the eastern edge of the site and is likely to cause some loss of early morning sunlight for adjacent future properties. As this would only relate to a few hours of early morning sun, this would not cause any significant impact on future residents or result in the gardens being unusable. 2.5.5 The previous application was refused as a noise attenuation bund was incorporated into the rear gardens of the plots which bordered the eastern and northern boundaries of the site. This resulted in these gardens having an incline and the bund reducing usable garden space. This was considered inappropriate and would have caused an adverse impact on the residential amenity of future residents. With this current proposal the noise attenuation has been removed from the gardens and a 10m wide landscape buffer has been provided. This would meet the requirements of the policy and also ensure the residential amenity of future residents was not compromised. It is considered that this reason for refusal has been resolved. In a recent appeal decision in Cowdenbeath (PPA-250-2236) for residential development adjacent to existing industrial properties the Reporter concluded that the residential amenity of future properties would be adversely affected by a relatively high noise attenuation feature. He considered that this would be

89

visually oppressive and out of character with the adjoining residential area. This is not considered to be directly relevant to this proposal given the distance between the noise barrier and properties and the proposed height of the barrier for this proposal. If the barrier was to be made larger to try and resolve the outstanding noise concern then this Reporter decision may be of relevance.

2.5.6 As outlined in section 2.2.9 above, the proposed access is likely to lead to impacts on residential amenity in terms of the intensification of the cul-de-sac and the general impact from the increase in traffic through an existing cul-de-sac which has not been designed to provide further through traffic either through an existing situation or potential future expansion. This would create a significant impact on existing residential amenity contrary to policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan. This cul-de-sac has been designed to end at the garage reserve site which is currently an end stop to development. This street has been a cul-de-sac since its inception with limited vehicular traffic other than to access the properties on the street or the garage reserve site. The residents have therefore become accustomed to this environment and it is noted from the points of representation that some have moved to this area for that very reason. The street was never designed to be an eventual through route and thereby there has never been this knowledge or expectation from residents. The removal of the garages and extension to the cul-de-sac would change its nature and character by creating a through route for 44 units and the vehicles associated with this. This would negatively change the amenity and experience of the residents currently living in this location by changing their living environment. Should this street have been always envisaged as a through route then this concern would be less of a consideration. Overall, it is considered that the change in the nature of this street and intensification of the cul-de-sac would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the area.

2.5.7 The submitted Transport Assessment also contains an environment impact assessment of the proposed impact of the increase in traffic on the local environment. This considers the effects on the local environment and population from severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation and accidents and safety. This work has been carried out to prove that there would not be any detrimental impact on amenity from the increase in traffic from this development and resolve one of the reasons for refusal on the previous application. In terms of pedestrian severance, the TA shows that at most the increase in traffic would lead to a traffic movement of one vehicle per minute over a 12 hour period which would not have a detrimental impact on pedestrian movements. Similarly it was found that driver delay and pedestrian delay would be minimally affected. The impact in terms of fear and intimidation and pedestrian amenity was found to be slightly negative due to the increase in traffic but this was not considered to be significant due to the existing traffic movements being low. Finally there is a negligible likelihood of accidents and safety being a significant issue. Overall, the assessment found there to be no significant impact on the existing local environment from this proposal in terms of traffic impact. This is subject to mitigation being provided in terms of promoting alternative forms of transport and residential travel packs being provided to the first occupants of the units. 2.5.8 The commentary in the Transport Assessment is noted however it is not considered that this fully considers all potential impacts of this development particularly in terms of the change of character and intensification of the street from the existing situation. The report does identify that the street currently has a low background traffic movement and that in some cases there will be a large increase in traffic movements. With the background traffic movement level being so low, it is likely that any significant increase in traffic movement will create a change which is noticeable to residents. The change to one car passing every minute will likely be apparent to residents from their previous position of living within a street which ends in a cul-de-sac. It is therefore considered that the information submitted in this regard is not sufficient to resolve the issues raised in terms of residential amenity.

90

2.5.9 As the proposal is neighboured by industrial premises to the east and north and a supermarket to the west there is the potential for the proposed residential properties to be adversely affected by noise. The Local Plan designation requires the provision of a 10m wide landscape buffer along with other appropriate noise mitigation. The 10m landscape strip has been proposed along with a 5m high acoustic barrier comprising of a 3m high bund with 2m high acoustic fence on top. This solution is proposed for both the eastern and northern boundaries. Along with the details, the applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment Report which concludes that the barrier would be sufficient in providing adequate noise mitigation for these properties. The noise source to the east is Dyce Carriers which is a haulage firm. To the north is Grant Construction which appears to use the site for industry and storage of vehicles and equipment. An Asda supermarket is to the west. The assessment found that noise from Asda was within accepted limits for the site. The assessment found however that the noise from Grant Construction and Dyce Carriers would be significant and thereby the noise barrier was necessary. 2.5.10 The Public Protection Team has been consulted on the application and concluded that the noise assessment criteria used within the Noise Assessment is not applicable for this development as the noise is from an industrial source. They consider that the Noise Assessment has been carried out using anonymous noise sources which is not appropriate for this location. One of the objectors has had their own noise survey carried out which also comes to the same conclusion. The applicant has submitted further information in this regard to prove that there would be no significant noise impact from neighbouring uses on this development however the Public Protection Team has expressed significant concerns and do not believe that sufficient information has been submitted to prove there would be no adverse impact on future residents. 2.5.11 There appears to be some debate between the Public Protection Team, objectors and the applicant’s consultants over the standards that should be used to assess the potential noise impacts for this development. Any noise impact on future residents would not only adversely affect their residential amenity but may also affect the viability of the companies using the neighbouring sites from the enforcement of noise complaints restricting the operation and working hours of these companies. This would be unacceptable and on this basis it is considered that a precautionary approach should be taken here. While there is some debate on the standards to be used, it is clear that there are sufficient risks to future amenity and existing neighbouring land uses so as to suggest that a higher standard of assessment should be expected here. According to the Public Protection Team, insufficient assessment has been carried out and thereby insufficient evidence is available to suggest that this development would be acceptable in terms of noise impacts. The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan.

2.5.12 Overall, while the development would not adversely affect existing residential amenity in terms of loss of sunlight/ daylight or privacy for existing properties, the residential amenity of existing properties would be adversely affected through the intensification of the use of the cul-de-sac in creating a through route for this development. The amenity of future residents is unlikely to be protected due to the lack of a sufficient noise barrier to properly mitigate noise to the appropriate standard. Consequently it is considered that the development would not comply with policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and Policies 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014).

2.6 Open Space, Play Provision and Landscaping

91

2.6.1 The SPP in terms of sustainable development advocates the protection of, enhancement and promotion of access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, open space and the wider environment. The part of the policy aimed at maximising the benefits of Green Infrastructure sets out a set of policy principles to help guide the delivery of this. The planning system should ensure that Green Infrastructure is an integral element of places, facilitate the long term integrated management of Green Infrastructure and provide for easy and safe access to Green Infrastructure. Detailed advice is also provided within PAN 65 Planning and Open Space. 2.6.2 Policy E5 of the Adopted Local Plan states that housing proposals of 10 houses or more are required to provide a minimum of 60sqm of total open space per household, alongside accessible and secure equipped play, sport and recreational facilities commensurate with the scale of development. Flexibility can be applied for small sites, town centre sites, brownfield sites and where sites are adjacent to existing public open spaces. It also insists that maintenance arrangements are established for public and common areas, and where it is proposed to pass such spaces to the Council, a 25 year maintenance fee shall be passed to the Council. Adopted Local Plan Policies E25 and E26 advise that trees within development sites should be retained where at all possible and new tree planting should be an integral part of a development, especially if trees are required to be removed as part of a development. 2.6.3 Fife Council's Making Fifes Places Supplementary Guidance sets an aspiration that all residents within Fife will be within 250m of a 0.2 hectare area of open space. If this is the case then a development site will not be expected to provide green space on site but the open space requirement can be met through a contribution per house towards the upgrade of the existing open space. Local equipped play areas must be provided on site for developments which have over 200 houses that are more than 500m from an existing equipped play area. Generally new housing within 500m walking distance of an existing equipped play area will not be required to provide these facilities on site but may be required to make a financial contribution to the upgrade of existing facilities. 2.6.4 The proposed layout includes an area of open space which runs along the western edge of the site. This area of open space provides sufficient open space for the whole development site. In addition there is an area of more formal open space to the southern boundary of the site and a play area around 125m from the site. The open space within the site is thoughtfully positioned and will provide a good area for informal recreation for residents. Given this is a brownfield site, policy E5 allows some flexibility in the area of open space that can be provided. As noted, it is considered that the open space proposed for this development is sufficient. 2.6.5 There is a play area around 125m to the south west of the site. This is within a reasonable walking distance of the site and the provision of the footpath between the site and Meadowfield will also provide a safe walking route avoiding busy roads. Leisure and Cultural Services have requested that the developer provide £1000 per dwelling. This would only apply to the market units. This equates to £33000 for additional or enhanced play provision which could be secured through a legal agreement if planning permission was approved. It is therefore considered that the site has adequate play provision within a reasonable distance from the site and this can be enhanced if necessary. As this is a brownfield site, in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Guidance this site would be exempt from making this contribution unless the Council considered there to be a significant deficiency. 2.6.6 Landscaping is provided throughout the site with individual trees being shown within the internal road network and in the open space. While acting as unconventional traffic calming the trees would also add to the overall visual amenity of the site. The open space area would also

92

incorporate planting with the footpath being lined by trees. Full landscaping details have not been provided other than as indicative information in the layout plans. Should the application be approved, final landscaping and maintenance and management details would be required through planning condition. Overall it is considered that adequate landscaping and planting is being proposed to benefit the overall development. 2.6.7 To accommodate the development, there is a requirement to remove 13 trees which exist on site. These are all relatively small, young self-sown trees which currently offer little amenity value. A tree report has been submitted and classifies them as category C trees which is the lowest category of value for trees which are otherwise healthy. While it is always preferable to retain existing trees it is considered that the loss of these trees would not cause any significant impact on amenity in the long term and the proposed trees shown for the site would more than compensate for the loss of these existing trees. Final details of the trees to be planted would be acquired through planning condition to ensure these are suitable species’ and sufficient to provide compensation for the tree loss. There are other trees along the southern boundary of the site. These could be protected through tree protection measures if planning permission was given. Overall, it is considered that sufficient mitigation has been provided to protect the high amenity trees along the southern boundary of the site and to compensate for the loss of other trees to facilitate this development. 2.6.8 The layout plans for the site show that high quality landscaping and open space adequate for a development of this scale and location is envisaged and there is play provision within a reasonable distance from the site. Consequently the development would therefore accord with the development plan in this regard. 2.7 Transportation 2.7.1 The national context for the assessment of the impact of new developments on transportation infrastructure is set out in SPP (A connected Place). The overarching aim of this document is to encourage a shift to more sustainable forms of transport and reduce the reliance on the car. Planning permission should be resisted if the development would have a significant impact on the strategic road network. 2.7.2 Policy 8 of SESplan states that Local Authorities should ensure that new development minimises the generation of additional car traffic through applying car parking standards that relate to public transport accessibility. In addition the policy states that LDP's should also ensure that the design and layout of new development demonstrably promotes non-car modes of travel and, should consider the merits of protecting existing and potential traffic free cycle and walking routes (such as disused railways) affected by any development proposals. 2.7.3 Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to be located where it is accessible to the public transport network; where there is capacity in the road network and where there is no road safety problem. New development should provide safe and convenient cycle and pedestrian access; a safe route to school; cycle parking; the protection and integration of existing routes; a safe route to stations and public transport interchanges; and multiple points of access to the road network. Policy T2 requires new developments to make provision for pedestrians; traffic calming and a road layout that is in accordance with the Transportation Development Guidelines and the supplementary Designing Streets guidance. 2.7.4 Access to the site would be taken through the demolition of the garages within the garage reserve site at the end of the cul-de-sac of Otterston Grove. While an existing access to the site

93

exists from Fulmar Way, the use of this access for residential development is not considered acceptable and would be considered contrary to the Proposed FIFEplan. Fulmar Way is primarily an industrial estate road but also includes access to the Asda car park and service road. The use of this access to serve a housing site would not be acceptable as it would introduce conflicts between residential and industrial traffic to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety. Consequently the access to the site is proposed through Otterston Grove, which is the only obvious alternative. Many of the residents in that area have expressed concern regarding the opening up of the cul-de-sac to service a 44 unit development. Whilst the use of Otterston Grove was promoted as potential access, given the road safety concerns with using Fulmar Way, there is concern that the use of this access would intensify the existing cul-de-sac to an unacceptable degree. The change from a cul-de-sac to a through road would change the character of this section of the street which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area. This street was never designed as a through route and the garage reserve site has existed as a natural end to this street since its inception. The existing residents have therefore moved to this area or lived in this area with the knowledge that this street would not be anything more than a cul-de-sac. The formation of the access from Otterston Grove would change the nature of this street. While Transportation Development Management states that in technical terms the road has capacity for the additional units it is considered that the overall impact on existing residents from the change in the nature and character of the street and additional traffic movements would be an unacceptable burden and would lead to significant loss of amenity. 2.7.5 The proposal only includes one point of access from the road network. The site has been allocated for residential development since the Adopted of the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) and there was no specification for there to be two access points into the site. Due to the issues raised by creating accesses onto either Fulmar Way or Otterston Grove, the creation of two accesses would be difficult. While two access points would be preferable, the inclusion of this proposal into Otterston Grove would see 96 residential units being taken from a single access point from the wider network which is below the standard of 200 units usually applied. The provision of only one access point for this site would be acceptable taking these points on board and the length of time it has been allocated however it is considered that the Otterston Grove access point is not suitable for this scale of development for the reasons outlined in section 2.8.4. 2.7.6 The layout of the internal roads and parking areas is generally acceptable however there is an area of the site which requires attention. In terms of parking, the site layout has been amended to provide adequate car parking provision. Adequate visitor car parking is also provided although this is mostly concentrated in one area of the site. The Transport Assessment (TA) notes that should all the current garages within the garage reserve site be used for parking then there would be a loss of 14 spaces with a surplus of 18 spaces still being available. Transportation Development Management do not consider this to be a significant issue. 2.7.7 In terms of the impact on the wider road network the TA has carried out an assessment of the increase in trips on the existing Bouprie Rise/Moray Way North junction and Moray Way North/Western Access Road roundabout. Both junctions operate well within their practical capacity in the design year of 2020 with the increase in trips having a minimal impact. The proposal thereby would not have any detrimental impact on the network beyond the direct access and route into the application site. 2.7.8 In terms of the Strategic Transportation Fund it is noted that the site would be considered as previously developed land in accordance with the Planning Obligation Framework Guidance and Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan. Due to this, the development would be exempt from making any payment in this regard.

94

2.7.9 Overall, it is considered that the proposed access would not be acceptable due to the impact on the neighbouring properties. While it is accepted that this access might be the only viable access to an allocated housing site, the use of this access would have a significant adverse impact on existing properties to the detriment of residential amenity. The lack of an appropriate access for this development would result in the development being contrary to policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan. 2.8 Natural Heritage 2.8.1 SPP (Landscape and Natural Heritage) aims to raise awareness that both development and conservation of the natural heritage can be compatible through careful planning. Policies E3, E21 and E23 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that where development has the potential to impact on international, national, regional, or locally important species and sites, applicants will be required to submit an ecological appraisal of the proposal detailing how any impact will be minimised or mitigated for, whilst outlining the appropriate measures to maintain and where possible enhance such interests and the local biodiversity of an area. Policy 13 of the Proposed FIFEplan also outlines that development proposals will only be supported where they protect or enhance natural heritage. 2.8.2 The site is currently of very little value in terms of natural heritage and biodiversity as it is brownfield land which has not yet fully regenerated. There are some trees on site which are of very little value in terms of ecology. Although these trees are minor in scale, as they would be removed to accommodate this development the bat roost potential for the trees was examined during the previous application. It was found through that assessment that none of the trees to be removed had any potential for roosting bats. The Natural Heritage officer has indicated that based on the known information of this site, and in particular the previous assessments carried out, the proposal would have no impact on natural heritage. It is considered therefore that the development is unlikely to cause any significant impact on local ecology or biodiversity given the current site conditions however the proposed landscaping and open space could actually improve the site. 2.8.3 It is considered that, subject to the imposition of conditions on landscaping and ensuring this includes species of ecological benefit, the development complies with the relevant policy criteria in this instance. 2.9 Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk 2.9.1 The SPP (Managing Flood Risk and Drainage) indicates that the planning system should promote: a precautionary approach to flood risk taking account of the predicted effects of climate change; flood avoidance by safeguarding flood storage and conveying capacity, and locating development away from functional flood plains and medium to high risk areas; flood reduction: assessing flood risk and, where appropriate, undertaking flood management measures and avoidance of increased surface water flooding through requirements for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and minimising the area of impermeable surface. 2.9.2 Policy 15 of the SESplan states that LDPs will be required to avoid allocating areas that are in medium to high flood risk areas and should safeguard areas that will contribute to reducing overall flood risk and promote enhancement of the water environment in new developments. 2.9.3 Policies I3, I4, and I5 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that developments should not place unacceptable demands on public infrastructure including drainage systems, that developments

95

will not be supported if they would increase the risk of flooding, nor will they be supported if Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or other similar appropriate measures are not undertaken. Consideration should also be given to the guidance contained within the Council's advice note on flooding and drainage. Policy 12 of the Proposed FIFEplan does not fundamentally change these considerations. 2.9.4 The application site is not within an area known to flood on the SEPA flood risk map. A SUDS scheme and drainage information has been submitted as part of the application. The Harbours, Flood and Coast Team has indicated that some further information is required in terms of the drainage of the site. No significant issues were raised with the previous application and therefore in principle adequate drainage is achievable on site. A condition could therefore be used to acquire the outstanding information and resolve this issue. 2.9.5 It is therefore considered that, subject to the use of a suitable SUDS/ drainage condition, the proposal complies with the relevant criteria of the Development Plan in this regard. 2.10 Contaminated Land 2.10.1 PAN33 advises that suspected and actual contamination should be investigated and, if necessary, remediated to ensure that sites are suitable for their proposed end use. Policy E6 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development proposals involving sites where land instability or where the presence of contamination is suspected are required to be accompanied with a site investigation. This should assess the nature and extent of any risks presented by land stability or contamination which may be present and where risks are known to be present must provide appropriate mitigation measures to be agreed with the Council. Where possible, remediation strategies should be agreed with the Council prior to the determination of any planning application. 2.10.2 As the site is situated on brownfield land within an industrial estate there is potential for the site to be contaminated from its former use. The Council's Contaminated Land Team has indicated that a site investigation will be required for the development should planning permission be granted. This would be included as a requirement of any consent.

2.10.3 It is therefore considered that, subject to the use of conditions as detailed above, the development would comply with the relevant criteria of the Development Plan in this instance. 2.11 Affordable Housing 2.11.1 Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that housing proposals must accord with the strategic plan housing land requirement and this is further considered in Fife Council's updated Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011). Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that open market housing development must provide affordable housing at the levels shown in Figure 2.2 for each Housing Market Area (HMA), consistent with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance. This should be fully integrated into new development and be indistinguishable from other forms of housing. In order to achieve mixed and balanced communities, mixed tenure developments will be promoted. 2.11.2 The site requires 25% of the units to be provided for affordable housing. This equates to 11 units. The affordable housing team has also requested that the land currently used as the garage reserve site be used primarily for affordable housing. There are two units shown in this area and thereby the affordable housing team have requested 13 units. The previous application required the provision of 12 affordable units of the basis of a 25% of the 47 units. It is not

96

considered that requiring 100% of the garage reserve site be provided as affordable housing on top of the standard 25% would be reasonable through the planning system. This could be an agreement between the Council and the applicant for the sale of the land but not as part of this application. In accordance with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance and associated policies within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan it is considered that the 25% requirement should be applied across the site which would require the provision of 11 units. Should the application be approved then this would be controlled through condition or legal agreement. It is noted that the applicant is showing 13 affordable units as suggested by affordable housing. 2.11.3 The application would be in accordance with the development plan in this regard subject to a condition or legal agreement requiring the provision of affordable housing.

2.12 Education 2.12.1 Policy D1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new developments to make appropriate payments to offset the effects of the development on local infrastructure and services. Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan would also be relevant to this application. This has been amended through examination to state that developer contributions will be sought in relation to development proposals that will have an adverse impact on infrastructure capacity. The kinds of infrastructure to which this policy applies include transport, schools, affordable housing, greenspace, public art and employment land. The contributions will mitigate development impact by making a contribution to existing infrastructure, or providing additional capacity or improving existing infrastructure; or providing new infrastructure. This is reinforced in the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015). 2.12.2 Education has been consulted as part of this application and they have confirmed that the site is within the catchment area for Dalgety Bay Primary School, Inverkeithing High School, St John’s Roman Catholic Primary School and St Columba’s Roman Catholic High School. Education have confirmed that these schools have sufficient capacity to accommodate this development.

2.12.3 There would be no significant impact on education from this development and thereby the development would be in compliance with the development plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard.

CONSULTATIONS Community Council Requested to be a statutory consultee on the

application. Object to the proposed access route via Bouprie Rise and Otterston Grove. This would have an impact on the design of the area and parking provision. Alternative route through Fulmar Way should be considered. Consider that the impact on the NHS should be undertaken again for this site.

Scottish Water No comments Land And Air Quality - EPES Indicate that a site investigation would be

required. This can be subject of a condition. Education (Directorate) The local schools have sufficient capacity.

97

Housing And Neighbourhood Services Requested 25% of the site be used for affordable housing and 100% of the units within the garage reserve site be used for affordable housing.

Structural Services (Harbours, Flood And Coast)

Have requested further detail on aspects of the drainage and requested confirmation that there is capacity in the Scottish Water infrastructure for this development.

Environmental Health (Public Protection) - EPES

Have raised concerns with regards to the noise assessment submitted. They consider that sufficient work has not been carried out to argue that the development has adequately dealt with the noise from neighbouring land uses.

Transportation Have no objection to the proposal in principle subject to conditions on parking, visibility, wheel cleaning facilities etc.

Transportation And Environmental Services - Operations Team

No comments.

Parks Development And Countryside Have requested £1000 per unit for the upgrade of existing play provision. They have also requested full details of the landscaping for the site.

REPRESENTATIONS

A total of 75 letters of objection, 6 letters of support and 2 letters with general comments have been received for this application. The representations include letters of objection from Dalgety Bay and Hillend Community Council and the two nearest industrial operators Grant Construction and Dyce Carriers. A noise assessment has also been submitted by Grant Construction. The points of objection raised include: Transportation Issues: - Unacceptably high number of vehicles using Bouprie Rise and Otterston Grove - Increased risk of accidents in Bouprie Rise and Otterston Grove - Increase in air/ noise pollution - Disruption to service vehicles and emergency vehicles - Fulmar Way should continue to be used as the access - Additional traffic would risk safety of children - Would render bus stop unusable - Will intensify local streets making walking to school difficult - Removal of garages will make parking for locals more difficult - The loss of garages will lead to extra parking on street making it difficult for emergency services - Current roads are not wide enough with parked cars to act as through road - Access will create traffic problems and congestion

98

- Concern over the manner that the traffic counts were undertaken - - The parking assessment does not cover the weekend where parking is the greatest issue - - Lack of parking in the site will burden existing residential area - Lack of forward visibility at junction of Bouprie Rise and Otterston Grove - The Transport Assessment is flawed Response The majority of these points are considered in section 2.7 of the report. Transportation Development Management (TDM) has not raised any issues with regards to how or when the Transport Assessment was carried out. TDM has indicated that the road network has capacity for this development and they did not raise any concerns with regards to safe routes to school or emergency vehicle access. In terms of air and noise pollution from vehicles, this was not raised as a concern by Public Protection or Land and Air Quality. Noise: - Noise complaints could result in neighbouring industrial premises being reprimanded by Council - Disturbance to properties from neighbouring industry - The noise assessment was undertaken during a holiday period - Lack of information on noise attenuation Response These points are covered in section 2.5 of the report. It is agreed that there is a risk that the future residents of this development would suffer from unacceptable levels of noise impact. The Noise Assessment has not alleviated these fears and Public Protection have raised a significant concern. Local Amenities: - Impact on school - Loss of garages/ storage - Impact on doctors surgery - Impact on nurseries - The site should be retained for employment land - Drainage issues in the area will be exacerbated - Dalgety Bay needs a secondary school Response The Education team has responded that there are no significant capacity constraints for this development. The loss of garages would be a consideration for the council and it would be their responsibility to make alternative provision for those that currently use them. They have indicated informally that this is possible. The use of the garages as parking has been assessed within the TA and it was concluded that their loss would have no detrimental impact on parking provision. The site is not allocated for employment land and therefore cannot be retained as such. The drainage issues raised in the letters of objection appear to be localised and specific to certain locations. The development site would be required to manage its own drainage and thereby it is considered that drainage implications would not be an issue for this application. Health care capacity is an issue considered during the Local Plan process. This area has not been identified as having a deficiency in medical practises. General Amenity - New footpath will channel people to Meadowfield causing disturbance to adjacent property - Disruption for existing residents from increase in vehicles

99

- Loss of amenity and pleasant living area - Loss of community within cul-de-sac - Lack of play area - Increase in noise from cars - Safety risk for pedestrians on new footpaths - Loss of privacy from new footpath links - No lighting assessment from industrial units submitted - Loss of wildlife - Impact on the health of existing residents from dust, pollution noise etc Response These matters are considered in section 2.5 of the report. The footpath connection referred to has not been proposed with this application but was part of the last application. The points of objection relating to this footpath would therefore not be relevant. A development of this size would not require a play area. A light pollution assessment has not been requested by Public Protection. The Natural Heritage officer has no concern with regards to loss of wildlife. It is not considered that a development of this size and nature would cause any significant detriment to human health. It is considered that the general amenity of the existing residential area would be adversely affected by this proposal and this is discussed in section 2.5. Policy/ Design - Residential development should not be placed in an industrial estate - Does not meet Designing Streets policy - Dalgety Bay is losing its identity - Removes sense of place for existing residents - Contrary to policies E2, E4 and T2 of Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) Response These matters are considered throughout the report and to some degree the report draws similar conclusions to these assertions. Many of these are subjective considerations and therefore personal to the objector. It is agreed however that the application is contrary to the development plan and would not integrate with the existing residential area. Other matters - Concerned that Fife Council are selling the garage reserve site to a developer - Concerned that the application does not relate to the proposal shown at the public exhibition with an access taken from Fulmar Way - The application was previously refused - Reduce house prices - Affect existing resident’s human rights - Too much development in Fife - More people leads to greater crime risks - Concern over where the letters of support are coming from - Lack of public consultation on this proposal Response The sale of the garage reserve site would be a separate matter from the planning process. The public exhibition was relative to a proposed major application for the site which has now been submitted separately. As this is a local application there is no requirement to carry out public consultation prior to submission of the application. The application was previously refused however the applicant has attempted to resolve the reasons for refusal. The impact on human

100

rights is addressed through considering the impact on amenity and other material considerations. This has been carried out through this report. Proposed development is considered strategically in Fife and set out within the Strategic Plan and Local Development Plan (currently Local Plan). There is no suggestion that more residents would lead to more crime. It should be noted that the reduction of property prices and where the letters of support are coming from are not material planning considerations. The points of support include: - The site is allocated for residential development - Will provide housing for the community - More housing is needed - Development of vacant land will preserve farming land - Affordable housing will benefit area - Site is close to amenities - Principle of development is established - Detailed matters are acceptable Response It is agreed that the site is allocated for residential development, there is a need to develop housing and there is also a need for affordable housing however this should not be developed at all costs. While in principle residential development is acceptable, the detail of the proposal is not considered acceptable. These points of support are considered throughout the report and none of them are considered to provide sufficient material weight to warrant approval of the application. The general comments make comments already addressed in the consideration of the letters of objection. CONCLUSIONS

While the site is allocated for residential development the development does not fully comply with the proposals policy DGB003 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 or DGB002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) in that adequate noise attenuation has not been provided. The Noise Assessment submitted with the application is deficient in proving that there would be no significant impact on future residents from neighbouring industrial uses even with the proposed noise attenuation in place. There is a concern that the Noise Assessment is not sufficient for assessing noise in this location and from the sources of noise neighbouring the site and a precautionary approach should be taken to protect future residents and existing businesses. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and policies 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan on this basis. In addition, the proposed access to the site requires the extension of an existing cul-de-sac creating a development which does not integrate well with the existing residential area in terms of design, layout and connectivity contrary to Designing Streets and policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). The access would also result in the intensification of the use of an existing cul-de-sac to the detriment of existing residential amenity. The street has not been designed as a through route and the garages have created an end point for the street which is created an environment of low car movements with no expectation of further expansion. The overall intensification of the street would change the character of the street and existing environment for residents. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and policies 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan on this basis. The lack of an acceptable access would also make the site contrary to policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan.

101

Therefore, while the site is allocated for residential development, the proposal fails to comply fully with the proposal policy DGB003 and DGB002 and also policies E2, E4 and T2 within the Adopted Local Plan and policies 2, 10 and 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan and is therefore considered contrary to the development plan and other material considerations of significant weight. There are no material considerations that would outweigh the development plan position in this regard including the positive impact this development would have on the shortfall of the 5-year effective housing land supply. RECOMMENDATION

The application be refused for the following reason(s) 1. The development would be contrary to policies E2, E4 and T2 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and policies 2, 10 and 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan 2014 as development would take access from an existing cul-de-sac which has not been designed for further through traffic creating a lack of vehicular connectivity and a site which does not integrate well with the existing residential area. The development would result in an intensification of the use of this cul-de-sac which would adversely change its character and the environment for residents to the detriment of existing residential amenity and would create a residential development of poor form and relationship with the existing residential area. 2. The development would be contrary to policies DGB003, E2 and E4 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and policies DGB002, 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan 2014 as insufficient information has been provided to conclude that noise from neighbouring industrial uses can be adequately mitigated on site. The submitted Noise Assessment is not considered adequate in its assessment of noise and does not adequately prove that there would be no significant impact. A precautionary approach should thereby be taken to protect the residential amenity of future residents from noise and existing businesses from being adversely affected by noise complaints.

STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS

In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National Policy and Guidance: SPP - Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Designing Streets (2010) PAN 65 Planning and Open Space (2008) PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land (2000) PAN 2/2010 Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits (2010) PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise (1999) Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance and other material considerations: SESPlan Strategic Development Plan (2013) SESplan Supplementary Guidance Housing Land (2014) Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012)

102

Fife Council's Maintaining an Effective Five year Land Supply at all Times Supplementary Planning Guidance (2013) Fife Councils Transportation Development Guidelines as an appendix to Making Fife's Places Supplementary Guidance (2015) Fife Council's Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) Making Fifes Places Planning Policy Guidance (2015) Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan 2014) Fife Council's Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) Housing Land Audit 2015 (July 2015) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings Report prepared by William Shand, Chartered Planner and Case Officer Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

Date Printed 18/01/2017

103

Maxwell Building

Grant House

El

SheltersEl Sub Sta

Dalgety Bay Business Centre

Superstore

Mast (Telecommunication)

Sta

Playground

Sybrig House

Sub Sta

Tank

LB

3 to 5

BO

UP

RIE

RIS

E

ESS

FE

RR

IS W

AY

RIDGE WAY

FORTH CRESCENT

HOLDEN WAY

FO

RT

H

1

2

8

9

6

48

32

21

20

38

22

12

25

19

66

43

16

50b

17

93

35

11

67

13

52

56

10

27

15

18

5

46

45

34

39

14

54

5859

53

62

40

29

83

30

49

16

Tank

29

10

46

1

1

1

2

1

62

2

22

6

6

20

13

1

27

1

2

2

LB

32 11

1

2

2

12

1

19

27

Hillend Donibristle Industrial Park

Playground

Sub

VIE

W

FULMAR WAY

MORAY WAY NORTH

OTTERSTON GROVE

MEADOWFIELD

21

64

2a

11

50a

68

24

79

42

CO

CH

RA

NE

WA

Y

31

CO

US

TO

N R

D

Gas Gov

Tel Ex

FO

RTH

CO

UR

T

COUSTON DRIVE

26

El

El Sub Sta

El Sub Sta

Mast (Telecommunication)

22

21

9

El Sub Sta

20

16/00998/FULL

Land Site 1, Fulmar Way, Donibristle Industrial Park, Dalgety Bay

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 25 50 7512.5m

Legend

104

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

ITEM NO: 4 (E) APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 16/01887/FULL

SITE ADDRESS: LAND TO SOUTH OF FULMAR WAY DONIBRISTLE

INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPOSAL : ERECTION OF 51 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SUDS, OPEN SPACE

AND ASSOCIATED ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE

APPLICANT: MUIR HOMES

MUIR HOUSE BELLEKNOWES INDUSTRIAL ESTATE INVERKEITHING

WARD NO: NW06

Inverkeithing And Dalgety Bay CASE OFFICER: William Shand

DATE REGISTERED:

29/06/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: The application is a major application as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) Regulations 2009.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for:

Refusal ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

105

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.0 Background 1.1 Site 1.1.1 The application site is an area of brownfield land within the Donibristle Industrial Park, Dalgety Bay. The site was formerly used for industrial purposes but has been vacant for a number of years. The application site is 1.79 hectares in area and the site is mostly clear of former development however there are areas of hardstanding, fencing and soil heaps within the site. There are also a number of individual trees within and along the boundary of the site. The site is bordered by an Asda supermarket to the west, residential properties to the south and existing industry to the north and east. Access to the site is currently taken from Fulmar Way to the north however public access to the site is currently restricted by security fencing. The site is relatively flat in gradient and is a mixture of regenerated scrubland and hardstanding. 1.1.2 The application site is within an area designated as residential development site DGB 003 within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and DGB 002 within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 51 No. residential units with associated car parking, landscaping, SUDS and infrastructure. There is a mixture of detached, semi-detached, terraced and four in a block (flatted) properties proposed for the site with all being two storey properties. The dwellings would be a variety of two, three and four bedroom properties. Access to the site would be taken from a new access being formed from Fulmar Way to the north. Fulmar Way currently services a supermarket and industrial area. The site would be formed as a cul-de-sac designed around a single access road ending in two shared parking areas to the north and south of the access road. An area of open space would be positioned to the south of the access road between two areas of housing. A SUDS area would be formed within the open space. An area of open space would also be positioned on the western boundary with an area of landscaping connecting the two areas of open space. Two footpath connections are proposed from the open space to the land to the south. Along the northern and eastern boundary there is proposed to be a 10m wide landscape buffer. This landscape buffer would include a noise attenuation barrier of a 3m high bund with 2m acoustic fence on top. 1.3 Planning History 1.3.1 An application for 47 residential units within this site was refused planning permission on 27 March 2015. The reasons for refusal were: 1) The development would be contrary to Designing Streets and policies E2, E4 and T2 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 as development would take access from an existing cul-de-sac creating a lack of vehicular connectivity and a site which does not integrate well with the existing residential area. The development would lead to a loss of existing residential parking and intensification of an existing cul-de-sac to the detriment of existing residential amenity and would create a residential development of poor form and relationship with the existing residential area.

106

2) The development would be contrary to policies DGB003, E2 and E4 and Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) in that garden ground for some properties would fall short of the minimum standard and that a required 10m landscape has not been provided. The lower standards of garden ground and lack of stand off from the boundary would result in the proposed noise attenuation feature (2.5m bund and 2.5m fence) being overbearing and oppressive to adjacent future residents and creating a lower standard of amenity space to the detriment of future residential amenity. 1.3.2 A revised application (16/00998/FULL) has been submitted for 46 residential units and has attempted to resolve the reasons for refusal on the above application. A 10m landscape buffer has been created to the rear of the properties to reduce the impact of the noise attenuation barrier and the Transport Assessment has been updated to include an assessment of the impact on residential amenity from the use of Otterston Grove as an access point. This application is under consideration and is before Committee for determination. 1.4 Application Process 1.4.1 While the application site area is less than 2 hectares, the proposal includes more than 50 residential units and therefore the proposal is categorised as a Major development within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) Regulations 2009. The applicant has carried out the required Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) through holding a public information event (Ref: 15/04058/PAN). A PAC report outlining comments made by the public and the consideration of these in the design process of the proposal has been submitted as part of this application. The manner of the consultation exercise, including the notification and media advertisement process, complied with the relevant legislation. This included a public information event on 5 February 2016 in the Dalgety Bay Library. The public event was advertised by way an advertisement within the Dunfermline Press. 1.4.2 The application was screened under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 and the proposal was considered not to constitute a development which required an Environmental Impact Assessment. The application however has been supported with a noise assessment, Transport Assessment and design and access statement. 1.5 Emerging Local Development Plan 1.5.1 The Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014) is a material consideration but at the current stage in the process which leads to adoption of the plan it does not have the same status or carry the same weight as the current Development Plan. In the context of this report the Proposed FIFEplan will only be referenced where it conflicts with the current Adopted Local Plan position. The examination of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) is now complete and reference may be made to any changes proposed through examination that would change a policy position. 1.5.2 This site is now allocated as DGB002 within the Proposed FIFEplan and is designated as a housing site.

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Having regard to the provisions of the development plan, and the concerns raised during the course of the planning application process, the main issues in the consideration of this application for planning permission are;-

107

- Principle of Residential Development - Design and Layout - Residential Amenity - Transportation 2.2 The site is allocated for residential development within the Dunfermline and West Fife Adopted Local Plan (2012) and the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and thereby in principle residential development can be accepted on this site. The proposal however does not meet the terms of the proposals policy for this site within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan as it has not been proven that an adequate noise attenuation measure has been provided. In addition, the site access would be taken from Fulmar Way which is an industrial area and this is restricted in policy DGB 002 of the Proposed FIFEplan. It is therefore considered that the principle of this development would not be acceptable as the terms of the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan cannot be met. 2.3 The general design and layout of the proposal is considered acceptable. The site would contain a central area of high quality open space and a sense of place would be achieved given the secluded nature of the proposal. The open space area and the footpath connections would help the development integrate with the residential area to the south which would otherwise be relatively difficult due to the position of the proposed access. The development is considered in accordance with the Development Plan and National Guidance in this regard.

2.4 The development would be situated next to noise generating businesses and an industrial area. The future residents of the properties thereby would be at risk from noise impacts from these neighbouring uses. Noise attenuation has been proposed and a Noise Assessment Report seeks to prove that this would be sufficient to mitigate the noise from neighbouring premises. The Council’s Public Protection Team has concluded that the Noise Assessment is insufficient to prove that there would be no significant noise impact from the neighbouring uses on future residents or that the noise barrier would work. This could lead to a detrimental impact on the operation of the existing businesses neighbouring the sites due to complaints. It is therefore concluded that insufficient evidence has been provided that the residential amenity of future residents would be protected and the development would thus be contrary to policies of the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard.

2.5 The proposal would take access through an existing industrial estate and Transportation Development Management have indicated that this would not be acceptable. This would result in conflict between industrial and residential traffic to the detriment of pedestrian and vehicular safety. The proposed access is adjacent to an existing service access for a supermarket and the minimum junction spacing standards for proposed accesses would not be achieved. As this would include the introduction of a residential access into an industrial area, the relaxation of this standard would not be acceptable. The general site layout and parking is acceptable in transportation terms and the site is well positioned in relation to local amenities. Connection to local amenities is improved through the footpath connections from the site to the residential area to the south. Overall, however the proposal is considered unacceptable as an acceptable access has not been proposed which is contrary to policies E2, E4 and T2 of the Adopted Local Plan. 2.6 The Policy Matrix (see appendix one) summarises the relevant policies and guidance, and officers conclusions, and is a useful checklist, ensuring that relevant policies have been referred to as part of this assessment.

108

2.7 Taking all the relevant issues and concerns into account the proposal is considered unacceptable in terms of residential amenity and transportation and would not be in compliance with the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) or Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 3.0 PLANNING REPORT APPENDICES 3.1 Appendix 1 - Policy Matrix 4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 4.1 The issues to be assessed against the Development Plan and other guidance are as follows: - Principle of Residential Development - Housing Land Supply/ Sustainable Development - Design and Layout - Residential Amenity - Open Space, Play Provision and Landscaping - Transportation - Natural Heritage - Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk - Contaminated Land - Affordable Housing - Education 4.2 Principle of Residential Development 4.2.1 The site is located within the settlement boundary of Dalgety Bay. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014) seeks to promote successful sustainable places with a focus on low carbon place; a natural, resilient place; and, a more connected place. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) promotes the use of the plan-led system with plans being up-to-date and relevant, thus reinforcing the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The SPP (Enabling the Delivery of New Housing) also requires the development plan to identify a generous supply of housing land, within a range of attractive, well designed sites that can contribute to the creation of successful and sustainable places. The Adopted Local Plan is the preferred mechanism for the delivery of housing / residential land rather than individual planning applications. The SESplan Strategic Development Plan (2013) outlines the housing land requirements for each local plan area and requires each local plan area to meet these requirements through the provision of Strategic Development Areas (identified within SESplan) and a housing land allocation which will maintain a five year housing land supply. 4.2.2 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan (2012) states that suitable development within town and village settlement boundaries will be supported where it conforms to relevant Development Plan policies and proposals and seeks to ensure that development respects the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape, complies with any development brief or other planning guidance agreed or issued by Fife Council and is compatible with neighbouring uses amongst other criteria. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) as amended at examination states that all housing proposals must: 1. Meet the requirements for the site identified in the settlement plan tables and relevant site brief; and 2. Include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance.

109

4.2.3 The application site is located in an area which is identified within the Adopted Local Plan as Proposal DGB 003 (Fulmar Way 2) and is zoned solely for housing, with an estimated capacity of 50 units. The policy also requires a 10 metre wide landscaping belt to Fulmar Way and adjoining industrial premises plus any additional measures required to mitigate noise from traffic or employment uses, such as acoustic fencing. The site should also contain open space near the southern edge of the site along with a path/ cycle link to Meadowfield/ Moray Way North. SUDS are also required. 4.2.4 Policy 1 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the principle of development will be supported if it is either within a defined settlement boundary and compliant with the policies for the location or in in a location where the proposed use is supported by the Local Development Plan. The site is allocated as DGB002 within the proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014). The site designation has not changed through examination. This policy has similar requirements to proposals policy DGB 003 within the Adopted Plan. This policy however also states that site access arrangements will not be from the adjacent industrial estate both to avoid detrimental impact on business users and to protect the amenity of residential properties. The policy also states that a contaminated land site investigation is required. 4.2.5 The application site includes land outwith the proposal designation of DGB 003 of the Adopted Local Plan and DGB002 of the Proposed FIFEplan. This area is the former junction/ access from Fulmar Way which is designated as B1 (Protected Employment Area) in the Adopted Local Plan. Policy B1 states that allocated and established employment areas, as identified on the Proposals Map, and others that in the view of Fife Council serve a valuable employment purpose will be safeguarded for continued industrial and business use. Policy 5 (Employment Land and Property) within the Proposed FIFEplan replicates Policy B1. Policy 5 has been subject of some change during the examination but these changes do not include anything material to the consideration of the principle of this development. 4.2.6 The application is for 51 residential units and therefore would be in compliance with the indicative unit number of 50 within the proposals policy. There is a general understanding that there is an allowance for a 20% increase in unit numbers above the indicative number within the policy before a development would be considered contrary to the development plan. The unit number proposed would be within this limit. In principle the development would comply with proposals policy DGB 003 however this is subject to the proposal also meeting the site specific requirements within this policy. The site requires a 10m wide landscaping belt to Fulmar Way and adjoining industrial premises plus any additional measures to mitigate noise. The 10m wide landscaping belt has been provided along the boundary with Fulmar Way and the adjoining industrial unit to the east. The policy also requires the provision of any other noise attenuation required to mitigate noise. This is shown as a 3m high acoustic bund with 2m high acoustic fence on top. The bund would be landscaped to screen both it and the fence. A noise assessment has been submitted with the application which supports the use of the acoustic barrier at this size. Public Protection ha considered the assessment but do not consider it adequate to prove that there would be no significant noise impact on future residents from the existing industrial uses. This is discussed further in section 4.5 of the report. It is therefore considered that the proposed noise barrier is not adequate and would not meet the terms of policy DGB 003. Whilst open space, a landscape buffer, a path/ cycle link and SUDS have been provided in accordance with this policy, as the noise barrier is not sufficient to mitigate noise from existing industrial uses, it is considered that the development is not in compliance with policy DGB 003 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012).

110

4.2.7 Policy DGB 002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) has similar site specific criteria as the Adopted Local Plan. This policy however specifies that access to the site should not be taken from the neighbouring industrial estate. The access for this application has been proposed from Fulmar Way which forms part of the industrial estate. The proposed access is not the existing access into the site but a new access proposed to the west. It is presumed that the current access into the site would not be suitable as it would reduce the extent of the noise barrier across the boundary with Fulmar Way reducing its effectiveness. In principle the development would not be in accordance with this policy designation. A technical assessment of the access is undertaken in section 4.7 of the report and this assessment also concludes that the access is not acceptable on detailed matters and transportation impacts. This policy also requires a suitable acoustic barrier be provided. As noted above, this has not been achieved and therefore the proposal would also be considered contrary to policy DGB 002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) due to the access arrangements and lack of suitable acoustic barrier. 4.2.8 The former access to the site has retained a policy designation of B1 (Protected Employment Area) which reflects the former use of the site. It is unclear why this part of the site has been designated in this manner but it is presumed that the Reporter considered this access would be retained as the access to the site. Even if this access was retained for the site, the area of land would serve no purpose for the wider employment area. It is noted that the Proposed FIFEplan has this inclusion as well and thereby assessment against Policy 5 of that document is also required. This designation appears to be an anomaly and this area of land currently has no value for industry or business as is within the fenced boundary of land which is an allocated residential site. The inclusion of this land within the residential development therefore would not adversely affect the wider established employment area or remove any functional industrial land and therefore the development would be in compliance with Policy B1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy 5 of the Proposed FIFEplan for that reason. 4.2.9 As noted the site also neighbours industrial uses. Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan requires a site to be compatible with neighbouring uses. In addition, Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) as amended through examination states that development should include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance. The developer has indicated in their Noise Assessment that a noise barrier would be provided and details of this have been provided. The noise barrier is not considered sufficient to mitigate the noise from the neighbouring uses as already noted. While in principle these two land uses may be able to be positioned next to one another, there is a lack of information to indicate that this development could be accommodated next to the existing industrial land uses contrary to Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 4.2.10 It is noted that the majority of the site is allocated for residential development within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and therefore in principle residential proposals would be appropriate for this site. Having considered the development relative to the specific requirements of policies DGB 003 of the Adopted Local Plan and DGB 002 of the Proposed Local Development Plan it is considered that the proposed development in its current form would not be acceptable for this location. While the site is allocated for residential development, all of the specific criteria of the policy cannot be met. The requirement for measures to mitigate noise from neighbouring industrial premises has not been achieved. While details of a noise barrier have been provided, it is argued by Public Protection that this is not sufficient to adequately mitigate the noise for future residents. The potential noise impact on these future residents from the neighbouring land uses could result in those existing businesses being adversely affected in operation due to complaints regarding statutory noise. This would be

111

contrary to Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan. In addition the proposed access to the site would be from Fulmar Way which is through the neighbouring industrial estate which would be contrary to the policy requirements of the Proposed FIFEplan. Consequently, it is considered that while the site is allocated for residential development the proposed development cannot be accommodated without detriment to surrounding land uses and future residents contrary to policies E2 and DGB003 of the Adopted Local Plan and policies 2 and DGB002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 4.3 Housing Land Supply/ Sustainable Development 4.3.1 This site is included within the Housing Land Audit (2016) as an ineffective housing site due to access constraints. The site therefore does not currently contribute to the effective five year Housing Land Supply. Housing Land Supply and the implications of this site would therefore be a material consideration for this application. SPP (2014) (Enabling the Delivery of New Housing) requires the planning system to identify a generous supply of housing land, enable provision of a range of good quality housing and contribute to the creation of successful place and have a sharp focus on the delivery of allocated sites. Planning authorities, developers, service providers and other partners in housing provision should work together to ensure a continuing supply of effective land. Where a shortfall emerges, development plan policies for the supply of housing land will not be considered up to date and paragraphs 32-35 (Sustainability) will be relevant. 4.3.2 SPP (2014) paragraphs 32-35 state that where relevant policies in a development plan are out of date then the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. The SPP does not clarify or provide any criteria for a basis for compliance specifically within this paragraph. The development should therefore comply with the 13 policy principles of Sustainable Development set out within paragraph 29. These include: - giving due weight to net economic benefit; - responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, as outlined in local economic strategies; - supporting good design and the six qualities of successful places; - making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure including supporting town centre and regeneration priorities; - supporting delivery of accessible housing, business, retailing and leisure development; - supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; - supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk; - improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation; - having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment; - reducing waste, facilitating its management and promoting resource recovery; - and avoiding over-development, protecting the amenity of new and existing development and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality. 4.3.3 SESplan (2013) outlines the housing requirements for each Local Plan Area and requires that a five year land supply is retained at all times. Policy 5 of SESplan (2013) states that Local Development Plans will allocate sufficient land which is capable of becoming effective and delivering the scale of the housing requirements for each period, which will be confirmed in the

112

Supplementary Guidance. The SESplan Supplementary Guidance Housing Land November 2014 relates directly to this policy. This Supplementary Guidance states that the Fife LDP area has a housing land requirement of 17,140 units between 2009- 2019. 4.3.4 SESplan (2013) policy 6 states that each planning authority in the SESplan area must maintain a five years' effective housing land supply at all times. The scale of the supply will be derived from the housing requirements for each Local Development Plan area identified through the supplementary guidance provided for by Policy 5. 4.3.5 Policy H1 (Maintaining an effective 5 year land supply at all times) of the Adopted Local Plan states that the Council shall prepare supplementary guidance within 1 year of adoption of the Plan to address mechanisms to enable the delivery of brownfield opportunity sites and other sites from the established land supply and a detailed framework to guide the release of additional housing land. 4.3.6 Fife Council's Maintaining an Effective Five year Land Supply at all times Supplementary Planning Guidance (2013) has been created in accordance with policy H1. This states that a release of further effective housing land may be acceptable where a shortfall is identified. The SPG sets out criteria with which a site must comply with to be considered appropriate for release. The applicant has not made this assessment as they are not promoting the release of further greenfield land. 4.3.7 Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) states that housing development will be supported to meet strategic housing land requirements and provide a continuous 5-year effective housing land supply; 1. On sites allocated for housing in this Plan; or 2. On other sites provided the proposal is compliant with the policies for the location. Where a shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply is shown to exist, housing proposals will be supported where they meet the sequential test for housing shown in Figure 2.1 (at the end of this policy section) and in paragraphs 1-5 of 'Applying Policy 2'. 4.3.8 Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) has been amended through the examination and the Reporter has proposed that the policy states that housing development will be supported to meet strategic housing land requirements and provide a continuous 5-year effective housing land supply; 1. On sites allocated for housing in this Plan; or 2. On other sites provided the proposal is compliant with the policies for the location. Where a shortfall in the 5 year effective housing land supply is shown to exist within the relevant Housing Market Area, housing proposals within this Housing Market Area will be supported subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: 1. the development is capable of delivering completions in the next 5 years; 2. the development would not have adverse impacts which would outweigh the benefits of addressing any shortfall when assessed against the wider policies of the plan; 3. the development would complement and not undermine the strategy of the plan; and 4. infrastructure constraints can be addressed. 4.3.9 The current Housing Land Audit 2016 (November 2016) has shown that there is a shortfall in the 5-year effective land supply for this Housing Market Area. The current shortfall within the Housing Market Area is as follows:

113

5-year Effective Housing Land Supply 2016-2021 Housing requirement (2016-2021) 10,372 Total Supply (2016-2021) 5,361 5-Year housing shortfall 5,012 Percentage Shortfall 48.3% 4.3.10 Firstly, it is evident that there is a current shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply which requires mitigation in the short term and this is best achieved through the allocation of new sites in the Development Plan, making non-effective sites effective by removing constraints, or bringing forward the phasing of sites currently allocated in plans for later release. Policy 7 of SESPlan and Policy 2 of Proposed FIFEplan would not be relevant to this proposal as this application relates to a site which already has an allocation for residential development and thereby does not require assessment against those criteria for acceptability. As this site does not currently form part of the 5-year effective housing land supply but is an allocated site, it could have a positive effect on the shortfall. Bringing non-effective housing land into use reduces the need for the release of additional sites or release of greenfield sites. This would be considered a positive material consideration of the proposal. 4.3.11 SPP (2014) outlines that where a shortfall in a 5-year effective housing land supply is identified then there is a presumption in favour of development that contributes to Sustainable Development and this will be a significant material consideration. As noted in section 4.3.2 above, the development should comply with the 13 policy principles of Sustainable Development set out within paragraph 29 for this to be considered a significant material consideration. The development is considered to comply with the majority of these principles where applicable but would not comply with them all. The proposal is not considered to protect the amenity of new and existing development. These matters will be discussed in more detail later in the report but the proposal is unlikely to protect the amenity of future residents as the noise from neighbouring uses cannot be adequately mitigated which could also adversely affect the operation and function of existing businesses. The proposal is therefore considered not to comply with this principle of Sustainable Development and thereby there would be no presumption in favour of this development. 4.3.12 The proposal would have a positive effect on the shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply which is a significant material consideration. The proposal however would not comply with all the principles of Sustainable Development as set out within SPP. It is not considered that the positive effect on the shortfall in the 5-year effective housing land supply would be of sufficient material weight to outweigh the non-compliance with the Development Plan or the issues with regards to access and amenity outlined later in the report. 4.4 Design and Layout 4.4.1 The SPP (Placemaking) advises that planning should take every opportunity to create high quality places by taking a design-led approach and planning should support development that is designed to a high-quality, which demonstrates the six qualities of successful place. These six qualities are distinctive; safe and pleasant; welcoming; adaptable; resource efficient and easy to move around and beyond. This is further expanded upon within the Scottish Government Policy document Designing Streets which states that an emphasis should be placed on design providing a sense of place and taking cognisance of the history and context of the surrounding area and design should connect and relate to the surrounding environment.

114

4.4.2 The Adopted Local Plan includes two key policies relating to design. Policy E3 requires new developments to respect the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. Policy E4 requires new development to make a positive contribution to its environment in terms of high standards of architecture, best use of site attributes, safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. The Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance provides further assessment considerations in this regard and provides a local context for national policy. Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the Council will apply the six qualities of successful places when considering development proposals. 4.4.3 The site layout is constrained by the size and shape of the site and the site requirements specified within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan. The proposed layout is also constrained by the location and number of accesses the site can achieve. The single access inevitably creates a cul-de-sac arrangement for the site. The general cul-de-sac pattern proposed for the site has the majority of properties fronting onto a single street running through the site which ends in two shared car parking areas. Other units would provide active frontage to an area of open space centrally within the site and these units would take frontage access from a shared driveway or footpath connection. The overall site layout and building arrangement is consistent with the surrounding street patterns. The overall site layout is considered acceptable given the site constraints and it also manages to integrate good design features into the layout. Units 42-45 and 46-48 would all overlook the central open space which is important for providing surveillance and active frontage for usable spaces. Much of the cul-de-sac would be overlooked with the majority of properties fronting onto the access road but variety is provided with the units which overlook the open space providing rear boundaries to the parking areas. The units surrounding the open space would create a pleasant space and the central open space would provide an attractive space for the local area. The incorporation of the footpaths through the green space to the area to the south provides good connectivity through the site for pedestrians and cyclists and provides permeability for the site and the wider residential area. This also helps the site integrate with the area to the south through the open space in this site flowing into the open space to the south. Plots 1, 4, 18-19, 28, 41, 45, 48 and 51 should have enhanced gable arrangements as these have frontages to either two streets or provide a gable frontage to the open space. Some of these plots are shown to have enhanced gables in the submitted plans but not all. Should the application be approved a condition would be required specifying these plots require enhanced gable treatments. The general internal layout of the site is considered acceptable taking into account the constraints of the site and a sense of place is likely to be achieved given that the landscaped bunds and boundary landscaping would create a secluded area. 4.4.4 A mixture of properties are proposed throughout the site with all of these being two storeys in height. The proposed units would have interesting detailing and would be generally acceptable for their location and integration with the residential area to the south particularly in terms of scale, height and design. The details submitted on materials indicates that the predominant material would be a white wet dash render with buff detailing. The surrounding area is not significantly sensitive in terms of material choice as it is noted that the residential area to the south has a mixture of materials and palette of colours and therefore there is no consistency in material choice in the wider area. External finishes would therefore not be restricted by the sensitivity of the area or an existing consistent material choice. The final details of materials could be requested by planning condition. 4.4.5 As access to the site is taken from the industrial estate to the north, integration of this site with the residential area to the south is difficult. Also as noted previously, as there is only one vehicular access and this is from the industrial estate, it is difficult to create anything more than a

115

single access cul-de-sac. Designing Streets states that the use of conventional cul-de-sacs is strongly discouraged as they concentrate traffic impact on a small number of dwellings and lead to additional vehicle travel and emissions. The document accepts that cul-de-sacs may be required where there are site constraints. Only one access is therefore achievable and this in itself is not unacceptable as there are many examples of successful cul-de-sacs particularly in the local area. Integration with the residential area to the south is difficult particularly in terms of site frontage and vehicular access. The integration with the existing residential area is not created by directly connecting streets but rather the integration of the open space with the existing open space area to the south and the footpath connections through this creates the integration with the existing residential area. This would be relatively successful, however it cannot be avoided that the site is to some extent detached from the existing residential areas. Vehicular access to the site would not be through the main residential areas or the core residential routes but instead would require the individual to leave the core residential area and travel through the industrial area to reach their property. To some degree this would create a detachment between this residential site and neighbouring residential areas. There would be no shared street or access. This effect is lessened to some extent by the strong connectivity through the shared open space and footpath network, however the proposed access to the site is not considered to be exemplary in terms of design and connectivity. This design consideration in itself would not warrant refusal of the application. 4.4.6 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) advises that new dwellinghouses shall have private garden ground of at least 100 square metres per dwellinghouse with 50 square metres of private amenity ground for flats. 4.4.7 In terms of compliance with these guidelines it is noted that a number of plots do not meet these requirements. These tend to be the mid terraced units where the minimum garden area proportions are difficult to achieve without causing difficulties for adjoining property boundaries or extremely elongated gardens. The garden depths for the properties would meet the minimum 9m requirement however. The proposed rear gardens would still provide a good standard of private amenity space. It is noted that a number of units within the wider residential area have smaller garden plots and therefore these units follow the pattern of the wider residential area which is the site's immediate context. As this involves the development of a brownfield site within the settlement boundary there are greater constraints on site size. Consequently a certain degree of leniency can be given to these standards where appropriate future residential amenity can be provided. The smaller garden sizes can therefore be accepted in this instance. 4.4.8 Specific boundary treatment details have not been provided at this stage however front garden hedges have been shown for a number of the southern plots. These plots relate to the open space and low hedges to define the front gardens of these properties is considered important to integrate the residential areas with the open space. Consideration would also be needed as to the boundary treatment for the plots which back onto the internal road particularly at the entrance, to ensure that the street is not dominated by screen fences. A condition would be required if planning permission was approved requiring the submission of boundary treatment details to further consider these aspects in terms of design and layout and to avoid an over use of timber fencing. 4.4.9 Given the constraints for the site in terms of its size and shape and the requirements set out within the site designation policies, it is considered that the general layout is acceptable. Due to the position of the proposed access into the site, the site somewhat turns it’s back on the existing residential areas to the south with future residents having to leave the core residential area and travel through an industrial area to enter the site. This issue is somewhat lessened with the successful integration of the open space and footpaths through the site. Regardless of this the

116

eventual residential area would to some degree be detached from the main residential area. Overall, however the design and layout is considered acceptable and in accordance with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan. 4.5 Residential Amenity 4.5.1 PAN 1/2011 establishes the best practice and the planning considerations to be taken into account with regard to developments that may generate noise, or developments that may be subject to noise. Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development proposals which protect personal privacy and amenity. Policy E2 of the Local Plan supports development proposals where they are compatible with neighbouring uses and do not adversely affect the privacy of neighbours. Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that development will only be supported if it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses. The policy sets out the considerations in this regard which includes impact from noise, traffic movements, construction impacts, impacts on the operation of existing or proposed businesses and commercial operations and loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that developments will include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance. 4.5.2 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) complement the aforementioned policies by advocating that design of residential environments must seek to ensure that adequate levels of natural light can be achieved within new development and unacceptable impacts on light to nearby properties are avoided. Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings sets out British Industry Standards on the accepted distance between windows to ensure personal privacy is maintained. 4.5.3 In assessing residential amenity, attention should be paid not only to existing adjacent neighbours to the site but also to the interaction of the proposed houses to each other within the site. All plot layouts and housing units have been designed to ensure that the windows of the proposed dwellings would be in compliance with the distances set out within the aforementioned Customer Guideline. The minimum 18m window to window distance has been achieved between all adjacent properties within the site and external to the site. Due to the block pattern of the units near the site entrance, there would be some overlooking by some properties which back onto the gable of the neighbouring properties. This only affects plots 5 and 49. This would not cause a significant privacy issue for these units as the neighbouring units have at least 9m long rear gardens and would thereby a good degree of privacy could be achieved. Future residents would also be buying the units with the knowledge of the arrangement of this unit relative to other properties. 4.5.4 In terms of loss of sunlight and daylight it is noted that the proposed development would be to the north of the existing residential properties. Due to this there would be no loss of sunlight created by this development on existing properties. There is also a sufficient separation distance between this development and the existing properties so as to not cause any significant loss of daylight. The development has been laid out so as to ensure that the proposed properties would not cause any significant loss of sunlight or daylight for one another. The noise barrier required to attenuate noise runs along the eastern edge of the site and is likely to cause some loss of early morning sunlight for the gardens of adjacent future properties. As this would only relate to a few hours of early morning sun, this would not cause any significant impact on future residents or result in the gardens being unusable.

117

4.5.5 A potential impact from this development is the relationship of the proposed noise attenuation to the residential properties and the impact this could have on the general amenity from the dominance of a large structure. A previous application for this site was refused as the noise attenuation bund was incorporated into the rear gardens of the plots which bordered the eastern and northern boundaries of the site. This resulted in these gardens having an incline and the bund reducing usable garden space. This was considered inappropriate and would have caused an adverse impact on the residential amenity of future residents. In this proposal the noise attenuation bund is fully outwith the gardens and a 10m wide landscape buffer is being provided outwith the gardens. This is in compliance with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan policy requirements. The noise attenuation in its current form is not considered to be too large or too close to the proposed properties and should be adequately screened with vegetation. If the barrier was to be made larger to try and resolve the outstanding noise concern then further consideration would be needed on this aspect. 4.5.6 As the proposal is neighboured by industrial premises to the east and north and a supermarket to the west there is the potential for the proposed residential properties to be adversely affected by noise. The Adopted Local Plan designation requires the provision of a 10m wide landscape buffer along with other appropriate noise mitigation. As noted above, the 10m landscape strip has been proposed along with a 5m high acoustic barrier comprising of a 3m high bund with 2m high acoustic fence on top. This is proposed for the eastern and northern boundaries. Along with these details, the applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment which concludes that the barrier would be sufficient in providing adequate noise mitigation for these properties. The noise source to the east is Dyce Carriers which is a haulage firm. To the north is Grant Construction which appears to use the site for industry and storage of vehicles and equipment. Asda supermarket is to the west. The submitted Noise Assessment found that noise from Asda was within accepted limits for the site. The Assessment found however that the noise from Grant Construction and Dyce Carriers would be significant and thereby the noise barrier was necessary. 4.5.7 Public Protection has been consulted on the application and concluded that the noise assessment criteria used within the Noise Assessment is not applicable for this development as the noise is from an industrial source. They consider that the Noise Assessment has been carried out using anonymous noise sources which is not appropriate for this location. One of the objectors has had their own noise survey carried out which also comes to the same conclusion. The applicant has submitted further information in this regard to prove that there would be no significant noise impact from neighbouring uses on this development however Public Protection have indicated that they have significant concerns and conclude that insufficient information has been submitted to prove there would be no adverse impact on future residents. 4.5.8 There appears to be some debate between Public Protection, objectors and the applicant's consultants over the standards that should be used to assess the potential noise impacts for this development. Any noise impact on future residents would not only adversely affect their residential amenity but may also affect the viability of the companies using the neighbouring sites from the enforcement of noise complaints restricting the operation and working hours of these companies. This would be unacceptable and thereby on this basis it is considered that a precautionary approach should be taken here. While there is some debate on the standards to be used, it is clear that there are sufficient risks to future amenity and existing neighbouring land uses so as to suggest that a higher standard of assessment should be expected. According to Public Protection insufficient assessment has been carried out and thereby insufficient evidence is available to suggest that this development would be acceptable in terms of noise impacts. The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies 2 and 10

118

of the Proposed FIFEplan due to the lack of a sufficient noise assessment and noise barrier to conclude that future residential amenity would be protected. 4.5.9 Overall, while the development would not adversely affect existing residential amenity in terms of loss of sunlight/ daylight or privacy for existing properties, the residential amenity of future residents is unlikely to be protected due to the lack of a sufficient noise barrier to properly mitigate noise to the appropriate standard. The noise assessment submitted with the application is insufficient to provide adequate comfort that noise from neighbouring uses can be properly mitigated. Consequently it is considered that the development would not comply with policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and Policies 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 4.6 Open Space, Play Provision and Landscaping 4.6.1 The SPP in terms of sustainable development advocates the protection of, enhancement and promotion of access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, open space and the wider environment. The part of the policy aimed at maximising the benefits of Green Infrastructure sets out a set of policy principles to help guide the delivery of this. The planning system should ensure that Green Infrastructure is an integral element of places, facilitate the long term integrated management of Green Infrastructure and provide for easy and safe access to Green Infrastructure. 4.6.2 Policy E5 of the Adopted Local Plan states that housing proposals of 10 houses or more are required to provide a minimum of 60sqm of total open space per household, alongside accessible and secure equipped play, sport and recreational facilities commensurate to the scale of development. Flexibility can be applied for small sites, town centre sites, brownfield sites and where sites are adjacent to existing public open spaces. It also insists that maintenance arrangements are established for public and common areas, and where it is proposed to pass such spaces to the Council, a 25 year maintenance fee shall be passed to the Council. Adopted Local Plan Policies E25 and E26 advise that trees within development sites should be retained where at all possible and new tree planting should be an integral part of a development, especially if trees are required to be removed as part of a development. 4.6.3 Fife Council's Making Fifes Places Planning Policy Guidance sets an aspiration that all residents within Fife will be within 250m of a 0.2 hectare area of open space. If this is the case then a development site will not be expected to provide green space on site but the open space requirement can be met through a contribution per house towards the upgrade of the existing open space. Local equipped play areas must be provided on site for developments which have over 200 houses that are more than 500m from an existing equipped play area. Generally new housing within 500m walking distance of an existing equipped play area will not be required to provide these facilities on site but may be required to make a financial contribution to the upgrade of existing facilities. 4.6.4 The proposed layout includes an area of open space almost centrally within the site and a further portion at the western boundary with the two connected by an area of landscaping. The proposed open space would not meet the requirements of Policy 5 which would require 3060sqm of open space. The central open space area provides around 1800sqm of open space. It is noted however that landscape buffers are provided around the site and there is a further smaller area of open space around the western edge. This would all contribute to the general openness of areas of the site. Policy E5 states that brownfield sites should be given some flexibility in the area of open space that can be provided. While this site does not meet the standard, it is a brownfield site and a high quality open space area is proposed centrally within the site which would provide a

119

good level of amenity for residents and integrates with open space to the south. The open space proposed for the site is therefore considered sufficient for this development. 4.6.5 There is a play area around 125m to the south west of the site. This is within a reasonable walking distance of the site and the provision of the footpath between the site and Meadowfield would also provide a safe walking route, avoiding busy roads. In these circumstances, usually £1000 is taken per dwelling to upgrade existing play provision. This would only apply to the market units. This equates to £38000 for additional or enhanced play provision which could be secured through a legal agreement if planning permission was approved. It is therefore considered that the site has adequate play provision within a reasonable distance from the site and this can be enhanced if necessary. As this is a brownfield site, in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Guidance this site would be exempt from making this contribution unless the Council considered there to be a significant deficiency. 4.6.6 Landscaping is provided throughout the site with individual trees being shown within the internal road network and in the open space. While acting as unconventional traffic calming the trees would also add to the overall visual amenity of the site. The open space area would also incorporate planting with one of the footpaths being lined by trees. Trees are also used to break up the parking courts within the site. Full landscaping details were submitted with the application however this plan has not been updated following changes to the layout of the proposal. Should the application be approved, final landscaping and maintenance and management details would be required through planning condition. Overall it is considered that adequate landscaping and planting is being proposed to benefit the overall development. 4.6.7 To accommodate the development, there is a requirement to remove 13 trees which exist on site. These trees are all relatively small, young self-sown trees which currently offer little amenity value. A tree report has been submitted and classifies them as category C trees which is the lowest category of value for trees which are otherwise healthy. While it is always preferable to retain existing trees it is considered that the loss of these trees would not cause any significant impact on amenity in the long term and the proposed trees shown for the site would more than compensate for the loss of these existing trees. Final details of the trees to be planted would be acquired through planning condition to ensure these are suitable species' and sufficient to provide compensation for the tree loss. There are other trees along the southern boundary of the site. These could be protected through tree protection measures if planning permission was given. Overall, it is considered that sufficient mitigation has been provided to protect the high amenity trees along the southern boundary of the site and to compensate for the loss of other trees to facilitate this development. 4.6.8 The layout plans for the site show that high quality landscaping and open space adequate for a development of this scale and location is envisaged and there is play provision within a reasonable distance from the site. Consequently the development would therefore accord with the development plan in this regard. 4.7 Transportation 4.7.1 The national context for the assessment of the impact of new developments on transportation infrastructure is set out in SPP (A connected Place). The overarching aim of this document is to encourage a shift to more sustainable forms of transport and reduce the reliance on the car. Planning permission should be resisted if the development would have a significant impact on the strategic road network.

120

4.7.2 Policy 8 of SESplan states that Local Authorities should ensure that new development minimises the generation of additional car traffic through applying car parking standards that relate to public transport accessibility. In addition the policy states that LDP's should also ensure that the design and layout of new development demonstrably promotes non-car modes of travel and, should consider the merits of protecting existing and potential traffic free cycle and walking routes (such as disused railways) affected by any development proposals. 4.7.3 Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to be located where it is accessible to the public transport network; where there is capacity in the road network and where there is no road safety problem. New development should provide safe and convenient cycle and pedestrian access; a safe route to school; cycle parking; the protection and integration of existing routes; a safe route to stations and public transport interchanges; and multiple points of access to the road network. Policy T2 requires new developments to make provision for pedestrians; traffic calming and a road layout that is in accordance with the Transportation Development Guidelines and the supplementary Designing Streets guidance. 4.7.4 Access to the site would be taken from Fulmar Way which is in the industrial area to the north. There is an existing access from Fulmar Way which was utilised by the previous business in the site. The current proposal would see a new access created to the west of the existing access and the existing access would be closed. The proposal also includes restrictions being formed on Fulmar Way to differentiate the residential access from the majority of industrial accesses to the west of the proposed site access. This would be in the form of road narrowing to the east of the proposed site access. The Proposed FIFEplan states that the site access will not be from the adjacent industrial estate, both to avoid detrimental impact on business users and to protect the amenity of residential properties. In principle, the proposed access would not be acceptable as it is not in accordance with the Proposed FIFEplan. Consideration however must be given to the technical details of the access to assess whether the access could function without detriment to business users or future residents. 4.7.5 Transportation Development Management (TDM) has assessed the proposed access and consider that the proposed access to serve a residential development is not acceptable, as Fulmar Way is primarily an industrial estate access road and also provides vehicular access to the Asda car park and service road. TDM states that introducing residential traffic into an industrial area would result in conflicts between housing traffic and industrial traffic to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety. The proposed access would be adjacent to an existing service access road for the existing Asda. The current Transportation Development Guidelines requires a minimum junction spacing of 40 metres on both industrial and housing roads. This minimum spacing is not achieved at this site. The minimum spacing for a housing road may be relaxed, subject to individual site circumstances. As Fulmar Way is primarily an industrial estate access road, TDM do not consider it acceptable to provide a new site access immediately adjacent to an existing service access as it is likely to lead to conflicts between vehicle turning movements and pedestrians, to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety. TDM also consider that the provision of the carriageway narrowing on Fulmar Way to the east of the proposed vehicular access would have a limited effect as a traffic calming measure to offset the potential conflict between industrial and residential traffic. A number of letters from objectors also express concern over the impact on their businesses from the road narrowing. The proposed access is therefore considered unacceptable as it would be contrary to the Proposed FIFEplan and would result in a conflict between residential and industrial traffic due to residential traffic being brought into industrial estate, and the inadequate junction spacing with the existing Asda service road, all of which would be to the detriment of vehicular and pedestrian safety. The development is therefore considered contrary to policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan on this basis.

121

4.7.6 The proposal only includes one point of access from the road network. The site has been allocated for residential development since the adoption of the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) and there was no specification for there to be two access points into the site. Due to the issues for creating accesses onto either Fulmar Way or Otterston Grove, the creation of two accesses would be difficult. Residential development of up to 200 units can be acceptable from one access and therefore this site would be within that limit. The provision of only one access point for this site would be acceptable taking these points on board and the length of time it has been allocated, however it is considered that the Fulmar Way access point is not suitable for this type of development. 4.7.7 The layout of the internal roads and parking areas is generally acceptable following revisions to the layout. In terms of parking, the site layout has been amended to provide adequate car parking provision. There would be a slight shortfall in visitor car parking however not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Overall the parking provision for the site is considered acceptable. 4.7.8 In terms of the impact on the wider road network the Transport Assessment concludes that the proposed development will result in an increase in traffic on Fulmar Way of only some 4.9% in the PM peak at the junction with Ridge Way. In the design year of 2020 the increase in two-way trips is from 728 to 764, which is an increase of less than one vehicle a minute. TDM do have concern however that these additional 36 trips are all residential generated trips, which do not currently exist on Fulmar Way. The TA concludes that the proposed development is in a sustainable location and would have good pedestrian and cyclist linkages to local and express bus services, Dalgety Bay Railway Station, local shops, local employment and primary school. The TA notes that a pedestrian link would be provided to Meadowfield to the south of the site to provide these links from the proposed site to services to the south. TDM have concerns that the links referred to only show a footpath connection to the site boundary and thereby do not consider the full link is being provided to the street network. It is noted however that the open space area to the south is predominantly hard standing which then connects to the footpath links out to Meadowfield. Providing the footpaths to the boundary would achieve the desired links and it would appear that people have already created an informal link through this area through creating a hole in the boundary fence to the south of the site. Links through this area are thereby achievable without forming the footpaths all the way to the street network. 4.7.9 In terms of the Strategic Transportation Fund it is noted that the site would be considered as previously developed land in accordance with the Planning Obligation Framework Guidance and Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan. Due to this, the development would be exempt from making any payment in this regard. 4.7.10 Overall, the proposed access is not considered acceptable in principle or in detailed considerations. The access would result in the introduction of residential traffic into an industrial contrary to policy DGB002 of the Proposed FIFEplan and would cause a conflict between industrial and residential traffic to the detriment of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety. The proposed access would also be too close to an existing service yard access for Asda and would not meet the minimum junction spacing required by the Transportation Guidelines. Given this proposed development would be introducing residential traffic to an industrial area, the minimum junction spacing requirements should be met. The junction is therefore considered unacceptable and the lack of an appropriate access for this development would result in the development being contrary to policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan.

122

4.8 Natural Heritage 4.8.1 SPP (Landscape and Natural Heritage) aims to raise awareness that both development and conservation of the natural heritage can be compatible through careful planning. Policies E3, E21 and E23 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that where development has the potential to impact on international, national, regional, or locally important species and sites, applicants will be required to submit an ecological appraisal of the proposal detailing how any impact will be minimised or mitigated for, whilst outlining the appropriate measures to maintain and where possible enhance such interests and the local biodiversity of an area. Policy 13 of the Proposed FIFEplan also outlines that development proposals will only be supported where they protect or enhance natural heritage. 4.8.2 The site is currently of very little value in terms of natural heritage and biodiversity with it being brownfield land which has not yet fully regenerated. There are some trees on site which are of very little value in terms of ecology. Although these trees are minor in scale, as they would be removed to accommodate this development the bat roost potential for the trees was examined during a recent previous application. It was found through that assessment that none of the trees to be removed had any potential for roosting bats. The Natural Heritage officer has indicated that based on the known information of this site, and in particular the previous assessments carried out, the proposal would have no impact on natural heritage. It is considered therefore that the development is unlikely to cause any significant impact on local ecology or biodiversity given the current site conditions however the proposed landscaping and open space could actually improve the site. 4.8.3 It is considered that, subject to the imposition of conditions on landscaping and ensuring this includes species of ecological benefit, the development complies with the relevant policy criteria in this instance. 4.9 Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk 4.9.1 The SPP (Managing Flood Risk and Drainage) indicates that the planning system should promote: a precautionary approach to flood risk taking account of the predicted effects of climate change; flood avoidance by safeguarding flood storage and conveying capacity, and locating development away from functional flood plains and medium to high risk areas; flood reduction: assessing flood risk and, where appropriate, undertaking flood management measures and avoidance of increased surface water flooding through requirements for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and minimising the area of impermeable surface. 4.9.2 Policy 15 of the SESplan states that LDPs will be required to avoid allocating areas that are in medium to high flood risk areas and should safeguard areas that will contribute to reducing overall flood risk and promote enhancement of the water environment in new developments. 4.9.3 Policies I3, I4, and I5 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that developments should not place unacceptable demands on public infrastructure including drainage systems, that developments will not be supported if they would increase the risk of flooding, nor will they be supported if Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or other similar appropriate measures are not undertaken. Consideration should also be given to the guidance contained within the Council's advice note on flooding and drainage. Policy 12 of the Proposed FIFEplan does not fundamentally change these considerations.

123

4.9.4 The application site is not within an area known to flood on the SEPA flood risk map. A SUDS scheme and drainage information has been submitted as part of the application. Harbours, Flood and Coast have indicated that some further information is required in terms of the drainage of the site. No significant issues were raised with the previous application and therefore in principle adequate drainage is achievable on site. A condition could therefore be used to acquire the outstanding information and resolve this issue. 4.9.5 It is therefore considered that, subject to the use of a suitable SUDS/ drainage condition, the proposal complies with the relevant criteria of the Development Plan in this regard. 4.10 Contaminated Land 4.10.1 PAN33 advises that suspected and actual contamination should be investigated and, if necessary, remediated to ensure that sites are suitable for their proposed end use. Policy E6 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development proposals involving sites where land instability or where the presence of contamination is suspected are required to be accompanied with a site investigation. This should assess the nature and extent of any risks presented by land stability or contamination which may be present and where risks are known to be present must provide appropriate mitigation measures to be agreed with the Council. Where possible, remediation strategies should be agreed with the Council prior to the determination of any planning application. 4.10.2 As the site is situated on brownfield land within an industrial estate there is potential for the site to be contaminated from its former use. The Council's Contaminated Land team has indicated that a site investigation will be required for the development should planning permission be granted. This would be included as a requirement of any consent. Policy DGB 002 of the Proposed FIFEplan also outlines the need for a site investigation to be submitted. 4.10.3 It is therefore considered that, subject to the use of conditions as detailed above, the development would comply with the relevant criteria of the Development Plan in this instance. 4.11 Affordable Housing 4.11.1 Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that housing proposals must accord with the strategic plan housing land requirement and this is further considered in Fife Council's updated Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011). Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that open market housing development must provide affordable housing at the levels shown in Figure 2.2 for each Housing Market Area (HMA), consistent with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance. This should be fully integrated into new development and be indistinguishable from other forms of housing. In order to achieve mixed and balanced communities, mixed tenure developments will be promoted. 4.11.2 The site requires 25% of the units to be provided for affordable housing. This equates to 13 units and it is noted that the applicant is showing 13 affordable units and these are integrated throughout the site. 4.11.3 The application would be in accordance with the development plan in this regard subject to a condition or legal agreement securing the provision of affordable housing. 4.12 Education

124

4.12.1 Policy D1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new developments to make appropriate payments to offset the effects of the development on local infrastructure and services. Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan would also be relevant to this application. This has been amended through examination to state that developer contributions will be sought in relation to development proposals that will have an adverse impact on infrastructure capacity. The kinds of infrastructure to which this policy applies include transport, schools, affordable housing, greenspace, public art and employment land. The contributions will mitigate development impact by making a contribution to existing infrastructure, or providing additional capacity or improving existing infrastructure; or providing new infrastructure. This is reinforced in the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015). 4.12.2 Fife Councils Education Service has been consulted as part of this application and has confirmed that the site is within the catchment area for Dalgety Bay Primary School, Inverkeithing High School, St John's Roman Catholic Primary School and St Columba's Roman Catholic High School. Education has confirmed that these schools have sufficient capacity to accommodate this development. 4.12.3 There would be no significant impact on education from this development and thereby the development would be in compliance with the development plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 4.13 Public Art 4.13.1 Policy E14 of the Adopted Local Plan requires all major developments or prominent sites to make provision for public art. This policy has largely been superseded by Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEPlan and the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) which is are material considerations of significant weight. Details on how public art should be achieved is set out within the Making Fifes Planning Policy Guidance. 4.13.2 As this proposal relates to a major residential development, public art would be required on site. However, Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance both state that public art is not required on sites which have been previously developed. This would apply to this site and thereby public art would not be required for this proposal due to the exemption.

4.13.3 While this proposal is a Major development and usually would require to provide public art, as the site is on previously developed land it would be considered exempt from making this contribution in accordance with the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015).

CONSULTATIONS Scottish Water No comments. Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objection. Site is not at flood risk and

SUDs are proposed. They note that a waste transfer station is close to the site and therefore there may be a risk of noise, dust and nuisance affecting future residents. They do note however that the controls within the

125

license of the waste transfer station may be sufficient to mitigate these impacts.

Community Council Object to the application on the basis of the impact the proposal could have on existing businesses within the industrial estate and the impact on GP surgeries. They believe it could impact on the achievement of the aims of the HADIE Regeneration Action Plan.

Land And Air Quality - EPES No objections subject to the submission of a site investigation to be requested through condition.

Education (Directorate) The catchment schools have capacity and thereby they have no objections to the proposal.

Housing And Neighbourhood Services The proposal would require 25% of the units to be for affordable housing. This equates to 13 units.

Structural Services - Harbours, Flood And Coast

Further information requested with regards to drainage infrastructure proposed for the site.

Environmental Health (Public Protection) - EPES

Have raised concerns with regards to the noise assessment submitted. They consider that sufficient work has not been carried out to argue that the development has adequately dealt with the noise from neighbouring land uses.

Transportation Recommend that the application be refused as access to the site would be taken from the industrial estate. They note this is contrary to the proposals policy within the Proposed FIFEplan and have concerns with regards to the conflict of introducing residential traffic into an industrial area. They also note that the junction spacing for the proposed access with a neighbouring service access for Asda does not meet the minimum standard. The proposed mitigation through road narrowing would not assist in resolving their concern. They also raise a concern with regards to pedestrian connectivity to the south of the site.

Transportation And Environmental Services - Operations Team

No comments.

Parks Development And Countryside No comments.

REPRESENTATIONS

126

A total of 7 letters of objection have been received for this application with an objection also being received from Dalgety Bay and Hillend Community Council in addition to this. The representations include letters of objection from the two nearest industrial operators Grant Construction and Dyce Carriers. A noise assessment has also been submitted by one of the neighbouring industrial uses. Some letters of objection were received after the end of the neighbour notification period including the aforementioned noise assessment. The points of objection raised include: Policy Considerations: - Site should not be used for housing as is an industrial estate; Response: The site has been allocation for residential development both within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan. Transportation Issues: - New road layout would impact on businesses in industrial estate - Industrial estate roads already busy without additional traffic; - Concern that a lack of parking within site would lead to parking within industrial estate; - Conflict with industrial traffic Response: These matters are largely covered within section 4.7 of the report. In terms of parking, TDM have concluded that sufficient car parking is being provided in the site and thereby parking outwith the site should not be an issue. Impact on businesses - Construction process of development would impact on businesses due to additional construction traffic; - Impact on businesses from noise complaints; - Complaints would cause businesses to leave area; - HGV restrictions on Fulmar Way would restrict movement of HGV's in existing businesses to detriment of businesses; - Noise Assessment not conclusive and thereby bund may not be effective; - Noise Assessment not sufficient. Response: These matters are largely covered throughout the report but primarily in section 4.5. In terms of construction traffic, it should be noted that the site previously functioned as an industrial premises and larger vehicles would have been using Fulmar Way to enter and exit the site. The construction traffic would be akin to this and a Construction Management Plan would ensure there was no parking by construction workers on Fulmar Way. It is not considered that construction traffic and processes would be a reason for refusal. It is agreed that the noise assessment and noise mitigation is not sufficient to conclude that there would be no significant noise impact on future residents and in turn this could impact on the operations of existing businesses. Design - Lack of a landscaped area sufficient to provide noise mitigation; - Increase in units with common boundary with noise creating neighbours;

127

Response: The required landscape buffer has been provided. The increase in units along the border with the industrial estate might result in a greater potential for impact. The main consideration however is the adequacy of the Noise Assessment and Mitigation proposed. Infrastructure: - Impact on doctor appointments Response: Health care capacity is an issue considered during the Local Plan process. This area has not been identified as having a deficiency in medical practises. CONCLUSIONS

While the site is allocated for residential development the development does not fully comply with the proposals policy DGB003 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 or DGB002 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) in that adequate noise attenuation has not been provided. The Noise Assessment submitted with the application is deficient in proving that there would be no significant impact on future residents from neighbouring industrial uses even with the proposed noise attenuation in place. There is a concern that the Noise Assessment is not sufficient for assessing noise in this location and from the sources of noise neighbouring the site and a precautionary approach should be taken to protect future residents and existing businesses. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies E2 and E4 of the Adopted Local Plan and policies 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan on this basis. In addition, the proposed access to the site would be through an existing industrial estate which would result in residential traffic being introduced into an area of primarily industrial traffic. This would cause a conflict between residential and industrial traffic to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety. In addition the proposed access would be too close to an existing service access for a neighbouring supermarket which could lead to further conflict. The proposal therefore would lack an adequate access and would be considered contrary to policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan. Therefore while the site is allocated for residential development, the proposal fails to comply fully with the proposal policy DGB003 and DGB002 and also policies E2, E4 and T2 within the Adopted Local Plan and policies 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan and is therefore considered contrary to the development plan and other material considerations of significant weight. There are no material considerations that would outweigh the development plan position in this regard including the positive impact this development would have on the shortfall of the 5-year effective housing land supply. RECOMMENDATION

The application be refused for the following reason(s) 1. The development would be contrary to policies E2, E4 and T2 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 as the development would take access from an existing industrial estate which would lead to a conflict in vehicular traffic movements between industrial and residential traffic. The proposed access also would not meet the minimum junction spacing with an existing

128

service access which could lead to further conflict. This would be detrimental to pedestrian and vehicular safety. 2. The development would be contrary to policies DGB003, E2 and E4 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and policies DGB002, 2 and 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan 2014 as insufficient information has been provided to conclude that noise from neighbouring industrial uses can be adequately mitigated on site. The submitted Noise Assessment is not considered adequate in its assessment of noise and does not adequately prove that there would be no significant impact. A precautionary approach should thereby be taken to protect the residential amenity of future residents from noise and existing businesses from being adversely affected by noise complaints. STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS

In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National Policy and Guidance: SPP - Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Designing Streets (2010) PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land (2000) PAN 2/2010 Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits (2010) PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise (2011) Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance and other material considerations: SESPlan Strategic Development Plan (2013) SESplan Supplementary Guidance Housing Land (2014) Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) Fife Council's Maintaining an Effective Five year Land Supply at all Times Supplementary Planning Guidance (2013) Fife Councils Transportation Development Guidelines as an appendix to Making Fife's Places Supplementary Guidance (2015) Fife Council's Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) Making Fifes Places Planning Policy Guidance (2015) Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan 2014) Fife Council's Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) Housing Land Audit 2015 (July 2015) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings Report prepared by William Shand, Chartered Planner and Case Officer Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

Date Printed 24/01/2017

  APPENDIX 1  Policy Compliance Summary 16/01887/FULL Erection of 51 residential units, SUDS, open space and associated roads infrastructure LAND TO SOUTH OF FULMAR WAY DONIBRISTLE INDUSTRIAL PARK  This appendix is not a determining matrix and no decision should be reached on the basis of this summary alone 

129

 

POLICY  CONTEXT  WEIGHTING/ RELEVANCE 

COMPLIANCE 

National Policy 

Scottish Planning Policy 2014  

Statement of SG policy on land use matters. Providing a range of policy statements relating to most issues pertinent to the determination of this application. 

High Development has the potential to affect several matters covered by this national policy document and therefore its relevance to this application is high.  

Broadly compliant  

SPP paragraphs 28‐ 35 (Sustainability) 

Outlines the presumption in favour of development that supports sustainable development and the principles to follow. 

High Given the shortfall in 5 year effective housing land supply this has significant relevance. 

Does not comply with all principles. 

SPP Paragraphs 123 ‐125 (Maintaining a five year effective land supply) 

States that a five year effective land supply must be maintained and indicates that relevant policies will be considered out of date when this is not maintained. 

High Given the shortfall in 5 year effective housing land supply this has significant relevance. 

Compliant 

PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land   

Sets out advice on the treatment of contaminated land in the planning process 

High The site has been identified as requiring a site investigation. 

Compliant subject to conditions. 

PAN 1/2011 (Planning and Noise) 

Sets out considerations of determining planning applications where noise might be a consideration.  

High The site is adjacent to noisy land uses and this would a significant consideration. 

Non‐ Compliant as insufficient evidence has been provided to indicate there would be no significant noise impact on future residents.  

Strategic Plan  Approved SESPlan (2013)     

130

POLICY  CONTEXT  WEIGHTING/ RELEVANCE 

COMPLIANCE 

Policies 5 – 6 on Housing Land Supply 

Provides details of Housing Land Supply. 

High As this is a non‐effective site. 

Compliant.  

Supplementary Guidance – Housing Land 2014 

Provides the Housing Land requirements for Fife. 

High As this is the early release of housing land not allocated within the Adopted Local Plan. 

Neutral – Document outlines the housing land requirements only.   

Local Plan                       Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 

DGB 003 (Fulmar Way 2) 

Is the proposals for the site. Sets out that the requirements for the site in terms of noise mitigation and open space.  

High This the principle land use policy for the site. 

Non‐ compliant – it has not been proven that adequate noise mitigation has been provided.  

E2 Development within settlement boundaries 

Sets out that development within settlement boundary will be acceptable where it meets the specified land use criteria and has no adverse impact on neighbouring land. 

High The site is located within the settlement boundary. 

Non‐ compliant – would not comply with land use designation and could impact on neighbouring land use. 

E3 Development Quality – Environmental Impact 

Seeks to ensure high standards of development in terms of reducing environmental impact. 

High The site is in a countryside location and thereby greater impacts on environment are possible. 

Compliant 

E4 Development Quality Design 

Seeks to ensure high standards of design including design, layout etc.  

High Design and the sites relationship to the landscape is important. 

Compliant. 

E21, E22, E23Protected Species; Local Biodiversity & Geodiversity Sites; Protection of Biodiversity 

Seeks to protect a range of protected species, habitat and biodiversity issues 

High Has an area of woodland within the site and there is a known protected species locally.  

Compliant subject to condition. 

131

POLICY  CONTEXT  WEIGHTING/ RELEVANCE 

COMPLIANCE 

E25 and E26 Protection of Trees on development sites and Replanting of Trees 

Seeks to protect trees on development sites and requires replanting where trees are lost. 

High There are trees within the development site and one is to be lost. 

Compliant 

T1 Transport Network and T2 Traffic safety in new development 

Sets out how new development should fit within the existing transport network 

High Transportation matters are a consideration of this application 

Non‐ compliant as a suitable access has not been provided. 

I4 & I5 Flooding and Water Quality & Sustainable Urban Drainage 

Seeks to ensure that flooding and surface water matters are addressed  

High SUDS and waste water treatment are considerations of this application. 

Compliant  

B1 Protected Employment Area 

Seeks to protect existing employment land from non‐compatible development. 

High Part of the site is designated for this reason. 

Compliant – this relates to the former access which currently has no use for employment land.  

Material Considerations 

     

Proposed FIFEplan  (2014)  

An emerging plan covering Fife and will replace the existing local plan coverage in 2017.   

Medium The FIFEplan has been to the Executive Committee and is now considered the Council’s position with regards to future planning policy and proposals. The Examination Report has been received from the Scottish Government and therefore the Plan holds greater weight. 

Non‐compliant with land use designation and policies 2 and 10. 

132

POLICY  CONTEXT  WEIGHTING/ RELEVANCE 

COMPLIANCE 

Planning Obligation Supplementary Guidance 

Provides details of planning obligations required per development type 

High This document outlines the requirements for this site. 

Broadly Compliant 

Making Fife’s Places 

Describes good design qualities, the principles of creating successful place and the expectations in terms of open space requirements, ecology, transportation and public art. 

High This document is an important consideration for assessing the design and layout of residential development in particular. 

Compliant 

 NB Other policy and guidance documents are listed in the policy and Guidance section of the report.  1.  The third column aims to convey the relative weight given to the various policies ‐ this is complicated and cannot be relegated to a simple arithmetical scoring list. This is the part of the assessment (officer as recommender and Committee as decision maker) which is critical. The same policies and material considerations can also be weighted differently in different applications. The Committee taking the final decision can weigh up the material considerations in a different manner to the officer recommendation. The scale to convey relative gradings of weight to be utilised in the body of the case officer’s and this Matrix is the following: As an example, ‐Very High ‐High ‐Low ‐Very low ‐Negligible  2. The "Compliance” column should have references to the paragraphs where the compliance issue is addressed in full for ease of reference for the reader. There may be single or multiple references to the same policy in the report of handling which can have several aspects or elements which may be addressed in different sections. 

133

Maxwell Building

Grant House

El

SheltersEl Sub Sta

Dalgety Bay Business Centre

Superstore

Mast (Telecommunication)

Sta

Playground

Sybrig House

Sub Sta

Tank

LB

3 to 5

BO

UP

RIE

RIS

E

ESS

FE

RR

IS W

AY

RIDGE WAY

FORTH CRESCENT

HOLDEN WAY

FO

RT

H

1

2

8

9

6

48

32

21

38

20

22

25

12

19

66

34

16

50b

17

93

67

11

35

52

13

10

27

15

18

5

34

39

45

46

14

59

54

58

29

53

40

62

30

49

83

16

Tank

46

2

1

1

62

20

6

29

1

10

32

6

22

2213

11

27

1

2

2

11

1

1

2

2

12

LB

19

27

Hillend Donibristle Industrial Park

Playground

Sub

VIE

W

FULMAR WAY

MORAY WAY NORTH

OTTERSTON GROVE

MEADOWFIELDC

OC

HR

AN

E W

AY

21

64

2a

11

50a

56

68

24

79

42

CO

US

TO

N R

D

Gas Gov

Tel Ex

FO

RTH

CO

UR

T

COUSTON DRIVE

26

31

El

Mast (Telecommunication)

El Sub Sta

El Sub Sta

2

El Sub Sta

21

20

16/01887/fULL

Land to South of Fulmar Way, Donibristle Industrial Park, Dalgety Bay

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 25 50 7512.5m

Legend

134

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

ITEM NO: APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 16/01927/FULL

SITE ADDRESS: LAND TO THE NORTH OF HALBEATH RETAIL PARK

DUNFERMLINE PROPOSAL : EXTENSION TO RETAIL PARK INVOLVING THE

CONSTRUCTION OF 9 NO. CLASS 1 AND CLASS 3 (WITH TAKEAWAY AND DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY) UNITS, CAR PARKING, SERVICING, LANDSCAPING AND ANCILLARY WORKS INCLUDING RETENTION AND REGRADING WORKS WITH NEW SUBSTATION

APPLICANT: MR MICHAEL LAWRENCE

55 GRACECHURCH STREET LONDON UNITED KINGDOM WARD NO: NW03

Dunfermline Central CASE OFFICER: William Shand

DATE REGISTERED:

17/06/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: The application is a major application as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) Regulations 2009.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for:

Refusal ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

135

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.0 BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL 1.1 Site 1.1.1 The application site is approximately 4.68 hectares in area and is an area of vacant ground to the north east of the existing Halbeath Retail Park. Halbeath Retail Park is situated on the north east edge of Dunfermline. The site contains an area of car parking currently used by the Retail Park, the service road for existing units and generally vacant ground. Halbeath Retail Park contains a large retail food superstore with petrol station, 9 retail units including Homebase, B and M, Harveys and Benson Beds, Carpetright, Currys, Halfords, Argos and Pets at Home and a public house/ restaurant. One retail unit is currently vacant. There is an extensive area of car parking associated with these retail units. There are currently two public entrances to the Retail Park, each from spurs attached to roundabouts on Halbeath Road. The service road takes access from a spur from Kingseat Road to the east. The site is bound by Halbeath Road to the south, the rest of Halbeath Retail Park and vacant land to the west, a rail track to the north and Kingseat Road with commercial/ retail units and a residential property to the east. Kingseat Road intersects and crosses the rail track to the north by a level crossing. The site is relatively flat however Halbeath Road and Kingseat Road are elevated above the site with a relatively steep gradient between these roads and the site. 1.1.2 The site is allocated as DUN082 (Halbeath Retail Park Extension, Dunfermline) within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 but has no allocation within the Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan 2014. 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 The application as first proposed was for the construction of 9 class 1 and class 3 units although the applicant has confirmed that they would be willing to delete two of the smaller units from the development should planning permission be approved and that they would like this done through planning condition. The submitted planning statement specifies the retail mix for the site and shows that the majority of the units would be for class 1 retail, however some of the units would be used for class 3 (food and drink) use. The units would be set around a central parking area which would connect to the existing car parking to the west of the site and includes reconfiguration of the area of existing car parking included within the site. Two 1,672sqm gross floorspace units (including 743sqm gross mezzanine floorspace) would be constructed to the north of the existing Unit 7C forming a continuous frontage. These units would be Units 8A and 8B. Three to five (with the deletion of two units) units would be sited at an almost right angle to the north east of these units and these units would face south towards the car park area. These units would be adjoining and form a continuous row. Proposed Unit 9 would be 2,044sqm gross in floor area (including 1,022 sqm gross floorspace mezzanine) and Unit 10A would be 2,091sqm gross in floor area (including 929 sqm gross floorspace of mezzanine). Both would be class 1 retail units. Attached to Unit 10A would be one to three smaller units (each 140sqm gross floorspace in area) 10B, 10C and 10D. These units would either be class 1 retail or class 3 units. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to delete two of these units if these were considered unacceptable. To the south east of these units would be a 2,283sqm discount food store with a 205sqm first floor giving an overall Gross Internal Floor Area of 2,488sqm. This unit would be situated on its own to the eastern end of the site and would constitute Unit 11. Unit 12 would be an individual 205sqm class 3 unit with drive thru.

136

1.2.2 The proposal would include bulky goods floor space within Units 8A, 8B and 10A (5435sqm gross), convenience floorspace within Units 9 and 11 (4532sqm gross) and either class 1 (convenience/food) or class 3 in Units 10B- 10D (420sqm gross floorspace or 140sqm if units 10C and 10D are deleted). Unit 12 would be for class 3 (205sqm gross floorspace). 1.2.3 Access to the site would be taken from the existing roundabout to the north east of the site. This roundabout currently serves an individual property, a retail/ business area and Kingseat Road. The site has an existing spur from this roundabout which connects to the service road for the existing retail units to the west. This road would be upgraded to provide an access to the new car parking area as well as an access road for the existing service yards and proposed service areas as part of this application. 377No. car parking spaces (including 74No. of the existing spaces reconfigured as part of this proposal) are proposed for the development. The site would also include landscaping areas throughout and a landscaping feature at the entrance to the site (north east corner) which would be formed into public art. A large area of the site to the north of the service road would be left undeveloped. 1.3 Planning History 1.3.1 Outline planning permission (01/02391/WOPP) was approved for the redevelopment of the retail park with 12 units for non-food bulky retail goods, garden centre, fast food outlet, parking, landscaping and junction improvements. The application was approved subject to a legal agreement on 15 September 2004, however due to protracted negotiations on the legal agreement the planning permission was not released until 19 December 2006. The proposal, while approved in outline, would have involved the replacement of the existing 6 units (at that time) with 12 new units. The consent was restricted to primarily non-food bulky goods retail (with restricted electrical goods floorspace) and this was restricted through a legal agreement which outlined the permissible items to be sold from the units. The restrictions also limited floorspace and mezzanine floorspace. This is the original planning permission which proposed an extension to the retail park which is reference in policy DUN082 of the Adopted Local Plan (2012). 1.3.2 Planning permission 01/02391/WOPP was due to lapse on 19 December 2009 and planning application 09/01798/WFULL was submitted to extend the life of this planning permission. Given the previous protracted legal discussions and the lack of any subsequent submission, it was considered at that time that it was only appropriate to extend the planning permission for a year. The planning permission therefore lapsed on 19 December 2010, with no further application to extend the planning permission being received. 1.3.3 Phase 1 of the retail park which included the Asda Superstore and 17,614sqm (Gross) of non-food retail warehousing was approved through planning permission 87/00945. This included a condition (No.3) restricting the items which could be sold from the units to bulky goods retail. 1.3.4 Further units and a fast food outlet were approved under outline planning permission 91/0880 and the subsequent detailed planning permission 92/0808. This was phase 2 of the retail park and the planning permission also included a condition restricting the sale of goods to bulky items (condition No.3). 1.3.5 A Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use (12/00096/CLP) was approved for phase 2 of the retail park on 18 April 2012. This Certificate confirmed that these units could sell unrestricted non-food retail items from these units. This decision was based on the fact that the conditions of the original consent for this phase did not adequately restrict the items that could be sold. The

137

intention was for these units to only sell bulky or restricted goods however the condition was not worded precisely and thereby failed to adequately define items which were restricted. 1.3.6 Following this, an application (12/02112/FULL) was approved for the installation of new shop front structures, subdivision of the former Focus unit into 3 units and the creation of a class 1 retail unit in place of the garden centre on 31 August 2012. Given the approved CLP, three of the units were approved as non-food retail units without restriction while the unit to replace the garden centre was approved with bulky goods consent only. 1.3.7 A previous application for planning permission (15/00778/FULL) on this exact site for a similar retail development was refused in January 2016. This application was for 9 class 1 and class 3 retail units. However it proposed a different retail mix in terms of comparison and convenience floorspace. This application is currently at appeal but the appeal has been put on hold while the current application is considered. The current application aims to address the reasons for refusal of the 2015 application. The applicant has outlined how this is to be achieved in their supporting statement and outlines the following changes to this application: - Unit 10A is now proposed as bulky goods rather than unrestricted comparison; - Units 10B, C and D now proposed as convenience/ Class 3 rather than unrestricted comparison. This has subsequently been altered through a further letter confirming that units 10C and 10D may be deleted through condition; - Access to the land to north for the northern relief road. This has subsequently been amended through a further letter with the access to the land no longer on offer. Instead the applicant proposes to pay the full strategic transportation contribution required for this development; - Provision of a crossing on Halbeath Road; - Provision of pedestrian route to unit 11; - Restrictions on servicing of unit 11. 1.4 Application Process 1.4.1 The application site area is greater than 2 hectares and the proposal includes more than 5,000 sqm of retail floor space and therefore the proposal is categorised as a Major development within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) Regulations 2009. The applicant has carried out the required Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) through holding a public information event (Ref: 16/00580/PAN). A PAC report outlining comments made by the public and the consideration of these in the design process of the proposal has been submitted as part of this application. The manner of the consultation exercise, including the notification and media advertisement process, complied with the relevant legislation. This included a public consultation event on 20 April 2016 in the Halbeath Community Centre. The public event was advertised in the Dunfermline Press and Courier. 1.4.2 While a formal EIA screening request has not been submitted the application has been screened under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 and the proposal was considered not to constitute a development which required an Environmental Impact Assessment. The application however has been supported with a Transport Assessment, Planning Statement (including Retail Impact Assessment), Flood Risk Assessment, Air Quality Assessment, Design and Access Statement, Noise Assessment and Coal Mining Risk Assessment 1.4.3 The application was advertised in the local press on 23 June 2016 for neighbour notification purposes, as a Schedule 3 development and being potentially contrary to the Development Plan.

138

Following the receipt of the Retail Impact Assessment a further period of notification was undertaken. 1.5 Emerging Local Development Plan 1.5.1 The Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014) is a material consideration but at the current stage in the process which leads to adoption of the plan it does not have the same status or carry the same weight as the current Development Plan. In the context of this report the Proposed FIFEplan will only be referenced where it conflicts with the current Adopted Local Plan position. The examination of the Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014) is now complete and reference may be made to any changes proposed through examination that would change a policy position. 1.5.2 The site is no longer allocated for development but instead has no specific land use designation other than including part of the route of the northern distributor road for Dunfermline. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Having regard to the provisions of the development plan, and the concerns raised during the course of the planning application process, the main issues in the consideration of this application for planning permission are;- - Principle of Retail Development - Transportation - Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk - Sustainability 2.2 The proposal would be contrary to the principle land use policy within the Adopted Local Plan as it would not comply with proposals policy DUN082 as the proposal would not be in compliance with the legal agreement of the original outline planning permission. The development is also considered to be contrary to policies R1, R2 and R3 in that the development would likely change the character of Halbeath Retail Park by introducing further convenience retail and class 3 increasing the mix of retail available at the retail park. The proposal has the potential to adversely affect the vitality and viability of the Dunfermline Town Centre through enhancing the retail park with a greater mix of retail creating a retail destination which would compete with the town centre. This would alter the Retail Park’s role within the hierarchy of retail from being supplementary to the town centre to being an alternative retail destination. The proposal is likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. The proposal would be contrary to Adopted Local Plan, SESplan, SPP and Proposed FIFEplan. 2.3 The Transport Assessment (TA) carried out in support of the application does not include any consideration of sites proposed within the Adopted Local Plan or Proposed FIFEplan. Transportation Development Management have carried out further work on the potential impact of this development on the wider road network and do not consider that there would be a significant impact subject to the completion of the required interventions. The reasons for refusal on the previous application have been resolved in terms of vehicle movements within the retail park, internal pedestrian links and links to the wider residential area and bus stops. A contribution has been proposed to the strategic transport fund which meets the required level as set out within the Proposed FIFEplan and associated guidance. Concerns have been raised by objectors in terms of the impact on Kingseat Road, the level crossing and pedestrian safety. These have been

139

considered by Transportation Development Management and they raise no concerns in this regard. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of transportation impacts.

2.4 The site is at risk from flooding and a Flood Risk Assessment and drainage information have been submitted with the application. Both SEPA and the Council's Harbours, Floods and Coast Team are content that the site would not be at risk of flooding or indeed cause flooding elsewhere. Additional information has been requested by the Council's drainage advisors on some aspects of the proposed internal drainage system, however this could be resolved through conditions. The development would therefore not cause any significant concern in terms of flood risk or drainage. 2.5 The proposal accords with a number of the sustainability principles set out within Scottish Planning Policy which is a positive material consideration. The proposal would have a positive economic impact through job creation and the retention of expenditure within Dunfermline. The proposal would also see the use of underutilised land within the settlement boundary. It is not considered however that the proposal would support the town centre. These positive material considerations are not considered to outweigh the Development Plan policy or the adverse impact the potential proposal would have on the town centre. 2.6 The Policy Matrix in Appendix 1 summarises the relevant policies and guidance, and officers conclusions, and is a useful checklist in ensuring that relevant policies have been referred to as part of this assessment. 2.7 Taking all the relevant issues and concerns into account the proposal is considered unacceptable as it would be contrary to the Development Plan, SPP and Proposed FIFEplan in terms of retail impact. 3.0 PLANNING REPORT APPENDICES 3.1 Appendix 1 - Policy Matrix 4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 4.1 The issues to be assessed against the development plan and other guidance are as follows: - Principle of Retail Development - Design, Layout, Levels and Landscaping - Transportation - Residential Amenity - Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk - Natural Heritage - Public Art - Site Conditions, Stability and Minerals - Air Quality - Sustainability 4.2 Principle of Retail Development 4.2.1 The SPP (Promoting Town Centres) sets key criteria for the delivery of a "town centre first principle" and this should be applied when planning for uses which attract significant numbers of people, including retail and commercial leisure, offices, community and cultural facilities. At the same time the SPP indicates that plans should identify a network of centres and explain how they

140

can complement each other. Emerging or new centres designated within key new developments or land releases should also be shown within the network of centres. The use of the sequential approach in ensuring that retail and leisure facilities are delivered in town centres first is an inherent part of the SPP advice. Planning authorities however should still be flexible and realistic in applying the sequential approach, to ensure that different uses are developed in the most appropriate locations. In Development Management terms where a retail and leisure development with a gross floor space over 2,500m2 is proposed outwith a town centre, contrary to the development plan, a retail impact analysis should be undertaken. For smaller retail and leisure proposals which may have a significant impact on vitality and viability, planning authorities should advise when retail impact analysis is necessary. Out-of-centre locations should only be considered for uses which generate significant footfall where all town centre, edge of town centre and other commercial centre options have been assessed and discounted; the scale of development proposed is appropriate and it has been shown that the proposal cannot reasonably be altered or reduced in scale to allow it to be accommodated at a sequentially preferable location; the proposal will help to meet qualitative or quantitative deficiencies; and there will be no significant adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the existing town centres. 4.2.2 SESplan (2013) Policy 3 (Retail) supports retail and commercial development in strategic town centres and gives priority to town centre then edge of centre locations, then established commercial centres and finally out of centre locations for retail and commercial leisure developments. It seeks to protect these centres when assessing development proposals. Dunfermline Town Centre is considered to be a strategic town centre. 4.2.3 The Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) designates the site as DUN082 Halbeath Retail Park Extension. The policy states that: The development will be subject to the Section 75 Agreement attached to the Outline Planning Permission specifying the: - range of goods which can be sold; - area of permitted floor space for associated goods, of the permitted floor space for electrical goods and of the permitted mezzanine floor space. Financial contributions to Fife Council for the loss of employment land and for off site road improvements. A Flood Risk Assessment is required. 4.2.4 Within the Adopted Local Plan the site is not located within a designated centre but instead is adjacent to the Halbeath Retail Park. The Halbeath Retail Park is designated as a commercial centre. The Local Plan states that retail parks specialise in larger format retail units and bulky goods and may have restrictions on the types of items which can be sold. Therefore, although there is support within the Adopted Local Plan for the expansion of the Halbeath Retail Park this would be restricted to bulky goods in accordance with the commercial centre location and proposals policy DUN082. The general proposal would therefore be acceptable in principle however the development as specified in the planning statement is not in accordance with proposals policy DUN082 in that the retail offer would include convenience retail, which was not included in the legal agreement of the now expired Outline Planning Permission. The applicant argues that the Outline Planning Permission for the site lapsed prior to the adoption of the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) and therefore the relevance of the Planning Permission to the Local Plan must be viewed in that context. This is noted, however the context of that Planning Permission still serves to provide the basis of permissible retail on this site in relation to an extension of the retail park, regardless of the Outline Planning Permission's status.

141

This policy does not seek for the Outline Planning Permission to be replicated in full but that the terms of the legal agreement relating to retail are followed and it is this aspect which is important for the consideration of this development against Policy DUN082. In terms of the requirements for the loss of employment land payment, this has not been proposed by the applicant. This however has not been raised as an issue as the site is no longer allocated for development within the Proposed FIFEplan. Payments for offsite road works will be discussed later in the report. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as required. Overall, the proposal would not be supported by policy DUN082 of the Adopted Local Plan. 4.2.5 Within the Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan) (2014) the site is no longer allocated for development. The Proposed FIFEplan 2014 is a material consideration and following the examination has significant weight. The applicant contested the removal of the site as a development opportunity site however the examination report has not altered this area of land to identify any specific development proposals for this site. The relevant policy for consideration on this basis would thereby be policy 1 which has been amended during the examination of the Proposed FIFEplan. This states that development proposals will be supported if they conform to relevant Development Plan policies and proposals, and address their individual and cumulative impacts. Such development proposals must meet one of the points in Part A and conform to all applicable requirements in Parts B and C. Part A states that the principle of development will be supported if it is either: a) Within a defined settlement boundary and compliant with the policies for the location; or b) In a location where the proposed use is supported by the Local Development Plan. 2. If the proposal does not meet either of the criteria under 1, above, the principle of development may be supported if the development is for: a) Housing on a site which is not allocated for housing in this plan but which accords with the provisions of Policy 2: Homes; or b) Employment land for industrial or business use in a location where there is clear evidence of a shortfall in supply. The main policy for consideration for retail proposals under parts B and C is policy 6 which will be considered later in the report. In brief however it is considered that the development would not be in accordance with policy 6 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and policy 1 of the Proposed LDP does not offer any support as the proposal does not meet criteria 2(a) or (b) within Part A of the policy. 4.2.6 While the development is not in accordance with policy DUN082, consideration must still be given to the proposal's acceptability as a stand-alone development, different from the lapsed consent. A retail development different from that previously approved may be considered acceptable if it is in accordance with the other retail policies and integration with the commercial centre could be achieved. Policy R1 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) requires retail developments outwith town centres to be accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment if the gross floor area exceeds 1000 sqm and that the sequential test should be applied. The requirement for the sequential test is also specified within the SPP and policy 6 of the Proposed LDP. The application site is located outwith the town centre boundary and outwith a commercial centre. The site does benefit from a specific Proposals Policy, however as noted the proposal does not accord with the specifics of the policy. 4.2.7 The proposal includes convenience retail and therefore Policy R2 (Convenience Retail Outwith Town or Local Centres) of the Adopted Local Plan is relevant. It states that convenience retail development outwith defined town centres and local centres will be supported where:-

142

a) It can be demonstrated to the Council's satisfaction that no suitable alternative site is available within or on the edge of town centres, or in local centres; b) it will not have a detrimental effect, either cumulatively or individually, on the vitality and viability of town and to a lesser extent other local centres; c) The scale and character of the development is in keeping with the location or role of the settlement; and d) It provides consumer benefits in terms of choice, quality, minimising the need to travel, accessibility and convenience. Proposals for convenience shopping development should be well located in relation to the communities they are intended to serve, should be accessible by public transport, and should minimise the need for travel between settlements. They should be informed by the latest up-to-date retail capacity study. Relocation of existing town centre stores over 1,000sqm gross floorspace to locations outwith town centres will not generally be supported. 4.2.8 The site also includes comparison retail and therefore Policy R3 of the Adopted Local Plan (Comparison Retail Outwith Town or Local Centres) is also of relevance. This policy is similar to Policy R2 but relates directly to comparison retail. It states that town centres will be the preferred location for comparison retailing and that proposals for comparison floorspace outside these locations will only be supported where:- a) it can be demonstrated that capacity does not exist within the town centre; and b) that it will not have a detrimental effect on the vitality or viability, either cumulatively or individually, of town centres; and c) it provides consumer benefits in terms of choice, accessibility and convenience; and d) the scale and character of the development is compatible with the location. The sequential approach to capacity will be adopted, irrespective of site ownership, town centre sites will be strongly preferred. If no such opportunities exist, then local centre sites will be given preference over edge of centre sites, which will be given preference over other commercial centres, which in turn will be given preference over out of centre locations. 4.2.9 The Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan) 2014 is a material consideration and following the examination has significant weight. The town centre first principle is set out within the Proposed FIFEplan through Policy 6 which states that: Town centres will be the first choice for uses likely to attract a large number of people including retail, offices, leisure, entertainment, recreation, cultural and community facilities. Development proposals including these uses will be supported where they: 1.Comply with the sequential test within the relevant catchment area; 2.Comply with the respective uses and roles of the defined network of centres; 3.Will benefit the vitality and viability of the town centres and the local economy; and 4.Are appropriate for the location in scale and character and will not adversely impact on residential amenity or negatively impact on adjacent uses. This policy also states that retail development with a gross floorspace over 2,500sqm will require a retail impact analysis to demonstrate that it will address a deficiency in the quantity and quality of retail floorspace when assessed against the latest Fife Retail Capacity Study. 4.2.10 This proposal would see the expansion of a commercial centre and policy 6 states that the expansion of commercial centres, beyond the limits of their current consents, will not be supported during the lifetime of this Local Development Plan. Acceptable uses for each of the commercial

143

centres are shown in Figure 6.4. Figure 6.4 states that within Halbeath Retail Park beyond existing consents (pre-June 2014), acceptable uses are restricted to Class 1- Bulky goods and limited non-food retail. New or further expansion of convenience (food) and fashion related retail will be resisted. Further development of Class 3 uses will also be resisted. Commercial centres will complement and not compete with town centres. Commercial centres are distinct from town centres as their range of uses and physical structure makes them different in character and sense of place. They generally have a more specific focus on retailing or leisure uses. They should contain more specialised retail or leisure uses not suited to town centre locations; for example accommodating bulky goods retailing. New development and changes of use that undermine the role of town centres will not be supported. Restrictions will be placed on new food and comparison retail (class 1 and 3 development) proposals and these will be directed towards town centres. 4.2.11 Policy 6 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) was subject of substantial challenge and has been amended through the examination process. The examination report has recommended changes to Policy 6 and these proposed changes are likely to be adopted by the Council. Greater weight can therefore be placed on the Examination Report conclusions in this regard and it is this version of the policy which will be used for the assessment of this application. This policy now states: Town centres will be the first choice for uses likely to attract a large number of people including retail, offices, leisure, entertainment, recreation, cultural and community facilities. Development proposals including these uses will be supported where they: 1.Comply with the sequential approach within the relevant catchment area shown in Figure 6.1; 2.Comply with the respective uses and roles of the defined network of centres; 3.Will have no significant adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the town centres and the local economy; and 4.Are appropriate for the location in scale and character and will not adversely impact on residential amenity or negatively impact on adjacent uses. This policy also states that retail development with a gross floorspace over 2,500sqm will require a retail impact analysis to demonstrate that it will address a deficiency in the quantity and quality of retail floorspace when assessed against the latest Fife Retail Capacity Study. The sequential approach set out within the policy is as follows: - Town centre (within defined boundary - Edge of town centre - Local Centre - Other commercial centres identified in the local development plan (see paragraph 10 in "Applying Policy 6" below) - Out-of-centre locations that are, or can be, made easily accessible by a choice of transport modes. 4.2.12 In terms of commercial centres, the restriction on the expansion of commercial centres has been removed with only the specification for each retail park being retained along with the following paragraph: commercial centres will complement and not compete with town centres. Commercial centres are distinct from town centres as their range of uses and physical structure makes them different in character and sense of place. They generally have a more specific focus on retailing or leisure uses. They should contain more specialised retail or leisure uses not suited to town centre locations; for example accommodating bulky goods retailing.

144

4.2.13 It is clear from the national, regional and local policies that large retail proposals should be promoted within the town centre first and then considered sequentially to other appropriate locations after that. This site is covered by a Local Plan policy which allows for retail expansion of an existing commercial centre. This proposal however is not in accordance with the requirements of that policy and therefore has no support as being associated with the commercial centre or that policy. For the purposes of the sequential approach therefore, the site will be considered as an expansion of the retail park. The policy criteria outlined within policies R2 and R3 are similar and follow the themes of the national and regional policy and therefore these policies shall be considered in combination and the criteria considered in turn following the sequence set out in policy R2. 4.2.14 Under the terms of paragraph 4.2.7 criterion a) we must consider whether it can be demonstrated to the Councils satisfaction that no suitable alternative site is available within or on the edge of town centres, or in local centres: As noted the site is not located within the town centre or any of the designated centres. The site is also not located on the edge of the town centre but instead would be considered an edge of settlement location adjacent to a commercial centre. The proposal is indicated to be an extension to the Halbeath Retail Park commercial centre and should be considered as this. On that basis however it would require to conform to the nature and premise of the existing retail park. The applicant has submitted a sequential approach assessment within their planning statement. This is not a detailed assessment of potential town centre/ edge of town centre/ local centre locations through a sequential approach but instead discusses the allowance for the expansion and redevelopment of the Retail Park within the Adopted Local Plan, approval of Tesco on the edge of Dunfermline Town Centre and the legal decision taken in Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee Council (Scotland) 2012. The applicant argues that the Tesco v Dundee City Council case makes it clear that any assessment of this nature must be taken in the real world and have realistic expectations. In this regard the landowner should not be expected to look for alternative sites when they own a site which in itself meets their requirements. This case also states that it is the development as proposed which should be considered through the sequential approach rather than trying to amend a proposal in scale or type to fit into potential sites. As an alternative to carrying out a sequential approach, the applicant has used the Tesco approval at the Old Fire Station as a relevant example. They indicate that as this was an edge of town centre site and is a comparable size to their proposal it is evident that there are no suitable town centre locations for their development as Tesco were recently given permission to locate at the edge of the town centre. 4.2.15 The first requirement in the sequential approach is to consider whether the proposal cannot reasonably be changed to allow it to fit within a town centre site. Case law (Lidl UK v Scottish Ministers and Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council) dictates that if there is sufficient justification for the development at the scale proposed then the development cannot be unreasonably broken up or changed to fit certain sites. The application is for a number of retail units of varying types brought together in a small retail park arrangement which would extend onto an existing retail park. The units are of reasonable scale for their retail purpose and the car parking area and service yard appear reasonable for the scale of development proposed. It is therefore considered that the development could not be reasonably altered so as to assist in making it fit within a town centre location without fundamentally altering the purpose or aim of the application. 4.2.16 There is some dubiety as to whether the case law is fully applicable in this instance as a development with a mix of retail types is being proposed in this application, rather than a single

145

user retail development as in those cases. The referenced cases are specific to a site providing a single end retailer whilst this proposal is for a large scale retail park extension which includes multiple types of retail, food and drink and a number of different sizes and types of units. In particular the proposal includes a number of smaller units which could easily be accommodated in the town centre. It is also known that there are vacant units within the Carnegie Retail Park which forms part of the wider town centre framework in the Proposed FIFEplan. Proposals for large scale development of commercial centres would usually be restricted to units of certain scales (for example the units must be greater than 1000sqm in area) to reduce direct competition with town centres. Consideration of these smaller units through the sequential approach would be restricted by taking the development as a whole even although these units should be promoted toward town centre locations. This site could provide 7-9 different retailers which would usually require individual sequential approaches, if these retailers were looking for sites on their own and were at the scale of development requiring a Retail Impact Assessment. By bringing all these retailers into one proposal it makes it difficult to find a site that can accommodate all of these retailers other than a large scale vacant site like in this application regardless of their conformity to the commercial centre. Without the benefit of case law to dictate that the sequential approach should not be undertaken in this manner, it considered reasonable to follow the sequential approach through taking the development as a whole. 4.2.17 In terms of town centre sites, trying to fit the applicant’s entire development into the Dunfermline town centre would be difficult without significant redevelopment and demolition of buildings. There are no gap sites of this scale and any site that may be large enough would likely require the loss of an existing use or loss of an area of town centre parking. Sites of consideration in the town centre would be the Glen Bridge Car Park which is around 0.84 hectares in area, Pilmuir Street (former Duracord building) at around 1.85 hectares in area and the City Square off Bridge Street at around 1.85 hectares in area. These sites would not be sufficient in area to provide land to accommodate this full development in its current form. It is considered that there are no town suitable town centre locations for this development. 4.2.18 Taking the sequential approach forward the next location for consideration would be edge of town centre sites. Potential edge of centre sites would include the Elgin Street depot at the extremes of the edge of the town centre. The site is around 1.61 hectares in area but could potentially be combined with the adjacent Territorial Army site to the north which may be available and combining both these sites would provide a site of around 2.5Ha. Again this is not sufficient to accommodate the development of the size proposed. Other sites which could be considered are Leys Park Road car park, Sinclair Gardens and Pittencrieff Park. The Leys Park Road car park is not of sufficient size to accommodate the development and would lead to the loss of an area of car parking. The Sinclair Gardens and Pittencrief Park sites for consideration are public park areas to the east and west of the town centre. Sinclair Gardens public park is around 12 hectares in area and thereby could likely accommodate the development as proposed. These sites however are both highly valued amenity spaces for the town. These are designated as protected open space within the Adopted Local Plan and it would unlikely to be acceptable to lose these valued areas for retail development. The Town Centre First Principle should not override other policy considerations or result in the loss of valued town centre land to ensure that developments which create high footfall are located in or around the town centre. It is therefore considered that there are no suitable edge of town centre sites of sufficient scale to accommodate the development. 4.2.19 Following the sequential approach through, as there are no town centre sites or edge of centre sites then the next locations to be tested are local centres. There are no local centres which could accommodate this development. In terms of commercial centres, as noted the proposal is not proposed within the commercial centre but instead would form an extension of the existing

146

commercial centre. It is unlikely that a proposal of this scale could be accommodated within the existing commercial centres. There is some support for the extension of the commercial centre within the Adopted Local Plan but only if restrictions on retail are met and thereby some types of retail use may be acceptable at this site. These restrictions are not met by this proposal. Consideration in a sequential approach must also be given to the purpose of the commercial centre when considering whether it should be considered an appropriate alternative to the town centre. Both within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan, the Halbeath Retail Park is considered suitable only for bulky goods with restrictions. The applicant in their supporting statement states that the retail park currently has a mixture of retail including class 1 convenience, food and bulky goods as well as class 3. The Asda on the west side of the Retail Park provides a food superstore which includes convenience and comparison floorspace. The other units within the retail park however were always considered to be for bulky comparison goods and the planning permissions for the site attempted to control the units in this manner. Indeed phase 1 has controls on the goods sold to selling only bulky goods and phase 2 attempted a similar control through condition. The applicant refers to Currys, Argos and Pets at Home trading within phase 2 without retail restriction (non-food retail only) which was agreed through application 12/00096/CLP. It should be noted that this Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use was approved on the basis that the condition applied to the original planning permission controlling the type of retail goods to be sold was neither precise nor clear. Provision for the sale of non-bulky comparison goods within the warehouse units was not originally intended. The character of this retail park has always been considered to be for bulky goods within the non-food warehouse retail units, although it is accepted that some unrestricted retail is now occurring. The Adopted Local Plan and FIFEplan reinforce this in describing this commercial centre as for Bulky Goods retailing. The Proposed FIFEplan has now been through examination and the Halbeath Retail Park remains defined for bulky goods retailing with restrictions on convenience and class 3. 4.2.20 On this basis, the proposed retail development does not conform with the premise of the commercial centre. The extension of the retail park should only be considered acceptable where the proposed development fits with the character of the commercial centre. Thereby, although the extension of the retail park would to some degree follow the sequential approach, the acceptability of this location within the sequential approach fails in that the proposal does not integrate with what is considered to be acceptable retailing as set out within the Adopted Local Plan (Policy R1) and Proposed FIFEplan. As the development does not conform to the proposals policy or the character of the commercial centre it does question the validity of considering the development as a whole for sequential approach given that some elements of the development could be acceptable as an extension to the existing retail park (the bulky goods units). Instead the Council is being asked to consider a whole retail park extension where only parts are conforming. As previously stated, in this instance there could be an argument for breaking the development up into its constituent retail types for the purposes of the sequential approach to consider more suitable locations given the retail policy for this area. In this process as well, non-conforming parts of the site could also be considered for other sites which contain retail consents such as the Freescale site. 4.2.21 Overall, it is accepted that this commercial centre is planned for expansion within the Adopted Local Plan and thereby this might be considered a reasonable location to consider for this proposal following the discounting of town centre and edge of centre sites. This location is however not considered an appropriate alternative to the town centre /edge of town centre in that the proposed retail does not conform to what is seen as the appropriate retail type for this commercial centre. The proposed extension to the retail park would be inappropriate as it would include convenience and non-bulky goods retail contrary to the commercial centre designation within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan.

147

4.2.22 Under the terms of paragraph 4.2.7 criterion b) we must consider whether the development will have a detrimental effect, either cumulatively or individually, on the vitality and viability of the town centre and to a lesser extent other local centres: The proposal includes comparison and convenience retail and thereby for the purposes of this assessment, each retail type will be considered separately. The applicant has submitted a Retail Impact Assessment which considers the impact of the development on the town centre and other commercial centres as well as some other traders. This has been considered by the Council's retail consultant. The respective floorspace per retail type has been outlined in sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 above and the applicant indicates that the proposal can be limited further in terms of the class 1 (food)/ class 3 pod units through the deletion of two of the kiosk units. 4.2.23 In terms of convenience, the 2015 Fife Retail Capacity Study Update indicates that there is no spare capacity for convenience within this retail catchment. The applicant's Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) argues that the 2015 Fife Retail Capacity Study is not reliable as it has a number of inconsistencies and thereby their assessment has been carried out against the 2014 Fife Retail Capacity Study. It should be noted that the 2014 Fife Retail Capacity Study also indicates that there is no spare convenience retail capacity in this catchment. The application argues however that both the 2014 and 2015 reports have discrepancies in terms of convenience retail development particularly with the inclusion of the Tesco retail store at Cowdenbeath. They therefore state that the level of convenience provision accounted for in this document is too high. It should be noted that the 2016 Fife Retail Capacity Study has just been released and still does not provide the convenience capacity for this development. The applicant's submitted RIA indicates that the convenience offering in this proposal would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of established town centres with the impact on Dunfermline being -6.0% and Cowdenbeath being -3.6%. In the previous application, the Council's retail consultant at that time suggested that the assessment was unjustifiably skewed as the trade draw from the town centre was only assumed to be 5% in the analysis. The applicant has provided further information in this regard in their RIA and argues that this is reasonable as there is only one convenience retailer in the town centre and the turnover of convenience outwith the town centre is 8 times greater than in the town centre. They also argue that the only convenience retailer within the town centre plans to dual trade from the Retail Park and thereby the impact would be less. 4.2.24 In the last application, the Council's Retail Consultant undertook some sensitivity testing on the proposal based on a potential larger retail draw from Dunfermline Town Centre. This increased the retail draw to 15% and 20% rather than 5%. The impact on Dunfermline Town Centre increases to 14.5% and 19.4% for a 15% and 20% trade diversion respectively. The Council's new retail consultant has considered the application and reviewed the previous comments. They concur with the comments of the Council's previous retail consultant but also conclude that due to the low level of convenience retailing in the town centre, there is unlikely to be a significant impact in this regard on Dunfermline or Cowdenbeath Town Centres. They also note and concur with the applicant's RIA that Dunfermline, and this area in particular, is subject of significant population growth in the near future which could potentially support additional convenience retail. The Council's retail consultant does however raise a concern with regards to the impact that the convenience units, including the smaller kiosk/ pods (even with only one unit), would have in creating a more attractive destination. This cumulative effect with the existing retail offer and additional convenience could draw more people from the town centre than anticipated. The northern expansion will require local retail provision but it is not considered appropriate to fundamentally change the character of this commercial centre in order to provide this. As shown in the Proposed FIFEplan, this retail park is envisaged to remain as a commercial centre rather

148

than a neighbourhood or local centre. While the retail impact of the units in themselves is not shown to be significant within the RIA even with 20% sensitivity testing, it is considered that the inclusion of convenience retail at the scale proposed would likely lead to a mix of retail within the retail park that could create a significant draw from town centre and create a significant detrimental retail impact. Essentially, these additional convenience units would draw people to the park and the other units would provide the other retail requirements for consumers. While there is limited convenience in the town centre currently, the other retail needs of consumers are met here. With a greater mix in this retail park, the retail parks place relative to the town centre would change. This may lead to consumers no longer requiring to use the town centre for their retail needs. 4.2.25 In terms of comparison goods it is noted that the 2015 Fife Retail Capacity Study Update indicates that there is expenditure capacity for comparison goods within 2015 and this increases in 2020. This is still the case for the 2016 Fife Retail Capacity Study. This capacity includes capacity for bulky goods. In terms of retail impact the applicant's retail assessment shows there to be an estimated impact of -2.2% turnover change on Dunfermline Town Centre and -4.2% on Cowdenbeath Town Centre. Carnegie Retail Park, Duloch Park and Halbeath Retail Park show an impact of -8.5%, -8.8% and -4.4% respectively. The Council's Retail Consultant has indicated that the assessment has been carried out satisfactorily. It is noted that the impact outlined in this document is higher than previously assessed with the last application however the potential impact on the town centres would not be considered significant. The biggest impacts appear to be on Carnegie Retail Park and Duloch Park, both of which are out with the town centre. While there would be some impact, again this is considered to be within the range of acceptability. The proposed comparison retail is in line with the Development Plan requirements and on its own is not considered likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. 4.2.26 The retail assessment thereby indicates that there would not be any significant impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre from the comparison retail element of the proposed development. This conclusion has been reached on the basis of the size of Dunfermline Town Centre being able to absorb the loss in turnover arising from the development. No detailed assessment of the existing vitality and viability of Dunfermline Town Centre has been undertaken however. There was a concern that the previous application included unrestricted comparison and some of this was in small kiosk units which could have directly competed with the town centre and provided units for retailers which should be promoted to the town centre. This proposal has been amended so that there are no units of unrestricted comparison retail. The retail statement does concede that some unrestricted comparison is likely as ancillary retail within the retail units but this would be minimal and certainly no more than 15% within any one unit. The Proposed FIFEplan suggests that ancillary retail should not exceed 10% and this would likely be part of a condition of any consent. The proposed comparison retail for these units would be bulky goods. This would be in accordance with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan allowances for commercial centres. While some ancillary restricted retailing is expected this would not be of a scale that would be contrary to the provisions of the Adopted Local Plan or Proposed FIFEplan or to cause any impact on the town centre. The proposed bulky goods retailing would be in accordance with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan both in retail impact and acceptability for a commercial centre. However, as the proposal includes a units which sell exclusively convenience retail, the overall development proposal would not be acceptable even though the bulky goods units are acceptable. 4.2.27 The proposal is likely to draw greater trade from the town centre to this retail park. The biggest concern of this application is the change in character the proposal would have on the overall retail park. The eventual retail park would have a mix of retail greater than at present, with 2 convenience stores of significant scale and further class 3. The retail park would become much

149

more of a retail destination which would provide all the retail needs of most consumers rather than a bulky goods park with large retail units. The retail park as a whole would be much more competitive against the town centre and it is considered that the overall mix of retail on offer could have a detrimental impact on the town centre from retail draw. In terms of convenience, the applicant argues that one of their chosen retailers proposes to operate both a town centre store and one in the retail park. They argue that a second store would not be opened if it were to actively degrade its other town centre store particularly given this store is one of the most substantial convenience retail units within the town centre. This assumption does not consider the full relationship of dual trading and trading in the town centre. The impact on the town centre from this proposal may be greater than just the direct impact on town centre convenience retailers as some specific trade from the existing town centre store would relocate to the retail park. Surrounding town centre retailers are likely to benefit currently from customers using the existing town centre convenience store for food retailing and then visiting other town centre non-food stores. A portion of this would be lost through the opening of the secondary store as a number of customers will choose the retail park instead of the town centre for their convenience shopping. The applicant also argues that the other proposed food retailer operates in a budget market and would therefore actively compete with other budget convenience retailers which are all out with the town centre. There is an argument however that with greater choice out with the town centre, not only the other budget convenience retailers would be affected but also town centre retailers. Overall, it is considered that this development would create a retail park and overall retail offering which would increase the choice for customers and make the retail park a destination which would create greater competition with the town centre rather than a retail park which supplements the town centre. This is likely to create a detrimental impact on the town centre. 4.2.28 Overall, the proposal is likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of Dunfermline Town Centre due the competition that the retail park extension could create through the park becoming a retail destination with a wide range of retail on offer. This proposal would change the premise of the retail park from being complimentary to the town centre to being an alternative destination which would provide consumers with all their retail needs and thereby reduce the importance of the town centre as a retail destination. This could adversely affect the vitality and viability of Dunfermline town centre in the long term. 4.2.29 Under the terms of paragraph 4.2.7 criterion c) we must consider whether the scale and character of the development is in keeping with the location or role of the settlement: As noted the character of this retail park is considered to be large units which specialise in bulky goods retail. This is outlined in the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan following examination. Whilst other types of retailing occur, the focus of the retail park is on the whole towards bulky goods and this is the acceptable scope as outlined in the most up to date local policy document. The retail park is therefore largely a destination for these types of goods. The scale of the development could be considered to be largely in keeping with the retail park and its location in that it comprises mainly of large retail units. While the large retail units proposed for bulky goods within this application would continue this theme, the proposal also includes two large and one small convenience unit along with a class 3 unit. These are all restricted from this commercial centre within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and this restriction continues following examination. It is considered that further convenience being proposed would fundamentally change the character of this retail park from a largely bulky goods retail park with a single anchor convenience retail unit to a mixed retail park. The whole character of the retail park would also change through this development. This development would change the retail parks role within the settlement from providing a complimentary, ancillary function to the town centre to a retail park which is an alternative destination to the town centre because of the range and choice of retail on

150

offer. The Council's retail consultant has expressed concern with increasing the type of retail and range of retail on offer and considers this could increase the competition with the town centre. The development would therefore change the scale and character of the retail park to the degree that the retail park would not be in keeping with its role, function and location in the settlement. The proposal is therefore contrary to this criteria. 4.2.30 Under the terms of para 4.2.7 criterion d) we must consider whether the development provides consumer benefits in terms of choice, quality, minimising the need to travel, accessibility and convenience: There is no doubt that the proposed development of the site would provide consumer benefits in terms of choice and quality and that the site is accessible in terms of public transport and is near to the main arterial route through the settlement. The proposal would also introduce new retailers to the settlement and increase choice for customers. The Council's retail consultant also indicates that the town centre and Dunfermline's retail parks are in competition from other retail parks outwith West Fife with strong draws from Kirkcaldy, Livingston and Edinburgh. The introduction of new retailers would broaden the range and choice of goods to the benefit of the wider catchment population. This may also help to strengthen Dunfermline's role as a sub-regional centre in the retail hierarchy. This benefit of the proposal must be weighed against the other considerations of these policies however. 4.2.31 Taking these points into consideration it is considered that the proposed retail would not meet the terms of policies R1, R2 or R3 of the Adopted Local Plan, Policy 6 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and would not be consistent with the general town centre first principle within SPP (2014) and SESplan (2013). 4.2.32 There is an element of class 3 use proposed as part of the development, both within a stand-alone drive thru unit and potentially within the single kiosk unit. The Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan do not support class 3 food proposals within commercial centres, although it is noted that the lapsed outline planning permission did contain a unit of this nature. In recent times this type of proposal has been directed towards local centres or the Halbeath Leisure Park, where these uses are supported. The applicant argues that these types of units are now common within retail parks and are found within other significant commercial centres in Fife and the Central Park in Kirkcaldy has been quoted as an example. In a recent appeal within Fife Central Retail Park, a Reporter allowed two additional class 3 kiosks within a larger retail expansion proposal. The Reporter argued that these would be ancillary and not create competition with the town centre. The Reporter however made no reference to the Proposed FIFEplan restriction. This may have been as Policy 6 was under considerable challenge at that time and the examination of the Proposed FIFEplan was underway. As the examination has now concluded and the Proposed FIFEplan is close to adoption, considerable weight can be given to Policy 6 and the restrictions placed on class 3 within commercial centres. It is therefore considered that the position from that appeal decision has materially changed and thereby further class 3 use within this commercial centre is not considered to be consistent with the Adopted Local Plan or Proposed FIFEplan and would be unacceptable. The class 3 is likely to add to the attractiveness of the Retail Park as a destination and coupled with the other class 3 on offer in the Retail Park would expand the choice for consumers. These units would help make the Retail Park a substantial destination in its own right as described earlier in the report rather than the class 3 acting as a supplement to the shopping experience. 4.2.33 Overall it is considered that the Adopted Local Plan offers no support to this application either through the Proposals Policy DUN082 or through retail policies R1, R2 or R3. While an

151

extension to Halbeath Retail Park is proposed within the Adopted Local Plan, any development must be in accordance with the restrictions of the original legal agreement, which this development is not due to the convenience retail being proposed. The proposal would also not accord with the general requirements of commercial centres due to the proposal containing convenience retail and class 3 floorspace. This would be contrary to the Adopted Local Plan and the Proposed FIFEplan (2014), which is a significant material consideration. The inclusion of a significant proportion of convenience retail and the proposed class 3 units would change the character of the retail park by increasing the number of non-conforming units and creating a mixed retail destination which is likely to compete with rather than compliment the town centre. The resulting retail park would become an alternative retail destination to the town centre offering a large range of retail goods and meeting consumer needs in one destination which would adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre. It is considered that this development would not fully comply with the town centre first principle and therefore overall would be contrary to the Adopted Local Plan, SESplan, SPP and Proposed FIFEPlan in principle retail and location policies. 4.3 Design, Layout, Levels and Landscaping 4.3.1 The SPP states that planning's purpose is to create better places with the outcome being sustainable, well-designed places which meet people's needs. This is reinforced by Scottish Government policy on design - Creating Places, which emphasises that quality places are successful places and that architecture and places are not simply elements of the planning process but are among the most important outcomes and their quality should be a priority. It sets out the value that high-quality design can deliver for Scotland's communities and the important role that good buildings and places play in promoting healthy, sustainable lifestyles; promoting Scotland's distinctive identity all over the world; attracting visitors, talent and investment; delivering our environmental ambitions; and providing a sense of belonging, a sense of identity and a sense of community. 4.3.2 The Adopted Local Plan includes two key policies relating to design. Policy E3 requires new developments to respect the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. Policy E4 requires new development to make a positive contribution to its environment in terms of high standards of architecture, best use of site attributes, safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. The Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance provides further assessment considerations in this regard and provides a local context for national policy. Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the Council will apply the six qualities of successful places when considering development proposals. 4.3.3 The site is set out to compliment and extend the existing retail park with the units along the western and northern boundaries of the extended retail park relating in design and position to the existing units. All the units are positioned around a central car parking area which is logical and allows all units to have frontage towards the car park. It is noted that the general theme of materials used for the existing units would continue into this site, ensuring the development would complement the existing retail park. The proposal follows the same layout principles and architectural theme of the existing retail park and therefore the general design and layout of the site is considered appropriate. 4.3.4 The main concerns in terms of detailed design relate to unit 11 which would be most prominent on approach from Halbeath Interchange, units 9-11 as seen from the north and general landscaping throughout the site. In terms of unit 11, this site is one of the gateway sites when entering Dunfermline from the north east and from the M90. The site is significantly lower than the

152

road on approach and this provides good views into and across the site. On completion of the development the convenience food store (Unit 11), would be the first unit viewed on approach. This unit would be a relatively low lying unit with sloping roof. The majority of the view from the road would be the view of the roof due to the level difference, however some views of the upper rear elevation would be visible. Planting is proposed along the edge of the development site between this unit and the road which would provide some screening to the lower built form of the building. Due to the height of this unit and its low lying position relative to the road it is likely that views over this unit would still be possible. The main view on approach would thereby be of the roof and upper wall of unit 11 with some views of the wider retail park beyond. Given the context of this unit and that wider views of the retail park would still be available, it is not considered that the design or position of this unit is inappropriate for this location. The unit must be seen in the context of a wider retail park which already dominates this view on approach. The change in level would greatly screen this unit and while having a rear blank elevation on this approach is less desirable, it is not considered that this elevation would dominate this view given the scale and position of the unit. Overall, it is therefore considered that this unit is acceptable in position, scale and design relative to the overall development. 4.3.5 Within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) a potential location for part of the northern distributor road for the north of Dunfermline expansion area has been identified within land in the northern area of this site. No development is proposed in that area of the site as part of this application, however there may be a concern from a design point of view in that users of the distributor road will have views of the service road, service areas and rear elevations of units 9-10 which will be less attractive. A substation is also proposed adjacent to the service road. While, if built, the view from this road in this location would largely be of the service area of retail units within this proposed site, it should be noted that the service road and service areas of the existing units are currently viewable from the north. This view thereby will exist regardless of whether this development proceeds. It is considered that, in design terms, this is the most logical location for the service areas through creating the central parking area to the front of the units and protecting the existing neighbouring roads to the east and south from these views. Views of service areas or the rear of retail buildings are not uncommon for distributor roads as by their very nature they aim to distribute traffic rather than create attractive streetscapes. This is not considered a valid reason for refusal of the application and the proposed location for the service yards and service roads appears appropriate given the existing situation and overall layout of the site. 4.3.6 The majority of landscaping for the site would be found around the edges of the site. This would include areas of landscaping at both the existing entrance to the retail park at Halbeath Road adjacent to the public house restaurant and an area of landscaping and a landscape gateway feature with public art at the new access from Kingseat Road. Both of these areas of landscaping would enhance the arrival to the site and the public art area could be an impressive land form feature for the site. Details of this would be required through condition. Landscaping would be added along the northern boundary of the service road to enhance an embankment in this location. Further soft landscaping would be provided adjacent to Halbeath Road between the class 3 unit and the road. Landscaping plans would be requested through condition of any consent where further discussions on landscaping to screen the service area and enhance other parts of the park could be specified. 4.3.7 The proposed retail units which would continue the terrace of retail units are designed to tie in with the existing retail units and thereby the external materials proposed for the buildings relate directly to the existing units. The lower section of the buildings would be constructed in buff facing brickwork while the upper section for the main frontage elevations would be metal cladding. Units 11 and 12 would be slightly varied in this regard with greater proportions of timber cladding and

153

glazing for these units. The proposed materials are considered appropriate in that they would relate closely with materials in the wider retail park and would be appropriate for this type of use and setting. 4.3.8 Overall, it is considered that the form and scale of the proposed development would integrate well with the existing retail park in terms of design and layout. The layout of the development forms a logical approach and the positions of the buildings would not cause any significant visual harm in terms of scale or appearance. The development is therefore considered to accord with the Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 4.4 Transportation 4.4.1 The national context for the assessment of the impact of new developments on transportation infrastructure is set out in the SPP. The overarching aim of this document is to encourage a shift to more sustainable forms of transport and reduce reliance on the car. Planning permission should be resisted if the development would have a significant impact on the strategic road network. 4.4.2 Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to be located where it is accessible to the public transport network; where there is capacity in the road network and where there is no road safety problem. New development should provide safe and convenient cycle and pedestrian access; a safe route to school; cycle parking; the protection and integration of existing routes; a safe route to stations and public transport interchanges and; multiple points of access to the road network. Policy T2 requires new developments to make provision for pedestrians; traffic calming and a road layout that is in accordance with the Transportation Development Guidelines and the supplementary Designing Streets guidance. Making Fife's Places Planning Policy Guidance sets out the parking standards for this type of development within Appendix F. 4.4.3 A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted with the application. The submitted TA states that the greatest impact of the development is likely to be on a Saturday afternoon between 1300- 1400. The development will generate an additional 681 vehicular trips (343 in and 338 out) to the site during this Saturday peak and an additional 292 vehicle trips (132 in and 160 out) in the weekday evening peak above the current levels for the retail park. The TA however concludes that the high quality road network and infrastructure surrounding the site would allow the development to be accommodated adequately. However, there are existing capacity issues at the Halbeath Road approach of Junction 3 M90 Halbeath and it is proposed that mitigation in the form of signal timing optimisation can be applied to improve this. Transport Scotland have agreed with this mitigation. Transportation Development Management (TDM) have considered the contents of the TA and are concerned that the TA has been carried out in isolation from the development allocations within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan. The TA does not take into account any potential additional trips from the development allocations within these Plans and does not refer to the TA carried out by Fife Council through the FIFEplan process. Transportation Development Management therefore consider the TA to be inadequate and do not consider enough work has been undertaken to prove that the development would not have an adverse impact on the road network and require further interventions to the road network. 4.4.4 Transportation Development Management (TDM) have undertaken further assessment in this regard using the FIFEplan TA to consider the likely impact from this proposal. TDM outline that a 30% reduction from the current network could be assumed on completion of the proposed strategic interventions, with the northern distributor road likely to take a proportion of traffic, which would result in an increase of some 205 weekday PM peak trips in addition to the 5,177 vehicle

154

trips in the weekday PM peak generated by the adopted and proposed Local Plan allocations within Dunfermline. This would be an increase of some 4% in the trips assessed within the FIFEplan TA. TDM on this basis are confident that the trips generated by the proposed retail park expansion would not result in the requirement for additional transportation intervention measures in Dunfermline. However it may be that the trips generated by the proposed retail park will lead to the identified transportation intervention measures (particularly the Northern Link Road) being required earlier in the SDA build-out. 4.4.5 As noted, access to the site would be taken from the existing service road access from Kingseat Road. An existing spur exists which provides access to the service area for the existing retail park units. An informal access to the existing car park is also in place however this is currently blocked. The proposal would result in a shared access for service vehicles and traffic to the retail park. It should be noted however that the car park would connect directly into the existing car park and therefore a route to this site from the existing retail park would also exist. The site therefore would technically have a number of access points. Transportation Development Management have not made any adverse comments regarding the dual use of this access for customers and service vehicles and the access is considered to be adequate for the needs of the development. Concerns have been expressed by objectors regarding the proximity of a level crossing to the site and the potential for additional traffic to cause additional queuing on this stretch of road which may result in cars being stuck on the level crossing. Transportation Development Management has not expressed this concern and consider the access to be adequate to accommodate the additional vehicles. It is also noted that a direct driveway access is taken onto the roundabout and concern has been expressed by the resident with regards to the increase in traffic movements and the consequent adverse impact on their ability to manoeuvre safely into their driveway. Again, Transportation Development Management has not expressed any concerns in this regard. 4.4.6 Not all of the units would be serviced using the northern service road. As unit 11 and 12 are further to the south, they would require separate servicing. Transportation Development Management (TDM) had expressed concern with the servicing arrangements for unit 11 within the previous application due to potential conflicts with pedestrians, customer cars and manoeuvring delivery vehicles. The applicant has stated that the servicing of this unit would occur out with the opening hours of the unit and thereby remove the conflict. TDM are content with this proposal and this alleviates their concern. Arrangements of how this would work in terms of controlling other traffic to the retail park would be needed however this could be requested through condition. 4.4.7 As noted the layout has the units set around a central car parking area which is an expansion of the car park which already exists in part of the site. 377 parking spaces including 74 existing spaces are provided within the site. According to the current Fife Council Maximum Parking Standards the proposed development requires a maximum of 554 parking spaces. The proposed numbers are significantly lower than this. Transportation Development Management have indicated that this can be accepted in principle, but only where measures to encourage walking and cycling are provided. Should the demand for parking exceed provision, it is likely that double parking or over-spill parking into the aisles may occur. This is unlikely to affect the public road and therefore may not be a significant concern in terms of road safety, but it would make the safe flow of traffic around the retail park difficult. The lack of good pedestrian and cycling connections from the wider area was a concern of the previous application. This has been resolved through this application and therefore TDM are content with the number of car parking spaces proposed. TDM also indicate that 25 secured and covered cycle parking spaces are required, and 42 are being proposed. The parking provision for the site is therefore considered acceptable.

155

4.4.8 In terms of the promotion of alternative types of transport it is noted that there is a public bus stop relatively close to the existing entrance road to the retail park. This bus stop is served by a number of bus routes and can be accessed from the main bus station and closest park and choose. Good public transport links thereby exist for the site. The previous application was refused due to the poor pedestrian and cyclist links from the wider area including this bus stop. This issue has been resolved with this application through the provision of an additional toucan crossing on the Halbeath Bypass to provide a safe crossing point for pedestrians from Halbeath wishing to visit unit 11 and the other proposed retail units and also improved pedestrian links from the south, including a footpath connection directly to unit 11. The previous application had particularly poor pedestrian connections to unit 11 which did not favour pedestrians and required the crossing of a number internal roads. The direct access resolves this issue. The site thereby is well serviced by various modes of transport and the connections into the site have been strengthened through this application. 4.4.9 The application site borders an active railway however the actual development is set back from the boundary by a considerable distance. Given the proximity of the site, Network Rail was consulted as part of the application. They have no objection to the application subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage mitigation and notification of works close to the operational railway being added to any planning permission. These conditions are noted and could be complied with through the application. On this basis it is considered that the development would have no significant impact on the railway. 4.4.10 The site currently contains a Core Path which runs from a roundabout on Halbeath Road to the south through the existing car park to the service road. The Core Path follows the service road to Kingseat Road to the east. The approval of this application would require a diversion or amendment to the Core Path. This is considered achievable and may be either achieved through a route to the front of the units or potentially utilising the footpath to unit 11. The new core path route would need to be delineated and a condition would be applied requiring appropriate crossing points where pedestrians were given priority either through raised tables and markings or some other appropriate combination. It is not considered that the alternative route would result in additional risks for pedestrians with these requirements in place. A condition would be required with any approval of planning permission requiring for the Core Path to be diverted. 4.4.11 Section 149 of the Equalities Act (2010) places a requirement on Local Authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act, advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. It is recognised that in taking a decision on this application, consideration must be given to the impact that the diversion of the Core Path may have on disabled individuals who are protected in this Act. It is noted that currently a pedestrian or person with disability must make two crossing from the designated footway between Halbeath Road and Kingseat Road when following the Core Path. One of these crossings is not controlled or delineated in any way to give the pedestrian priority while the other is delineated with paint and a dropped kerb crossing (although objectors have noted there is at times confusion over pedestrian priority). The proposal would introduce two potential alternatives. The first would be to follow an alternative route along the frontage of the majority of the new units at the western end of the site travelling in a northerly direction before turning east to its connection with the Core Path again at Kingseat Road. This would introduce three new crossing points over internal roads towards the south of the site, with the two existing crossing points still required albeit the northern crossing point would be relocated and made formal with a designated crossing point. The other route would follow the route to unit

156

11 and again would introduce three new crossing points over internal roads and these would be adjacent to unit 11. The crossing to the north however would remain over an undesignated crossing point. 4.4.12 While both routes would introduce additional crossing points, with the requirements for the crossing points to be enhanced and pedestrians given priority it is not considered that anyone with a disability or impairment would be adversely affected. Both routes are also not significantly elongated so as to discriminate against those less able. The enhancement of the crossing points would also be a betterment over the existing situation at some of the crossing points. This aspect of the proposal is considered the most relevant in terms of potentially affecting groups with protected characteristics within the Disability Act (2010) and it is considered that the proposal would accord with the Act. 4.4.13 In accordance with Fife Council's Planning Obligations Guidance and Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) this development would require to make a developer contribution towards the strategic transportation fund. Given the conclusions of 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 of this report, this contribution is necessary due to the need for strategic interventions to limit the impact this development would have on the wider road network. In particular, the northern part of this site is identified as the potential route of the northern distributor road. It is therefore also important that this route is not prejudiced by this application. The applicant has shown that the actual development area would be outwith the area shown for the northern distributor road. When the application was first made, the applicant indicated that they would not make a financial contribution towards the strategic transportation fund but instead would guarantee access to the land to allow for completion of the northern distributor road. Transportation Development Management indicated in their consultation response that this would be a reasonable compromise as it would reduce the time for delivery of this road as any purchase or Compulsory Purchase process can take some time and would help the quicker delivery of the strategic intervention and reduce the burden on the road network sooner. The applicant has changed his position in this regard and now wishes to make the required monetary contribution. 4.4.14 The applicant initially argued that this site is a brownfield site and would be exempt from a contribution in accordance with the Planning Obligations Guidance and Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). It is agreed with the applicant that part of the site has been formerly used for development and was used as railways sidings and yards. An assessment of the area of the site which is greenfield has been undertaken and it is concluded that the total monetary contribution required from this development would be £703,234.35. As noted the applicant has now concluded that they would prefer to pay the financial contribution rather than provide access to the land for the completion of the northern distributor road. By agreeing to make this payment, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan and the associated Planning Obligations Guidance. In the previous application, the applicant indicated that they would be unwilling to make any contribution to the strategic transport fund as the site was brownfield and any contribution would make the proposal unviable. This has therefore been resolved through this application. Nonetheless it is disappointing that the applicant has withdrawn the offer of access to the land for the delivery of the northern distributor road. Not only could consideration have been given to this being taken instead of a monetary contribution but this would have been considered to be a positive material consideration. The offer of access to the land would have helped to realise the delivery of the northern distributor road sooner which would could help alleviate congestion on the roads throughout Dunfermline earlier to the benefit of the public and the delivery of strategic aims of the Proposed FIFEplan. Also the delivery of this road would be of benefit to the retail park in providing better access to customers to the north. Any positive material consideration would have also been weighted against the policy harm of the proposed retail offering. Overall, however

157

the agreement from the applicant to make the required contribution would ensure that the development met the terms of the Planning Obligations Guidance and Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 4.4.15 Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of transportation matters and is in accordance with the Adopted Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. The reasons for refusal on transportation in the previous application are considered to be resolved through this application subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Planning Obligation for the strategic transport payments. 4.5 Residential Amenity 4.5.1 PAN 1/2011 establishes the best practice and the planning considerations to be taken into account with regard to developments that may generate noise, or developments that may be subject to noise. Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development proposals which protect personal privacy and amenity. Policy E2 of the Local Plan supports development proposals where they are compatible with neighbouring uses and do not adversely affect the privacy of neighbours. Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that development will only be supported if it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses. The policy sets out the considerations in this regard which includes impact from noise, traffic movements, construction impacts, impacts on the operation of existing or proposed businesses and commercial operations and loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that developments will include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance. 4.5.2 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) complement the aforementioned policies by advocating that design of residential environments must seek to ensure that adequate levels of natural light can be achieved within new development and unacceptable impacts on light to nearby properties are avoided. Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings sets out British Industry Standards on the accepted distance between windows to ensure personal privacy is maintained. 4.5.3 The main consideration in this regard is proximity to existing residential properties and the potential for this development to cause a noise nuisance for these properties. The development is of sufficient distance so as to avoid any significant privacy or sunlight/ daylight issues. A noise assessment has been submitted with the application to address noise concerns. The main sensitive receptors to this proposal would be Glen Cottage to the east of Kingseat Road and the grouping of residential units at Halbeath Farm and Hillview Court to the north. A noise survey was carried out which found the area to have relatively high background noise from the existing retail park, busy roads and rail track. The two main sources of significant noise likely from the development would be from plant associated with the units, delivery noise, car park associated noise and the use of the class 3 drive through unit. 4.5.4 In terms of noise from plant associated with the units and the substation, the report concludes that this can adequately be controlled through screening and noise limitations on the machinery. Adequate controls are available in this regard and this can be designed into the proposal when the required plant is known. To ensure that any required plant and machinery is adequately controlled the noise report proposes a condition which would require the plant and machinery to be limited to 45dB between 0700 and 2300 and 35dB at all other times as measured from the nearest noise sensitive property. Details of the plant would be required to be submitted for written

158

of approval prior to its installation. In terms of delivery noise it is noted that the closest unit (Unit 11) to Glen Cottage would be 95m away, while the closest unit to the properties to the north (Units 9 and 10) would be 185m away. The car park and class 3 drive thru unit are both further from these properties than these identified units. The report has concluded that the noise from delivery, the car park and drive thru would all be below the ambient background noise and within acceptable levels. 4.5.5 The Public Protection Team has been consulted on the application and confirm that they have no objection to the application. They agree with the terms of the condition proposed relative to noise from plant associated with the retail units, however they have proposed a condition with different wording. The general context of the condition is the same however. In terms of the noise associated with deliveries and drive thru restaurant they confirm that the assessment has been carried out adequately and there is unlikely to be any impact. If planning permission was approved consideration should be given to a condition restricting delivery hours although this should be worded so as to not prejudice any condition on the ability to service unit 11 out with the normal operating times of the retail park. Public Protection also recommend adding a condition relating to construction working times. This could be covered in a condition requiring the submission of a scheme of works given the proximity of residential units. 4.5.6 The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard as the development would have no significant impact on residential amenity subject to the proposed conditions. 4.6 Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk 4.6.1 The SPP (Managing Flood Risk and Drainage) indicates that the planning system should promote a precautionary approach to flood risk taking account of the predicted effects of climate change; flood avoidance by safeguarding flood storage and conveying capacity; locating development away from functional flood plains and medium to high risk areas; flood reduction: assessing flood risk and, where appropriate, undertaking flood management measures. Development should avoid an increase in surface water flooding through requirements for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and minimising the area of impermeable surface.

4.6.2 Policies I3, I4, and I5 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that developments should not place unacceptable demands on public infrastructure including drainage systems, that developments will not be supported if they would increase the risk of flooding, nor will they be supported if Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or other similar appropriate measures are not undertaken. Consideration should also be given to the guidance contained within the Council's advice note on flooding and drainage. Policy 12 of the Proposed FIFEplan does not fundamentally change these considerations. 4.6.3 The site is located within an area of medium risk in terms of flooding on the SEPA flood risk maps and this is associated with a culverted burn which runs under the site. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application. SEPA has been consulted and indicates no objections to the proposal, subject to the mitigation agreed within the FRA being adhered to. This includes the requirement that no buildings be erected on top of the culvert and no diversions to the culvert be undertaken.

4.6.4 It is intended that the existing SUDS basin associated with the retail park would be used to accommodate the majority of surface water drainage from this site. The applicant has submitted a drainage strategy outlining how this would be achieved. Harbours, Floods and Coast are content

159

with the submitted information, however they have requested confirmation that Scottish Water consider there to be sufficient capacity in the network for this proposal. The applicant has indicated that this information is received when an application is made to Scottish Water following approval of planning permission and would be received at a later date. This confirmation would be sought through condition should planning permission be approved. 4.6.5 The development is therefore considered to comply with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in terms of drainage and flood risk subject to the aforementioned conditions. 4.7 Natural Heritage 4.7.1 SPP (Landscape and Natural Heritage) aims to raise awareness that both development and conservation of the natural heritage can be compatible through careful planning. Policies E3, E21 and E23 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that where development has the potential to impact on international, national, regional, or locally important species and sites, applicants will be required to submit an ecological appraisal of the proposal detailing how any impact will be minimised or mitigated for, whilst outlining the appropriate measures to maintain and where possible enhance such interests and the local biodiversity of an area. Policy 13 of the Proposed FIFEplan also outlines that development proposals will only be supported where they protect or enhance natural heritage. Making Fifes Places Supplementary Guidance outlines criteria for site assessment in this regard and provides guidance on biodiversity enhancement through development. 4.7.2 An Ecological Assessment has been submitted with the application. The site at present is mainly species poor habitat. There is mixed plantation woodland on the western boundary and scrub along the northern boundary and extreme west of the site. The Ecological Assessment reported that there is no suitable habitat for otter, water vole or great crested newt. No evidence of badgers was found and no bat roost potential was identified although it is noted that bats are likely to forage along the woodland edges and scrub along the railway line. The Council's Natural Heritage Officer has no objections to the proposal and does not consider that the development would risk any important habitat or species. The Natural Heritage Officer did indicate that habitat enhancement could be provided around the peripheries of the site and along the northern corridor of the site, which could benefit the bats using this corridor. Updated landscaping details have been provided by the applicant and a condition could be added requiring further details in terms of biodiversity enhancement. 4.7.3 The development would not have any significant impact on protected habitats or species and thereby would be in compliance with the Adopted Local Plan in this regard. 4.8 Public Art 4.8.1 Policy E14 of the Adopted Local Plan requires all major developments or developments on prominent sites to make provision for public art. This policy has largely been superseded by Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEPlan and the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) which is are material considerations of significant weight. Details on how public art should be achieved is set out within the Making Fifes Planning Policy Guidance. 4.8.2 As this proposal relates to a major retail development, public art would be required on site. The Making Fifes Places Planning Policy Guidance states that £10 per square metre of gross floor area should be spent on public art being provided on site in retail developments. The applicant has shown areas for public art and the potential form that this might take. Final details would be required through condition, however the general principles shown in the submitted details are

160

acceptable. It should be noted that policy 4 indicates that contributions are not required for sites which have been previously developed. This would apply to some parts of this site and thereby only the areas of the site considered greenfield land would be calculated for the purposes of how much should be spent on public art for the site. 4.8.3 It is considered that the site could easily achieve the public art requirements as set out within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) and associated guidance and details of this should be requested through condition if planning permission was approved. 4.9 Site Conditions, Stability and Minerals 4.9.1 PAN33 advises that suspected and actual contamination and instability should be investigated and, if necessary, remediated to ensure that sites are suitable for their proposed end use. Policy E6 of the Adopted Local Plan advises development proposals involving sites where land instability or the presence of contamination is suspected, the developer is required to submit details of a site investigation to assess the nature and extent of any risks presented by land stability or contamination which may be present and where risks are known to be present, appropriate mitigation measures should be agreed with the Council and where possible remediation strategies should be agreed prior to the determination of any planning application. 4.9.2 A site investigation has been submitted with the application and the Land and Air Quality Team were consulted to consider the contents of the assessment. The Land and Air Quality Team has indicated that some additional information is required on the site assessments already undertaken. This would be requested through condition. This team would also require conditions relating to remediation and validation of the remediation works should the application be approved. 4.9.3 The site is within an area of high risk from historic coal mining. A Coal Mining Risk Assessment was submitted with the application. This report found the site to be at risk from historic mine workings with the site in need of remediation prior to development taking place. The Coal Authority was consulted as part of the application and has confirmed no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring further detailed site investigation and remediation being carried out prior to works starting on site. 4.9.5 Through the use of appropriate conditions the development would be in accordance with relevant legislation, SPP and the Adopted Local Plan. 4.10 Air Quality

4.10.1 The Air Quality and Land Use Planning (2004) document and PAN51 (Planning and Environmental Protection) are relevant in considering how air quality matters are considered through the planning system. Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality’ (2015) requires the consideration of cumulative effects particularly on commuter routes. Policy 10 (amenity) of the Proposed FIFEplan states that development proposals that lead to a breach of National Air Quality Standards or a significant increase in concentrations of air pollution within an existing Air Quality management Area (AQMA) will not be supported. 4.10.2 Given the nature and scale of development an air quality assessment was requested by the Air and Land Quality team. The Air Quality Assessment was considered not to be adequate as it did not take into account the up to date regulations and did not consider the Appin Crescent Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). SEPA also expressed concerns in this regard. An updated Air Quality Assessment has been submitted and this found that the development would have a

161

negligible impact on air quality within the immediate area and the nearest Air Quality Management Area and therefore should not be a material concern for the application. The Air and Land Quality team has agreed with the findings of the assessment and has no objections to the application in this regard. The team did note that mitigation measures in terms of dust suppression and wheel cleaning (during construction) should be considered. Conditions in this regard would be required should the application be approved. 4.10.3 SEPA has also considered the air quality assessment and note that this assumes that a larger number of cars would be on the road as a consequence of this development. The additional cars would lead to a greater increase in greenhouse gas emissions and SEPA outline that this along with the cumulative effect of proposals on air quality needs assessment. They state that Scottish Planning Policy sets out an approach to integrating transport and land use planning by supporting a pattern of development and redevelopment that reduces the need to travel and as a consequence reduce emissions from transport sources. It also states that planning permission should not be granted for significant travel-generating uses at locations which would increase reliance on the car and where the transport assessment does not identify satisfactory ways of meeting sustainable transport requirements. 4.10.4 These matters have been considered to some degree in section 4.4 of the report. It is noted that the site is likely to result in a larger number of vehicles on the road network however it is not considered that this development would necessarily lead to an increased reliance on car travel. The proposal is adjacent to one of the main through routes in Dunfermline and adjacent to a well serviced bus stop. The proposal includes measures to improve pedestrian and cyclist links from the bus stops and wider residential area to promote more sustainable modes of travel. While the retail park is currently towards the edge of the settlement, following the northern expansion of Dunfermline, it would be relatively close to large areas of residential development to the north and south. This proposal is also the expansion of an existing retail park and therefore there is an argument that it already exists as a location where people travel to. Additional retail may reduce the need to travel elsewhere and reduce multiple trips. The cumulative effect of this proposal with other proposed development in the area is not considered significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. It is considered that the development is in a good location to utilise sustainable transport methods and attempts are being made to promote their use. The proposal would be in accordance with SPP in this regard. 4.10.5 Sufficient evidence has been provided to show that the impact on air quality would not be a significant concern of this application. 4.11 Sustainability 4.11.1 SPP (2014) introduces a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. The planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer term. The aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. Proposals that accord with up-to-date plans should be considered acceptable in principle and consideration should focus on the detailed matters arising. For proposals that do not accord with up-to-date development plans, the primacy of the plan is maintained and this SPP and the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be material considerations.

162

4.11.2 SPP states that policies and decisions should be guided by the following principles: - giving due weight to net economic benefit; - responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, as outlined in local economic strategies; - supporting good design and the six qualities of successful places; - making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure including supporting town centre and regeneration priorities; - supporting delivery of accessible housing, business, retailing and leisure development; - supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; - supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk; - improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation; - having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment; - reducing waste, facilitating its management and promoting resource recovery; - and avoiding over-development, protecting the amenity of new and existing development and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality. 4.11.3 Policy E3 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that new developments must make positive contributions to the quality of their immediate environment both in terms of their environmental impact and the quality of place they will create. New developments will therefore be required to secure the most practicable energy efficiency benefits by use of layout, siting, orientation, building design features, and other energy efficient measures and include energy conservation measures. 4.11.4 In terms of these principles, it is considered that the proposal would have an economic benefit for the area. The applicant has indicated that the proposal would create up to 200 jobs and would attract new retailers to Dunfermline. The offer of new retailers would increase the retail choice of Dunfermline and provide significant investment in the retail catchment and local and regional economy. The Council's retail consultant also stated that the additional retailers may assist in retaining retail spend within this retail catchment as there is some leakage towards other retail parks both within Fife and to Edinburgh and Livingston. The development therefore would clearly have some economic benefit to the local and regional area. The economic benefit of the proposal is not considered to outweigh the policy and associated design considerations of the development. 4.11.5 The proposal would make efficient use of a brownfield site and bring land back into beneficial use. There is a strong presumption in favour of the use of brownfield land over previously undeveloped (greenfield) land and this is promoted through Scottish Planning Policy. While this site has not been in use for a considerable time, it is an area of underutilised, previously developed land which is not of public benefit. The utilisation of this land could avoid the need to develop exclusively greenfield land within the settlement boundary. The land also does not benefit the area visually as it is not particularly well maintained and is not currently in use. The use of underutilised land for development which does not accord with the wider retail strategy for the area, should not be an overriding development principle. The land use principles must still be considered. As it is considered that the development would change the character of the retail park and potentially impact on the town centre, this material consideration is not considered sufficient to outweigh the policy and associated design considerations of the development.

163

4.11.6 In terms of the other principles it is noted that the development would support the delivery of retail, takes account of flood risk and protects the built heritage of the area. It is not considered that the development would support and regenerate the town centre given the impact outlined in section 4.2 of the report. The development accords with all other these principles of sustainability. It is considered that the development meets most of the principles of sustainability as set out within SPP. However this positive material consideration would not outweigh the policy considerations set out within section 4.2 of this report. 4.11.7 Overall, sustainable development, as set out within SPP, has been considered and it is noted that this development generally meets the sustainability principles. This material consideration would not however outweigh the retail considerations of this proposal or the fact that the development is contrary to the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed Local Development Plan. The development has the potential to have an adverse impact on the town centre and create a retail park which would be a direct competition to the retail park. This should not be outweighed by the development being in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.

CONSULTATIONS Scottish Water No comments. Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objections subject to the conclusions of the

Flood Risk Assessment being adhered to. Raised issues with the Air Quality Assessment not considering Appin Crescent and indicated that consideration was needed on greenhouse emissions due to the additional vehicles on the road as a consequence of this development.

Community Council No comments. Transport Scotland No objection subject to conditions requiring the

revision to the signal timings at Halbeath Interchange roundabout being submitted and undertaken and a comprehensive Travel Plan setting our proposals for reducing dependency on the private car being submitted an agreed.

Network Rail No objection subject to conditions on drainage and construction works.

The Coal Authority No objections subject to condition requiring submission of detailed site investigation with mitigation.

Land And Air Quality - EPES A site investigation has been submitted however further information will be required through condition. Requested a revised Air Quality Assessment which has now been received and they have no objection to the proposal subject to a condition controlling dust during construction.

164

Structural Services - Harbours, Flood And Coast

No objection to the proposal but require confirmation from Scottish Water that there is sufficient capacity for this development. This would be required through condition.

Environmental Health (Public Protection) - EPES

No objection subject to condition requiring detail of external ventilation noise and condition on construction times.

Transportation No objection subject to conditions on vehicle and cycle parking, staff travel plans and wheel washing facilities and the securing of a planning contribution for the strategic transport fund.

Transportation And Environmental Services - Operations Team

No comments.

Parks Development And Countryside Require Core Path to remain open during construction of site.

REPRESENTATIONS

There have been eleven letters of objection received for this application including letters from Halbeath Residents and Tenants Association and Zurich Assurance, who own Carnegie Retail Park. Zurich Assurance have submitted two letters of objection, one prior to the submission of the Retail Impact Assessment and one following its submission. The points of objection include: Transportation: - No mention of impact on rail crossing in TA; - Use of roundabout for new access will cause traffic problems on Kingseat Road; - Vehicles will get stuck on the rail crossing on Kingseat Road as a result of increased traffic on this road; - Risk to pedestrians on Core Path network; - The additional access from Kingseat Road could lead to the retail park being a short cut during busy times leading to traffic safety issues; - Access onto Kingseat Road is not suitable; - Internal roads do not favour pedestrians; - Routes through the site do not favour pedestrians with crossings a particular issue as priorities between vehicles and pedestrians not being clear; - Adverse traffic and pedestrian related impacts; - The completion of the northern distributor road would make the access worse; - TA does not take into account recent development or future development sites; - TA does not take into account rise (40%) in motorway traffic as noted in an inquiry by MPs on the Commons transport select committee; - Concern that the assessment on the impact of M90/ Halbeath Road has not been undertaken properly and concern that Transport Scotland have not been consulted on improvements here; - The proposal would increase car use in the area and the roads are already at capacity; - Proposal would elongate the Core Path route and require a number of road crossings.

165

Response: These matters have been largely addressed in section 4.4 of the report. On the comments with regards to motorway traffic and the intervention on the M90/ Halbeath Road roundabout, Transport Scotland have been consulted and have raised no concerns in this regard. Retail and Policy Issues: - Site no longer allocated for development within Proposed FIFEplan; - Would have an adverse impact on the town centre and Carnegie Retail Park; - No justification for need for further retail space outwith town centre; - No capacity for convenience retail within Dunfermline catchment within the Fife Retail Capacity Study 2015; - There are currently vacant units within the Carnegie Retail Park and within this retail park and therefore there does not appear to be a need for further retail units. This is not addressed by the applicant; - Contrary to SPP and SESplan, Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan. Response: These matters are addressed in section 4.2 of the report. It is agreed that the application would be contrary to the Development Plan, SPP, SESplan and Proposed FIFEplan on retail matters. Amenity: - A drive thru would result in the increase in litter; Response: This would be as consequence of misuse of the facility rather than the facilities purpose. A condition could be applied requiring details of litter bins for this unit. This is not considered a significant material consideration which would warrant refusal of the application. Air Pollution: - Extra traffic will lead to more air pollution; - Risk of pollutants and hazardous material during construction. Response: This is addressed in section 4.10 of the report. Procedure: - Neighbour notification was inadequate and should be widened. Response: The neighbour notification was carried out in accordance with the legislation. Halbeath Tenants and Residents association have suggested amendments to the scheme to remove their concerns. They propose a permanent vehicle barrier preventing traffic from entering the easternmost areas of car parking from the existing entry points. They also suggest e.g. a small wall with pedestrian access points, running from the external seating area in front of unit 10c to the new footpath proposed to the east of Unit 12. This has not been proposed by the applicant and TDM do not consider it necessary. CONCLUSIONS

166

The proposed development is considered to be contrary to the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan, SESPlan, SPP and Proposed FIFEplan in terms of retail impact. The development as proposed within the applicant's retail statement is considered to be contrary to policies DUN082, R1, R2 and R3 of the Adopted Local Plan, SESplan, Policy 6 of the Proposed FIFEplan and SPP in that the development would not be in accordance with the proposals policy DUN082 as it would contain convenience retail and would lead to a retail park which was changed in character and function. The proposal includes convenience retail and class 3 which does not accord with the appropriate retail and land uses for this retail park set out within the Proposed Local Development Plan. The Proposed Local Development Plan is considered to hold substantial weight following its examination. By allowing a broad range of retail within this development the retail park would compete with the town centre in providing an alternative location to meet consumers retail needs. This would be contrary to the commercial centres role within the retail hierarchy and the retail parks relationship with the town centre would change to the detriment of the vitality and viability of the town centre. All other detailed matters associated with the application are considered acceptable and it is accepted that the development accords with the majority of the sustainability principles set out within Scottish Planning Policy. None of the material considerations would outweigh the Development Plan or impact on the town centre in this instance. Overall, the proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of retail impact and is contrary to the Development Plan, SPP and Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan) 2014 in that regard.

RECOMMENDATION

The application be refused for the following reason(s) 1. In the interest of maintaining the vitality and viability of Dunfermline Town Centre. The proposal would not accord with Proposals Policy DUN082 in that it includes convenience retail. The proposal would change the character of the Halbeath Retail Park by increasing the range of retail available, providing additional food and drink outlets and changing the developments relationship with Dunfermline Town Centre from being complementary to an alternative competing shopping destination. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Scottish Planning Policy (2014), Policy 3 of SESplan Strategic Development Plan (2013) and Policies R1, R2 and R3 of the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) and Policy 6 of the Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan) (2014). It is also contrary to Policy 6 of the proposed FIFEplan which restricts the development of class 1 convenience and class 3 development units within commercial centres.

STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National Policy and Guidance:

167

SPP - Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Creating Places - A policy statement on architecture and place for Scotland (2013) PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land (2000) Air Quality and Land Use Planning (2004) PAN 1/2011 – Planning and Noise (2011) PAN51 - Planning and Environmental Protection (2006) Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance and other material considerations: SESPlan Strategic Development Plan (2013) Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) Fife Council's Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) Making Fifes Places Planning Policy Guidance (2015)

Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan) (2014) Fife Retail Capacity Study Update (FRCSU) 2015 Fife Retail Capacity Study 2016 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality’ (2015) Report prepared by William Shand, Chartered Planner and Case Officer Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

Date Printed 30/01/2017

168

APPENDIX 1  Policy Compliance Summary 16/01887/FULL Erection of 51 residential units, SUDS, open space and associated roads infrastructure LAND TO SOUTH OF FULMAR WAY DONIBRISTLE INDUSTRIAL PARK  This appendix is not a determining matrix and no decision should be reached on the basis of this summary alone 

POLICY  CONTEXT  WEIGHTING/ RELEVANCE  COMPLIANCE 

National Policy 

Scottish Planning Policy 2014  

Statement of SG policy on land use matters. Providing a range of policy statements relating to most issues pertinent to the determination of this application. 

High Development has the potential to affect several matters covered by this national policy document and therefore its relevance to this application is high.  

Does not comply fully with this document. 

SPP paragraphs 28‐ 35 (Sustainability) 

Outlines the presumption in favour of development that supports sustainable development and the principles to follow. 

High These principles can be considered significant material considerations.  

Does not comply with all principles. 

SPP paragraphs 58‐ 73 (Promoting Town Centres) 

Outlines the town centre first principle and the sequential approach for developments with high footfall. Aims to promote the town centre by protecting its vitality and viability Sets out when a sequential assessment is required and when there is a need for an RIA. 

High The proposal is for retail development and therefore these principles and policies are the most relevant for this application.     

Non‐compliant as the development would potentially adversely impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and the development would not comply with the commercial centre designation.  

SPP Paragraphs 254 ‐268 (Managing Flood Risk and Drainage) 

Sets out that planning should promote a precautionary approach to flood risk through flood avoidance and flood reduction and use of SuDS. Sets out the considerations for the 

High  The site is located within an area where there is a risk of flooding. 

Compliant. The applicant has shown how the site can avoid any issues in terms of flooding.  

169

planning system in this regard. 

SPP Paragraph 4 (Core Values of the Planning Service) 

Sets out the core values of the planning service and expectations of the planning service. 

High The core values specify that planning should play a key role in facilitating sustainable economic growth particularly the creation of new jobs and the strengthening of economic capacity.  

Compliant and introduces a positive consideration of the application. 

Creating Places  Sets out advice on the form and layout of new development 

High Given the developments prominent location this document is of significance.  

Compliant 

PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land 

Sets out advice on the treatment of contaminated land in the planning process 

High A site investigation has been submitted with the application and therefore this matter requires consideration. 

Compliant subject to condition requiring further site investigation and remediation measures to be agreed and implemented. 

Air Quality and Land Use Planning (2004) 

Outlines the planning system should consider air quality and how risks to air quality should be tackled through planning applications 

Medium An Air Quality Assessment was requested. 

Compliant subject to condition in terms of mitigation measures. 

PAN2/2011 Planning & Noise 

Sets out advice on residential amenity considerations and noise levels 

High  Given the land use type, noise nuisance is a matter for consideration and therefore this document has relevance. 

Compliant subject to condition requiring detail. 

PAN51 (Planning and Environmental Protection) 

Sets out advice on how environmental regulations interact with the planning system and how environmental issues should be tackled by the planning system 

High There are several matters which have the potential to cause a significant impact including contaminated land and air quality.  

Compliant subject to conditions. 

Strategic Plan  SESPLAN 2013     

170

Policy 3 Town Centres and Retail 

Sets out the policies that Local Development Plans will follow in terms of defining town centres and commercial centre and supporting and promoting the network of centres identified. 

High The proposal is for retail development which would affect the network of centres. 

Non‐compliant as the development would not support a strategic centre or comply with the restrictions of the commercial centre. 

Local Plan                       Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 

DU082 – Halbeath Retail Park Extension 

Provides the Proposals Policy for the site and states that the development must accord with the legal agreement attached to the original outline planning permission which restricts certain types of retail and mezzanine floorspace. 

High  Provides a land use designation for the site.  

Non‐compliant as the development is not in accordance with the specific requirements of the Proposals Policy in terms of retail restrictions. 

R1  Retail Centres 

Sets out that proposals for new retail floorspace will be supported in the town centre but for other locations outwith town centres the sequential test will be applied. Provides the network of centres and their role. 

High The proposal is for retail development and therefore these principles and policies are the most relevant for this application. 

Non‐ compliant as the development would not comply with role of the commercial centre set out within this policy.  

R2 and R3 Convenience and Comparison Retail Outwith Town or Local Centres 

Sets out the considerations for when convenience and comparison retail out with the town centre might be considered acceptable. 

High The proposal is for retail development including comparison and convenience and therefore these principles and policies are the most relevant for this application. 

Non‐ compliant as the proposal does not meet the criteria within policies R2 and R3. 

E3 Development Quality –

Seeks to control a range of environmental 

High   Compliant 

171

Environmental Impacts 

impacts notably design, landscape, biodiversity, drainage, energy matters 

Visual impact is a consideration of this application. 

E4 Development Quality Design 

Seeks to ensure high standards of design including landscape and amenity considerations 

High Design and the sites relationship application the existing units and surrounding land uses is important. 

Compliant. 

E6 Contaminated and potentially unstable land 

Seeks to address risks of contamination and ground stability 

High Site investigation submitted with the application 

Compliant subject to condition requiring further site investigation and remediation measures to be agreed and implemented. 

T1 Transport Network and T2 Traffic safety in new development 

Sets out how new development should fit within the existing transport network and principles in terms of accessibility by different modes of transport. 

High Transportation matters are a significant consideration of this application. 

Compliant 

I4 & I5 Flooding and Water Quality & Sustainable Urban Drainage 

Seeks to ensure that flooding and surface water matters are addressed  

High The site is in an area of flood risk. 

Compliant subject to further information required through condition. 

Material Considerations 

     

Proposed FIFEplan (2014)  

An emerging plan covering Fife and will replace the existing local plan coverage in 2016.   

Medium The FIFEplan has been to the Executive Committee and is now considered the Council’s position with regards to future planning policy and proposals. The FIFEplan has been submitted to the Scottish Government for Adoption. 

Does not comply fully with this document. 

FIFEplan Policy 6  

Sets out that town centres will be the 

Medium  Non‐compliant as the 

172

    

  NB Other policy and guidance documents are listed in the policy and Guidance section of the report.  1.  The third column aims to convey the relative weight given to the various policies ‐ this is complicated and cannot be relegated to a simple arithmetical scoring list. This is the part of the assessment (officer as recommender and Committee as decision maker) which is critical. The same policies and material considerations can also be weighted differently in different applications. The Committee taking the final decision can weigh up the material considerations in a different manner to the officer recommendation. The scale to convey relative gradings of weight to be utilised in the body of the case officer’s and this Matrix is the following: As an example, ‐Very High ‐High ‐Low ‐Very low ‐Neglible  2. The "Compliance” column should have references to the paragraphs where the compliance issue is addressed in full for ease of reference for the reader. There may be single or multiple references to the same policy in the report of handling which can have several aspects or elements which may be addressed in different sections. 

Town Centres First 

first choice for uses likely to attract a large number of people including retail. Sets out when developments will be acceptable and the sequential test. Also defines the role of commercial centres and acceptable uses within them. 

The FIFEplan is at examination and this policy has representations made against it so will be subject of review. 

development would extend a Commercial Centre with retail uses which are not in accordance with the role and function of the commercial centre. 

Planning  Obligation  Supplementary Guidance 

Provides details of planning obligations required per development type 

High This document outlines the requirements for this site. 

Compliant 

Making Fife’s Places 

Describes good design qualities, the principles of creating successful place and the expectations in terms of open space requirements, ecology, transportation and public art. 

High This document is an important consideration for assessing the design and layout of the retail park extension. 

Compliant 

173

Glen Cottage

Morningside

Air Shaft

Halbeath

Station

Shelter

Square

Level Crossing

El Sub Sta

SinksMast (Telecommunication)

L Twr Inglenook

Lauder Nursery

Cottag

e

Tank

House

Pond

LB

The

Mow

bra

y

SP

ESS

3 4

Hotel

LYNEBURN CRESCENT

9

5

2

8

1

4a

10

1a

42

51

13325

2a

12

11

32

37

141

36

8a

4

24

6a

47

57

13

14

33 27

6

2

El Sub Sta

4

9

Halbeath

5

12

El Sub Sta

8

1

1

1

2

2

Shelter

Mast (Telecommunication)

HALBEATH

Halbeath Retail Park

MacDonald

(disused)

Farm

Mowbray Burn

104.7m

104.5m

Poplars

Alamar

MP 19

House

Ross

The

KIN

GS

EA

T R

OA

D

KIN

GS

EAT R

OA

DTC

B

MAIN STREET

SP

PH

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

7c

9

5

8

87a

104135

23

11

34

35

26

7b

49

143

137139

125 129131

7

3

HALBEATH ROAD

127

MP .25

GU

TTE

RG

ATE

S

102

103.2m

6

ESS

14

1

House

4

House

El Sub Sta

1

13

16/01927/FULL

Land to the North of Halbeath Retail Park, Dunfermline

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 30 60 9015m

Legend

174

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

ITEM NO: 4 (G) APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 16/02689/FULL

SITE ADDRESS: FIELD TO WEST OF LITTLE RAITH WINDFARM GLENISTON

AUCHTERTOOL PROPOSAL : ERECTION OF (75M) WIND MONITORING MAST (FIELD TO

WEST OF LITTLE RAITH WINDFARM)

APPLICANT: LITTLE RAITH WIND FARM LIMITED

8 TIB LANE 4TH FLOOR BOW CHAMBERS MANCHESTER WARD NO: NW08

Cowdenbeath CASE OFFICER: David Shankland

DATE REGISTERED:

17/08/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: There have been more than 5 letters of representation which are contrary to the Planning Authority's recommendation.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for:

Conditional Approval ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

175

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Site Description 1.1.1 The application site is an area of agricultural land of approximately 800 square metres in size which is situated to the west of the Little Raith Wind Farm. The site, more specifically, is located to the south east of the settlement of Cowdenbeath and is defined in the Adopted Mid Fife Local Plan (2012) as being located within the countryside. The A92 dual carriageway runs from east to west approximately 300 metres to the north of the application site. Access to the site is via an existing access road off the A909. The immediate area is characterised to the south and east by Mossmorran Petrochemical Processing Plant and Little Raith Wind Farm which consists of 9 turbines, measuring 125m to tip orientated in two rows from east to west. The site and surrounding land uses are predominantly agricultural in nature. 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 The proposal is for the erection of a wind monitor mast of approximately 75 metres in height to allow the developer to monitor and optimise the performance of the wind turbine generators on the adjacent Little Raith Windfarm. As such, permission is sought for the operational lifetime of the wind farm which would be 20 years. The mast consists of a number of steel poles welded together into a lattice structure in 2 metre sections which would be fitted together to form a single mast of approximately 75 metres in height. To provide support there would be 4 levels of small diameter steel guy wires with 3 wires at each level attached to the mast. The guy wires would be secured at locations on the ground using dig in soil anchors. Anemometers would be mounted on the mast at 4 levels, approximately 25 metres, 45 metres, 60 metres and 75 metres above the ground level. Data from these instruments would be collected by a data logger which is secured within a steel weatherproof box mounted approximately 1.5 metres above ground level. 1.3 Planning History 1.3.1 The relevant planning history for this site (including the adjacent wind farm) includes the following: - Planning permission was granted subject to conditions in February 2008, , for the erection of a windfarm consisting of 9 wind turbine generators; substation; anemometry mast; formation of access tracks and temporary compound area and site offices (Planning Reference 04/04226/WEIA); - Planning permission subject to conditions was then granted in June 2008, to vary conditions 20, 21, 22 and 24 of planning permission 04/04266/WEIA (Planning Reference 08/00569/WFULL); - In March 2009, planning permission, subject to conditions, was then granted for the erection of 9 wind turbine generators in revised positions to those permitted under planning permission No.04/04266/WEIA, increase permitted turbine height, construction of substation building and erection of an 80m anemometry mast, formation of access tracks and ancillary development (Planning Reference 08/01053/WEIA); and - A further planning application was submitted in July 2014 (Planning Reference 14/02444/EIA) for the erection of 6 additional wind turbines (maximum blade tip height of 126.5 metres, and

176

generating capacity of up to 3.2MW per turbine), substation and control building, education and visitor centre, permanent met mast, temporary met mast, temporary construction compound, hardstandings and associated internal access tracks and other infrastructure (extension to existing wind farm). A non-determination appeal to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals was lodged by the applicant in December 2014 (Planning Appeal Reference PPA-250-2212). The appeal was subsequently dismissed and planning permission refused in July 2015 due to concerns relating to landscape and visual impacts, cumulative impacts, impact on communities and impact on aviation. 1.4 Application Process 1.4.1 Due to the size of the site and the overall scale of proposals, the application constitutes a "Local" application as defined by the Hierarchy of Developments Regulations and as such there was no requirement for a Proposal of Application Notice. 1.4.2 The proposed FIFEplan (Proposed Fife Local Development Plan) 2014 is a material consideration but does not have the same status or carry the same weight at the current Development Plan. The application site continues to be defined as being located in the countryside. 2.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 2.1 The issues to be assessed against the Development Plan and other guidance are as follows:- - Principle of Development - Visual Impact on Countryside - Impact on Natural Heritage - Residential Amenity - Aviation Safety/Defence Interests - Road Safety - Land Stability and Contamination 2.2 Principle of Development 2.2.1 Policy E15 of the Adopted Local Plan stipulates that development in the countryside will only be supported where it (a) is required for agriculture, horticultural, woodland or forestry operations; or (b) is for new enterprises which either diversify the above land based businesses to bring economic support to the existing business or add value by using the products of, or servicing, land based businesses or other established countryside activities; or (c) diversify or add to the above land-based businesses to bring economic support to the existing business or add local value by using the products of, or servicing, land-based businesses or other established countryside activities; or (d) is for an extension of established businesses; or (e) provides for small scale employment land adjacent to settlement boundaries, which contributes to the Council's employment land supply requirements; or (f) is for facilities for access to the countryside; or (g) is for facilities for outdoor recreation or tourism or other development which demonstrates a proven need for a countryside location; or (h) is for housing (as supported by Policy E16). Policy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of FIFEplan offers similar guidance to Adopted Local Plan Policy E15 on development in the countryside.

177

2.2.2 Taking into account the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, it is considered that the proposed development is generally acceptable provided there are no significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity and the built or natural environment. There is a general acceptance that wind monitoring developments such as this proposal need to be located in the countryside. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in principle however the overall acceptability of such a development must also meet a number of other specific criteria and these are considered in detail below. 2.3 Visual Impact on Countryside 2.3.1 Policy E15 of the Adopted Local Plan stipulates that development in the countryside will only be supported where it is of a scale and nature which is compatible with surrounding uses and will result in an overall enhancement to the landscape and environmental quality of an area. Policy 7 of FIFEplan elaborates that in all cases; development must be of a scale and nature compatible with surrounding uses and will not result in an overall reduction in the landscape and environmental quality of the area. 2.3.2 Policy E3 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to make a positive contribution to the quality of its immediate environment both in terms of its environmental impact and the quality of place it will create. Policy 10, criterion 7, of FIFEplan mirrors the requirements of the Development Plan in this regard. 2.3.3 Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that new development must demonstrate well thought out design and choice of materials; and makes best use of site attributes, particularly landform and trees. It also advocates that the application of innovative design solutions will be supported. 2.3.4 As the site is located within the countryside greater consideration must be given to the visual impact the proposed development would have both in terms of its wider and local impact on the landscape. In this particular case, the proposed development, as described above, has been designed to be visually unobtrusive by virtue of its slender form, materials and colour. Unlike the refused 2014 planning application (Planning Reference 14/02444/EIA) for the erection of 6 additional wind turbines at Little Raith Windfarm, it is not considered that the proposed mast would significantly increase cumulative visual impacts in the local landscape, although it would be visible to the west of the turbine array from certain viewpoints on the south edge of Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly. Furthermore, from many of the angles in which the Little Raith Wind Farm and/ or Mossmorran are visible the proposed mast would be partly obscured by trees, or seen within the wider array of pylons, industrial stacks and the larger moving turbines, which tend to draw the eye over the static vertical objects. It is also noted that at a height of approximately 75 metres the height of the proposed mast is some 5 metres below the height of the existing turbine nacelles. Overall, the proposal would not have any significant detrimental impact on the character of the immediate surrounding rural landscape or wider countryside setting and is therefore acceptable in landscape and visual terms. 2.3.5 The proposed development meets the relevant policies of the Development Plan relating to visual impact on the countryside. 2.4 Impact on Natural Heritage 2.4.1 SPP (Landscape and Natural Heritage), advises planning authorities to take a broader approach to landscape and natural heritage than just conserving designated or protected sites

178

and species. Policies E21, E22 and E23 of the Adopted Local Plan apply. Proposed FIFEplan Policy 13 also applies. The site is not designated for any specific nature or ecology related purpose and therefore the element of the policies that apply here are the parts relating to the protection of valuable wildlife habitats and/or any protected species. 2.4.2 In this case, no trees or significant vegetation is proposed to be cleared. Scottish Natural Heritage has been consulted and raises no objection to planning permission being granted. Fife Council's Natural Heritage Officer has also been consulted and has advised that whilst it is not envisaged that the mast would cause a risk to birds, it would be prudent to impose a condition on any consent ensuring that bird collision diverters are fitted to all supporting guy wires. A suitably worded condition has therefore been included within the recommendation. 2.4.3 The application accords with the broad policies of national guidance, the Local Plan and supplementary guidance in this regard. 2.5 Residential Amenity 2.5.1 PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise provides advice on the role of the planning system in helping to prevent and limit the adverse effects of noise. The PAN promotes the principles of good acoustic design and a sensitive approach to the location of new development. 2.5.2 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development proposals where they are compatible with neighbouring uses and do not adversely affect the privacy of neighbours whilst Policy E4 supports development proposals which protect personal privacy and amenity. Policy 10 of the FIFEplan mirrors the Adopted Plans requirements to protect amenity. 2.5.3 The closest residential property to the application site is located approximately 700 metres from the site. As referred to in section 1.2.1 above, the wind monitoring equipment on the mast will include wind vanes and anemometers mounted on the mast. The noise generated by the wind vanes has not been assessed but given the size of the vane and its distance from any residential dwellings, the effect on residential amenity in terms of noise is not considered to be an issue in this case. Furthermore, Fife Council's Public and Environmental Protection Team (PEPT) has assessed the content of the planning application and the team have no objections or comments to make on the proposed development. 2.6 Aviation Safety/Defence Interests 2.6.1 Fife Council's Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy (2013) has some relevance to this proposal. It advises that aviation and defence interests should be addressed in the assessment of all applications. 2.6.2 In this case, consultations were carried out with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), National Air Traffic Service (NATS), the Ministry of Defence (MoD), and Dundee Airport and have all advised that they have no objection to the proposed development. Edinburgh and Glenrothes Airports have also been consulted but have not responded within the statutory period. However, the MOD have advised that whilst they have no safeguarding objections, in the interests of air safety, they request that the flue stack is fitted with aviation warning lighting. In addition, they also recommend that the developer notifies them of the date construction starts and ends; the precise location of the mast and the height of the mast above ground level along with details of the aviation warning lighting to be fitted to the mast. A condition has therefore been included within the recommendation to address this matter.

179

2.6.3 In this instance the proposal is acceptable, as it would not detrimentally affect aviation safety, defence interests, or general aviation related operations locally subject to the imposition of a planning conditions to address the MoD comments. 2.7 Road Safety 2.7.1 Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to be located where it is accessible to the public transport network; where there is capacity in the road network and where there is no road safety problem. Policy T2 requires new developments to make provision for pedestrians; traffic calming and a road layout that is in accordance with the Transportation Development Guidelines. 2.7.2 Policy 10 of FIFEplan supports development where it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses in relation to traffic movements. 2.7.3 In this particular instance, access to the site would be via the existing access road off the A909, south of Cowdenbeath. Fife Council's Transportation Development Management Team has been consulted and has no objections to planning permission being granted. 2.7.4 The application complies with the Development Plan with regard to road safety. 2.8 Land Stability and Contamination 2.8.1 PAN33 advises that suspected and actual contamination should be investigated and, if necessary, remediated to ensure that sites are suitable for the proposed end use. Policy E6 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that for development proposals involving sites where land instability or the presence of contamination is suspected, the developer is required to submit details of site investigations to assess the nature and extent of any risks presented by land stability or contamination which may be present. Where risks are known to be present, appropriate mitigation measures should be agreed with the Council and where possible remediation strategies should be agreed prior to the determination of any planning application. The application site is defined as being located within a Coal Authority High Risk Area. 2.8.2 The Coal Authority initially objected to the proposal on the grounds that a Coal Mining Risk Assessment had not been submitted as part of the application. However, following the submission of a letter from SLR Consulting Ltd dated 8th November 2016, the Coal Authority has confirmed that the information submitted accurately demonstrates that the application is safe and stable for the proposed development and, subsequently, they have confirmed they have no objection to planning permission being granted. Fife Council's Land and Air Quality Team (LAQT) has also been consulted and has no objection. 2.8.3 The application meets the provisions of national guidance and the Development Plan in regard to land stability and contamination.

CONSULTATIONS The Coal Authority Has no objection.

180

Land And Air Quality - EPES The Land & Air Quality Team has no comment to make regarding this planning consultation

Scottish Natural Heritage Has no objection to planning permission being granted.

NATS Air Traffic Services Has no objection.

Ministry Of Defence (Wind Turbines) Has no objection subject to the inclusion of standard conditions.

Directorate Of Airspace Policy Has no objection.

Highlands And Islands Airports Ltd Has no objection.

Edinburgh Airport Has not responded within the statutory period.

Tayside Aviation Ltd Has not responded within the statutory period.

Environmental Health (Public Protection) - EPES

Has no objection or comment to make on the proposed development.

Transportation Has no objection. REPRESENTATIONS

A total of 47 letters of objection have been received from 3rd parties to this planning application concerning the following: - Cumulative impact - Lack of Information to address visual impact - No bird deflector device submitted to accord with SNH Guidance - Proposal is a precursor to a future application to extend Little Raith Wind Farm In respect to the concerns expressed above relating to cumulative impact and lack of information to address visual amenity, an assessment has been made on this regard and it is considered that the applicant has submitted sufficient information, (taking into account the nature of the proposal) to demonstrate that the proposed mast would be visually unobtrusive by virtue of its slender form, materials and colour. In addition it is considered that the proposed mast would not significantly increase cumulative visual impacts in the local landscape. In respect to the concern relating to the submission failing to include a bird deflector device, SNH has been consulted in this regard and raised no objection to planning permission being

181

granted. Nevertheless, an appropriate condition has been included to ensure details are submitted for approval in writing. As detailed within the supporting information, the application has been submitted to allow the developer to monitor and optimise the performance of the wind turbine generators on the adjacent Little Raith Windfarm. The concerns that the application could result in a future application being submitted for an extension to Little Raith Wind is not a material consideration of this current application. CONCLUSIONS

The proposal complies with the relevant provisions of national guidance and the Development Plan and is acceptable due to its location and minimal physical or visual intrusion on the rural landscape. RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions and reasons: 1. The development authorised by this permission shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before the 31st March 2037. In the event that the wind monitor mast becomes obsolete then it shall be deemed to have ceased to be required and shall be removed within 6 months and the land restored to its former condition. Reason: In the interests of visual and environmental amenity, to ensure that the ground is reinstated. The development is of a temporary nature and construction and is only acceptable on a temporary basis. 2. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS ON SITE, full details of proposed bird collision diverters shall be submitted for the prior written approval of this Planning Authority. The approved bird collision diverters shall be fitted to all supporting guy wires to the satisfaction of this Planning Authority and thereafter the approved diverters shall be maintained in working order for the period of this planning permission. Reason: In the interests of minimising the number of bird strikes. 3. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, the mast shall be fitted with a minimum intensity 25 candela omni directional flashing red light or equivalent infra-red light fitted at the highest practicable point of the structure. No other lighting other than the service lighting required under safety requirements for tall structures is hereby permitted. Furthermore, the applicant shall notify the MOD of the following: - the precise location of the mast; - the date construction is to start and end; - the latitude and longitude of the anemometer mast - the height of the mast above existing ground levels - the maximum height of any construction equipment - details of aviation warning lighting fitted to the mast.

182

Reason: In the interests of air safety, visual and residential amenity.

STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National Guidance Scottish Planning Policy (2014) PAN1/2011 - Planning and Noise PAN 33 - Development of Contaminated Land Development Plan SESplan (2013) Adopted Mid Fife Local Plan (2012) Other Guidance Proposed FIFEplan (Proposed Fife Local Development Plan) 2014 Report prepared by David Shankland, Chartered Planner and Case Officer Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

Date Printed 01/02/2017

183

Thistle Industrial Estate

Lo

ch

ge

lly

Lochgelly Burn

Golf Course

Drain

Football Ground

Sinks

Track

Lay-

byTanks

Tk

Tank

Pond

Lay

BY

Drain

Bu

rn

Drain

37

222826

3029

27

38

3331

Drain

Tanks

16/02689/FULL

Field to West of Little Raith Windfarm, Gleniston, Auchtertool

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 50 100 15025m

Legend

184

ITEM NO: 4 (H) APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 16/02341/FULL

SITE ADDRESS: LAND TO EAST OF OLD DULOCH HOUSE ABERDOUR ROAD

DUNFERMLINE PROPOSAL : CONSTRUCTION OF 90 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SUDS AND

ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICANT: TAYLOR WIMPEY

(MR MALCOLM CRAWFORD) 1 MASTERTON PARK SOUTH CASTLE DRIVE

WARD NO: NW04

Dunfermline South CASE OFFICER: William Shand

DATE REGISTERED:

28/07/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: The application is a major application as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) Regulations 2009 and 9 letters of objection have been received from 7 individual parties.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for:

Conditional approval requiring a legal agreement ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

185

Under Section 25 of the Planning Act the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Under Section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, in determining the application the planning authority should have special regard to the desirability of preserving a Listed Building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 1.0 Background 1.1 Site 1.1.1 The application site is an area of land at just over 4.1 hectares in area at the south east edge of Dunfermline and within the settlement boundary. The site has in the past been associated with the holdings of Duloch Home Farm. The site is predominantly greenfield land which has to some degree been cleared in preparation of development. The site is located in an area which forms part of a larger masterplan area and this area is one of the last within the masterplan area to be developed. To the west of the site are residential properties which form an earlier phase of this development area and a number of these are occupied. Roads have been designed to continue from that developed area into this site. Also to the west is an occupied steading conversion, Duloch Home Farm. To the north of the site is an area of trees encompassing Old Duloch, which is an individual dwellinghouse and a Category A listed building. To the south of the site is Duloch House which is a detached individual property separated from the site by an area of trees. To the east of the site is the M90 motorway. The site has a gentle slope in an easterly direction however the motorway to the east is at a significantly lower level than the level of the site along the southern boundary but gradually climbs to be almost level with the site. The gradient between the site and the motorway is generally steep. The site is currently accessed from multiple locations including McDonald Street and MacPherson Street to the west, a private access to the north west and a construction access has been formed into the site from the north. 1.1.2 The application site is within an area designated for residential development under policy DUN031 within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012 and DUN018 within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 1.2 Proposal 1.2.1 The proposed development includes the construction of 90 residential units with associated development including SUDS, accesses, play provision and other infrastructure. The development would include two blocks of flats (3 storeys in height) at the north west corner of the site. Each block would contain 12 flatted properties. The rest of the units would be two storey residential units presented in a mix of detached and semi detached units. Within the site there would also be a small play area situated towards the western end of the site adjacent to the residential area to the west. A SUDS area is proposed at the northern end of the site and this is positioned to allow it to be shared with any future development to the north. 1.2.2 The development would include two access points into the existing residential area to the west. These would continue through the development area and are shown to continue to a potential expansion area to the north. Again two streets are shown to continue to the north. A pedestrian access is also shown through an area of green space which borders Old Duloch House and this travels from east to west through this green space providing a pedestrian only connection from the residential area to the west. This green space also serves as a buffer area to the listed building. The residential units are set off the southern and eastern boundaries by a buffer area.

186

The separation distance between the residential units and the edge of the site on the eastern boundary is to provide noise mitigation. An acoustic fence is also proposed along this boundary with enhanced planting. 1.3 Site History 1.3.1 The application site forms part of the wider Masterton Park development site which was granted outline planning consent in December 1996 (Planning reference PL/95/0440) for an integrated development of residential, business land, community facilities with associated infrastructure on land between Masterton Road, Aberdour Road and the M90. This formed part of the Eastern Expansion of Dunfermline. There have been a number of detailed applications allowing for development of various sites within this large area. 1.3.2 A number of applications under section 42 of the Planning Act were made in 2005 to amend and delete conditions on the original consent. The last of these was approved in 2007. 1.3.3 An application for Matters Specified by Condition of the original outline consent for this part of the site was submitted in 2006 (06/04235/WARM). This was for the erection of 217 dwellinghouses, 36 flats, formation of new road access, footpaths, roads, open space, play areas, landscaping and drainage pond and was approved on 8 February 2010 following conclusion of a legal agreement. This area is known as R5. 1.3.4 Three subsequent applications (10/01015/FULL, 10/01017/FULL and 10/01018/FULL) were submitted to the west of the current site which essentially varied the western side of planning permission 06/04235/WARM. The western residential area has been built in accordance with these planning permissions rather than 06/04235/WARM. 1.3.5 Two smaller applications were made in 2015 to the east of the applications mentioned within section 1.3.4 and within the boundary of planning permission 06/04235/WARM. This included 15/03580/FULL for 14 residential units as an extension to McDonald Street and 15/03581/FULL for 12 detached residential units as an extension to MacPherson Avenue. These applications were both approved on 20 January 2016. The current application would extend both these streets eastward. 1.3.6 Another application (16/02345/FULL) is currently under consideration for the land to the north of this application site. This application is for 118 residential units. 1.4 Application Process 1.4.1 The application site area is greater than 2 hectares and the proposal includes more than 50 residential units and therefore the proposal is categorised as a Major development within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) Regulations 2009. The applicant has carried out the required Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) through holding a public information event (Ref: 15/02933/PAN). The PAN area showed both this site and the site to the north (16/02345/FULL) within the single boundary. The applicant has decided to split the area into two applications to follow the Local Plan policy designations. A PAC report outlining comments made by the public and the consideration of these in the design process of the proposal has been submitted as part of this application. The manner of the consultation exercise, including the notification and media advertisement process, complied with the relevant legislation. This included a public information event on 10 September 2015 in the Duloch Library. The public event was advertised by way an advertisement within the Dunfermline Press.

187

1.4.2 The application was screened under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 and the proposal was considered not to constitute a development which required an Environmental Impact Assessment. The application however has been supported with a noise assessment, air quality assessment, ecological appraisal and design and access statement. 1.4.3 The application was advertised in the local press on 4 August 2016 as affecting the setting of a listed building and for neighbour notification purposes. Following the relocation of the flatted blocks within the site, the application was re-advertised on 17 November 2016. 1.5 Emerging Local Development Plan 1.5.1 The Proposed FIFEplan Local Development Plan (2014) is a material consideration but at the current stage in the process which leads to adoption of the plan it does not have the same status or carry the same weight as the current Development Plan. In the context of this report the Proposed FIFEplan will only be referenced where it conflicts with the current Adopted Local Plan position. The examination of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) is now complete and reference may be made to any changes proposed through examination that would change a policy position. 1.5.2 The site remains allocated for residential development within the Proposed FIFEplan 2014 through policy DUN018. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Having regard to the provisions of the development plan, and the concerns raised during the course of the planning application process, the main issues in the consideration of this application for planning permission are;- - Principle of Residential Development - Design, Layout and Levels - Transportation - Residential Amenity - Built Heritage 2.2 The site is allocated for residential development within both the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan. The allocation is for 274 units but includes land to the west as well. The total number of units that would be delivered by this site in conjunction with the land to the west would be 251 units. This is not considered a significant shortfall in the delivery of housing for this site particularly as additional units would require the loss of open space, reduction in buffers between the site and assets/ motorway or a greater density of housing. This is not considered appropriate if it would result in a reduction in residential amenity or the aim is only to achieve a greater number of houses. The layout within the site achieves a good standard of place and design and this should not be compromised in order to achieve the 274 unit allocation. It is likely the shortfall can be picked up by other development sites without requiring the release of greenfield land. 2.3 The proposed development is considered acceptable in design, layout, scale, density and form. A good standard of layout is proposed which follows the principles of Designing Streets and the creation of place. The layout is permeable by all modes of transport and connects well with the existing residential area to the west. A good mix of greenspace and built area is proposed with green networks and links throughout. The development relates well to the existing built form of the

188

settlement and would create a pleasant environment which meets the six qualities of place making. The proposal meets the requirements of the Development Plan in this regard. 2.4 The proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on the road network. The site is designed to be permeable and well connected and has an acceptable internal layout. Concerns were raised by objectors concerning a footpath link from the site which would require the crossing of a private road. This is not considered to cause any significant risk due to the low number of vehicles that would use this route and that it has always been identified as a link within the masterplan for the area. The development of this area has therefore been undertaken with this link in mind. Neither Transportation Development Management nor Transport Scotland have objections to the proposal and thereby the development would be in accordance with the Development Plan in this regard. 2.5 The development would not have a significant impact on the residential amenity of existing neighbouring properties. The proposal includes a block of flats which is relatively close to existing properties. The flats would be three storeys in height but would be a sufficient distance from the existing properties so as to avoid any significant privacy impact on existing properties. The flats also would be of sufficient distance from the existing properties to avoid any significant loss of daylight or sunlight to the buildings. There is the potential for some overshadowing of part of the rear gardens of neighbouring properties however this would be for a limited number of hours in the day and within acceptable limits. The site is adjacent to the M90 motorway and requires noise mitigation to protect future residents. A noise barrier in the form of an acoustic fence is proposed and this would provide adequate mitigation to ensure the internal noise limits within the dwellings would be acceptable. The barrier also would ensure sufficient mitigation was provided for the gardens of the nearest properties however the noise limits would be towards the upper acceptable limits. Given the proximity of the motorway, this is considered acceptable in this instance. 2.6 The main potential impact on built heritage is from the scale and position of the blocks of flats relative to the Category A listed Old Duloch House. This site has been allocated for residential development for some time and thereby some impact on the wider setting of this listed building has been anticipated since the identification of the site for residential development within the various Development Plans. The listed building is separated from the site by a band of trees which provides some screening. The proposed development includes a buffer area of up to 10m which provides a separation between the built development and the curtilage of the listed building. In addition further planting is proposed to provide further screening. It is considered that this mitigation is sufficient to avoid any significant impact on the setting of this listed building. 2.7 The Policy Matrix (see appendix one) summarises the relevant policies and guidance, and officers conclusions, and is a useful checklist, ensuring that relevant policies have been referred to as part of this assessment. 2.8 Taking all the relevant issues and concerns into account the proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan (2014). 3.0 PLANNING REPORT APPENDICES 3.1 Appendix 1 - Policy Matrix 4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 4.1 The issues to be assessed against the development plan and other guidance are as follows:

189

- Principle of Residential Development - Design, Layout and Levels - Transportation - Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk - Residential Amenity - Open Space, Play Provision - Visual/ Landscape Impact - Built Heritage - Natural Heritage/ Trees - Affordable Housing - Education - Public Art - Site Conditions, Stability, Minerals and Air Quality 4.2 Principle of Residential Development 4.2.1 The application site is located within the settlement boundary of Dunfermline within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) and the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014) seeks to promote successful sustainable places with a focus on low carbon place; a natural, resilient place; and, a more connected place. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) promotes the use of the plan-led system with plans being up-to-date and relevant, thus reinforcing the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The SPP (Enabling the Delivery of New Housing) also requires the Development Plan to identify a generous supply of housing land, within a range of attractive well designed sites that can contribute to the creation of successful and sustainable places. The Adopted Local Plan is the preferred mechanism for the delivery of housing / residential land rather than individual planning applications. 4.2.2 Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan (2012) states that suitable development within town and village settlement boundaries will be supported where it conforms to relevant Development Plan policies and proposals and seeks to ensure that development respects the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape, complies with any development brief or other planning guidance agreed or issued by Fife Council and is compatible with neighbouring uses amongst other criteria. Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan (2014) as amended at examination states that all housing proposals must: 1. Meet the requirements for the site identified in the settlement plan tables and relevant site brief; and 2. Include provision for appropriate screening or separation distances to safeguard future residential amenity and the continued operation of lawful neighbouring uses in cases where there is potential for disturbance. 4.2.3 The application site is located in an area which is identified within the Adopted Local Plan as Proposal DUN 031 (Kingdom Gateway HI) and is zoned solely for housing, with an estimated capacity of 274 units. The policy requirement states that the site has outline Planning Permission. 4.2.4 SESplan outlines the housing requirements for each Local Plan Area and requires that a five year land supply is retained at all times. Policy H1 of the Adopted Local Plan states that the Council shall prepare supplementary guidance within 1 year of adoption of the Plan to address mechanisms to enable the delivery of brownfield opportunity sites and other sites from the established land supply and a detailed framework to guide the release of additional housing land. A release of additional housing land may be appropriate where a shortfall in the maintenance of a

190

five year effective land supply is identified, effectiveness can be demonstrated and the proposal will not undermine the development plan strategy. Fife Council's Maintaining an Effective Five year Land Supply at all Times Supplementary Planning Guidance (2013) has been created in accordance with policy H1. The current Housing Land Audit 2016 has shown that there is currently a shortfall in the effective five year land supply. 4.2.5 Policy 1 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the principle of development will be supported if it is either within a defined settlement boundary and compliant with the policies for the location or in in a location where the proposed use is supported by the Local Development Plan. The site continues to be allocated for residential development within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). The site is allocated as DUN018 as Kingdom Gateway HI and is still allocated for 274 units. An additional specification has been added however which requires the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should the planning permission need to be renewed or a new application submitted. A FRA has not been submitted with this application however as this has not been requested by SEPA. The site also has a green network opportunity identified running north to south through the site. 4.2.6 In principle, residential development in this location would be acceptable in that the site is allocated for residential development. Of the 274 units allocated for the site, 135 units have been built through the planning permissions for the land to the west and 26 units are currently under construction through the most recent planning permissions. This site proposes 90 units which would take the total units being developed within designation DUN031 to 251 which is 23 units or 8.4% less than the allocation. While the proposal would result in a shortfall of housing relative to the designation, the proposal is not considered contrary to the development plan as the shortfall is not greater than 20%. The proposal is also considered to generally comply with policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan although the detailed requirements of this policy will be considered further throughout the report. 4.2.7 The current Housing Land Audit (2016) shows that there is a shortfall of 5,012 units within the 5-year Effective Housing Land Supply 2016-2021 within the Dunfermline and West Fife Housing Market Area. The Housing Land Audit includes this site as an effective site with 274 units scheduled for completion by 2020. The shortfall in provision of residential units on this site therefore could create an additional shortfall in the 5-year Effective Housing Land Supply. As noted the shortfall for this site is only around 8.4% or 23 units which is relatively small in the context of the overall total of units allocated for the area. It is also noted that to achieve 274 units on this site, the proposal would need to be provided at a greater density, with less greenspace and potentially with more flatted properties. The eastern boundary of the site is constrained by the noise of the motorway which removes an area of development land. It is not considered that the shortfall in housing numbers relative to the Adopted Local Plan allocation for this site should outweigh the design, layout and amenity benefits achieved by the current proposal. The reduction in open space or buffer areas or an increase in the density of units is not considered appropriate for this site, if the only aim is to meet the housing targets within the Adopted Local Plan. It is considered that given there is a minimal shortfall, this could easily be accommodated in other development sites without the shortfall requiring the release of additional greenfield land. It is also noted that the associated site to the north is proposing 50 additional units above the allocation within the Housing Land Audit. If approved that would more than compensate for this shortfall. 4.2.8 Overall, the principle of residential development is acceptable on this site and the development would be in accordance with policies E2 and DUN031 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies 1 and DUN018 of the Proposed FIFEplan in this regard.

191

4.3 Design, Layout and Levels 4.3.1 The SPP (Placemaking) advises that planning should take every opportunity to create high quality places by taking a design-led approach and planning should support development that is designed to a high-quality, which demonstrates the six qualities of successful place. These six qualities are distinctive; safe and pleasant; welcoming; adaptable; resource efficient and easy to move around and beyond. This is further expanded upon within the Scottish Government Policy document Designing Streets which states that an emphasis should be placed on design providing a sense of place and taking cognisance of the history and context of the surrounding area and design should connect and relate to the surrounding environment. 4.3.2 The Adopted Local Plan includes two key policies relating to design. Policy E3 requires new developments to respect the character, appearance and prevailing pattern of development of the adjacent townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. Policy E4 requires new development to make a positive contribution to its environment in terms of high standards of architecture, best use of site attributes, safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. The Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance provides further assessment considerations in this regard and provides a local context for national policy. Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that the Council will apply the six qualities of successful places when considering development proposals. 4.3.3 The site is located in an area which has previously been subject of a masterplan which was a requirement of the original consent. The masterplan indicates that this area would be a later phase of housing and would be connected to the west by vehicular routes and a pedestrian access just south of Old Duloch House. The SUDS pond for the site is shown in the north east corner adjacent to the motorway. Green buffers are shown to the south of Old Duloch House and to the south of and east of the site. 4.3.4 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) advises that new dwellinghouses shall have private garden ground of at least 100 square metres per dwellinghouse with 50 square metres of private amenity ground for flats. 4.3.5 The development is set out as a rough grid pattern which is set around two main routes into the site and through the site. The layout is considered to comply with the six qualities of place making in that the proposal is permeable and highly connected by pedestrian, cycling and vehicular links and would create a sense of place. It is noted that conventional streets dominate the development with 5.5m carriageways and 2m footways either side. These streets are broken by node areas and shared surface streets. A differentiation is also created between the two streets leading north with one having a block paviour appearance with footways and the other having a carriageway which is separated from the footway by a grass verge and trees. This would create two distinct streets making way finding easier and creating a distinctive sense of place for residents on both streets. In terms of the proposed units, it is noted that a variety of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties are proposed along with the flatted properties which are all 2 bed apartments. The layout is generally conventional with the majority of units being detached, two storey in height and having front driveways and conventional parking. Variety is created in the layout through the provision of green networks which helps to relieve the density of the site. 4.3.6 The context of the site is also important. The site is the last within the Masterton masterplan area and was previously approved for residential development. The site to the north was previously allocated as open space for the Masterton masterplan and thereby has not been proposed for residential development before. The development also connects into an existing

192

residential area to the west and it is the development to the west which this development takes its context from. This proposal follows the pattern already set by that development. This proposal however includes features and enhancements which take the development closer to the principles of Designing Streets and the six principles of place making which will be described throughout this section. The development is therefore considered to integrate well with the existing residential area to the west to which it connects while also providing its own sense of place.

4.3.7 In terms of the relationship with neighbouring development, it is noted that the proposed blocks of flats would be situated at the boundary with the steading conversion which did not form part of the previous residential development to the west and adjacent to the listed building to the north. In terms of the relationship with the listed building, it is noted that this property is enclosed by relatively dense trees which largely screens the house when the trees are in foliage. The developer also proposes to strengthen this through planting further trees around this edge. This would reinforce the separation between the flats and the listed building. The steading conversion is a mixture of one and one and a half storey properties, whilst the block of flats would be 3 storeys in height. The block of flats would also be elevated in terms of its ground floor starting height. The steading conversion is set within an area of predominantly two storey properties and is largely enclosed in this modern development. The nearest block of flats would be set back by between 31.5m and 36m from the steading conversion creating a significant separation distance. The stark difference in height between the properties in terms of design and visual impact would therefore be less apparent. It is not considered that the position of the flatted properties is inappropriate from a design and layout point of view. 4.3.8 Land raising would occur across the site to ensure that the drainage infrastructure within the site functions properly. This would result in the site increasing by around 1-2m in height almost centrally within the site. Land raising of around 1m would occur at the north west corner nearest the existing residential units. The land would gradually rise from west to east before following the current gradient in terms of a decline towards the eastern boundary. The units at the eastern boundary would be raised by around a metre. The land raising across the site would not have any significant visual impact and would not be easily apparent given the gradual change across the site. As there is a functional need for the land raising it is considered acceptable in this instance. 4.3.9 To enhance the streetscape of the site a number of principles of good design have been incorporated. This includes the provision of enhanced boundary treatment in areas where the boundary treatment would front prominent roads or would be the defining feature of a street. Stone walling and railings are proposed along the edge of the open space and at the side of gardens which are adjacent to the road. Front gardens are a mixture of hedges and street trees. Street trees are incorporated in a number of front and side gardens and in communal spaces. The tree officer has indicated that there may be scope for further trees to be provided within the streets and this should be added as a condition of any consent. Along the eastern boundary a 2.5m - 3m high acoustic fence is proposed with this reducing to 2.5m adjacent to the SUDS area. The acoustic fencing would be provided as the rear garden fence. These would be screened by a proposed landscape buffer to be planted along the edge of the development. In areas where junctions are proposed, innovative nodes are proposed with a number of units facing towards the node. Dual aspect units have not been proposed and therefore it is considered that some type of gable enhancement should be promoted along the nodes. This should be requested through condition. The detailing proposed for the streets relative to the proposed units would provide a high quality streetscape and environment different from the residential area to the west. 4.3.10 In terms of materials the development would use a combination of render and reconstituted stone. Both white and magnolia render is proposed to provide variety in the site. Modern concrete

193

grey roof tiles are also proposed. These materials are largely consistent with the majority of residential properties to the west and therefore are considered acceptable. 4.3.11 All of the detached and semi- detached residential units within the development would meet the Council's standards for private garden amenity space and minimum garden lengths. The blocks of flats however would not meet the requirements of the standards for garden ground. Based on there being 12 units within the block, there would be a requirement for 600sqm of private amenity space. The western most block is short of around 150sqm while the eastern block is short of around 250sqm. The requirement of 600sqm of amenity space specifically for these blocks would require a significant area of the site. It is noted however that these blocks would be situated next to the east/ west green network which would provide additional less formal amenity space. With this additional amenity space available and more than 350sqm of private amenity space being provided for each block, it is considered that sufficient amenity space is being provided for these blocks although they do not meet the requirements.

4.3.12 There are a number of greenspaces proposed through the site and these provide greenspace corridors from one street to another. Within the greenspace areas are footpaths and one also contains a play area. The SUDS area is also within a large area of greenspace. These greenspaces provide functional routes throughout the site which would create good pedestrian connections as well as green networks from one greenspace to another. These links are considered to provide good amenity for future residents and also reduce the overall density of the layout. The planting proposed within the area would also provide enhancement. 4.3.13 The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in design, layout, scale, density and form. A good standard of layout is proposed which follows the principles of Designing Streets and the creation of place. The layout is permeable by all modes of transport and connects well with the existing residential area to the west. A good mix of greenspace and built area is proposed with green networks and links throughout. Planting buffers are used to screen acoustic fencing and provide separation between more sensitive locations. The development relates well with the existing built form of the settlement and would create a pleasant environment which meets the six qualities of place making. The development is therefore in accordance with National Policy, the Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 4.4 Transportation 4.4.1 The national context for the assessment of the impact of new developments on transportation infrastructure is set out in SPP (A connected Place). The overarching aim of this document is to encourage a shift to more sustainable forms of transport and reduce the reliance on the car. Planning permission should be resisted if the development would have a significant impact on the strategic road network. 4.4.2 Policy 8 of SESplan states that Local Authorities should ensure that new development minimises the generation of additional car traffic through applying car parking standards that relate to public transport accessibility. In addition the policy states that LDP's should also ensure that the design and layout of new development demonstrably promotes non-car modes of travel and, should consider the merits of protecting existing and potential traffic free cycle and walking routes (such as disused railways) affected by any development proposals. 4.4.3 Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new development to be located where it is accessible to the public transport network; where there is capacity in the road network and where there is no road safety problem. New development should provide safe and convenient cycle and

194

pedestrian access; a safe route to school; cycle parking; the protection and integration of existing routes; a safe route to stations and public transport interchanges; and multiple points of access to the road network. Policy T2 requires new developments to make provision for pedestrians; traffic calming and a road layout that is in accordance with the Transportation Development Guidelines and the supplementary Designing Streets guidance. 4.4.4 The internal street layout provides a number of vehicular and pedestrian links to the road network. The development would extend McDonald Street and MacPherson Avenue to provide access to the site from the west. In addition pedestrian access can also be taken from the existing residential area to the west. The site in isolation thereby has multiple access points which in accordance with the guidance set out within the Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance. The site also links to the north where future development is proposed. This would provide a further two access points northward with an eventual connection to Aberdour Road to the north through the future residential area. The Proposed FIFEplan shows a green network connection from the north of the site to a north/ south footpath connection to the west of this site. This is achieved through the proposed footpath connections within this site but will also require similar footpath connections in any development to the north. With these connections in place the development would be highly connected and permeable to all modes of travel. 4.4.5 The provision of the footpath connection to the south of Old Duloch house also accords with the Masterton masterplan which showed a direct footpath connection from the west to this site. While this site cannot provide a direct footpath connection to the existing west/ east footpath, the proposal does include the provision of a footway up to its western boundary. The applicant however owns the private access outwith the proposal site and indicates that they intend to continue the footway northward beyond the site to connect to the pedestrian links to the west. This link would require crossing the existing private vehicular access for 6-8 Duloch Home Farm however this link has always been envisaged in the masterplan for the area. This would create a direct pedestrian link from this site to the area to the west thereby reducing conflict on this private road that currently exists between pedestrians and vehicles. While this link has been shown on the most up to date plans this is out with the application site. Details of the final link should be requested through condition in a pedestrian link strategy. Residents of the neighbouring Duloch Home Farm have raised concerns that a pedestrian footway shown on the western boundary and any other link shown on this private road would impact on their legal access rights. They have indicated that their title deeds provide for pedestrian and vehicular access over this private road and thereby the reduction in width of this road through the provision of the footway would reduce their vehicular rights. It is considered important to provide these links in accordance with the masterplan and provide pedestrian access however the rights of the affected residents should be respected. To resolve this conflict, the footway would be provided almost flush with the road with delineation provided by a rounded low kerb and the footway provided in a different material or colour. This would allow a vehicle to manoeuvre on the footway if required retaining the resident’s rights. This should be specified in a condition along with requiring final details. 4.4.6 In terms of parking, it is noted that the proposed garages do not meet the minimum internal dimensions to count as a parking space in accordance with the Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance. This leaves a number of the house types, one parking space short and would result in a shortfall of car parking overall for the site. TDM outlines however that as the site is part of the Masterton masterplan area and has an extensive planning history, the need for the garages to meet this relatively new standard garage size would not be required as this was not a requirement of previous consents within the area. Through including these garages as parking spaces, the development would have the required parking provision. TDM however have outlined that the proposal for the area to the north would be required to meet this standard.

195

4.4.7 The 24 flats in plots 76 - 99 require 40 communal car parking spaces and this has been provided. TDM do indicate however that the layout of the car park, adjacent access road, visitor parking spaces and driveway to plots 74 and 75 would result in a large area of hard surfacing. While this is the case, it is noted in the landscaping plans that this area would be broken up by landscaping of good quality and this should help to soften the impact of the large expanse of hard standing. The proposed 66 houses also require 17 visitor parking spaces. The drawings show that 18 visitor parking spaces are proposed throughout the site and thereby the standard would be met. 4.4.8 There was no Transport Assessment or Transport Statement submitted with the proposal. Given the history of this site, the impact of any development in this area on the road network was addressed within the Dunfermline SLA Transport Assessment and the FIFEplan Transport Appraisal. These documents concluded that the strategic intervention measures identified within the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan were sufficient to accommodate the developments proposed within the Dunfermline area. The proposal thereby would not have any detrimental impact on the wider road network in terms of traffic congestion subject to the completion of the identified interventions. The proposal is also part of the Masterton masterplan area which was required to provide significant road infrastructure and improvements to the wider road network. A TA has been submitted with the Meadowlands site to the north which identifies a potential issue with the Aberdour Road/B981 junction to at the eastern end of Aberdour Road when that site is added in conjunction with this site. This junction appears to be operating at capacity however TDM indicate that there is no practical means of fixing this issue without a significant intervention which is not planned. In addition, it would not be reasonable for the applicant to provide this intervention as the junction is already at capacity. The issue is not causing an impact on the wider road network and it is not considered that this development would cause any significant additional impact. The site is adjacent to the M90 motorway and thereby Transport Scotland have also been consulted. Transport Scotland have no objection subject to an appropriate contribution to mitigate the cumulative transport impacts of the proposal being sought in accordance with the Planning Obligations Framework Supplementary Guidance. This will be discussed further in section 4.4.9 of the report. 4.4.9 The Planning Obligations Supplementary Guidance (2015) states that sites of more than 10 houses require to provide a contribution to the strategic transportation interventions fund for works required by additional development proposed through the LDP. Through this framework a contribution of £5,100 per unit would be required for the strategic transportation fund within the core of Dunfermline. TDM have outlined that this contribution would not be required for this development as the site benefits from previous planning permissions which did not include this requirement. In addition the Masterton masterplan area required a number of strategic interventions to be undertaken to allow for its development and these have been implemented by the developer and previous developers. No planning contribution for the Strategic Transport Fund is therefore required from this development. 4.4.10 The proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on the road network. The site is designed to be permeable and well connected and has a largely acceptable internal layout subject to slight amendments required through condition. Both Transportation Development Management and Transport Scotland have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions. Overall, the development is considered acceptable in this regard and would accord with the relevant Development Plan policies. 4.5 Water/ Drainage/ Flood Risk

196

4.5.1 The SPP (Managing Flood Risk and Drainage) indicates that the planning system should promote a precautionary approach to flood risk taking account of the predicted effects of climate change; flood avoidance by safeguarding flood storage and conveying capacity; locating development away from functional flood plains and medium to high risk areas; flood reduction: assessing flood risk and, where appropriate, undertaking flood management measures. Development should avoid an increase in surface water flooding through requirements for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and minimising the area of impermeable surface. 4.5.2 Policies I3, I4, and I5 of the Adopted Local Plan advise that developments should not place unacceptable demands on public infrastructure including drainage systems, that developments will not be supported if they would increase the risk of flooding, nor will they be supported if Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or other similar appropriate measures are not undertaken. Consideration should also be given to the guidance contained within the Council's advice note on flooding and drainage. Policy 12 of the Proposed FIFEplan does not fundamentally change these considerations. 4.5.3 The SEPA flood risk map shows that the site is at medium to high risk of surface water flooding. This is concentrated to the south of Old Duloch House and around the private access to the steading conversion area. SEPA outline that they have no records of flooding at this site and have no objection to the proposal on this basis and that development is not proposed in this area. They do suggest that further assessment is undertaken to consider this risk and propose mitigation such as raised floor levels or landscaping to prevent ponding of surface water against buildings. It is noted that the surface water flood risk is in the area to the north of the proposed blocks of flats. This area includes large areas of landscaping as well as buildings. The surface water issues would thereby be resolved through the provision of better drainage through the development of these areas and improved landscaping being provided. Parts of the site in this location will also be regraded to provide better drainage for the units. This should avoid any significant flood risk for this development. Consideration should also be given to avoiding any flood risk being transported from the site to the private access road. It is therefore proposed that a condition be added requiring a drainage strategy for this part of the site which avoids the displacement of surface water within the site to the private road and avoids the further pooling of water on the private access from regrading. Any impact in this regard is unlikely to occur with the provision of enhancement along this stretch of the private access which would result in a drainage betterment however a condition is proposed to ensure there is no adverse impact to existing residents. 4.5.4 The site includes a SUDS basin within the northern part of the site. This would provide surface water filtration for the site and it is intended for the SUDS basin to discharge to a watercourse to the east utilising a culvert under the M90 motorway. Drainage information has been submitted with the application and further information was requested by Harbours, Floods and Coast. This information has been submitted however the consultee has had insufficient time to consider this. The proposed drainage is considered acceptable in principle however final approval of the drainage for the site should be outlined through condition ensuring that development does not start until this agreed. 4.5.5 The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the Approved Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 4.6 Residential Amenity

197

4.6.1 Policy E4 of the Adopted Local Plan supports development proposals which protect personal privacy and amenity. Policy E2 of the Local Plan supports development proposals where they are compatible with neighbouring uses and do not adversely affect the privacy of neighbours. PAN 1/2011 establishes the best practice and the planning considerations to be taken into account with regard to developments that may generate noise, or developments that may be subject to noise. Policy 10 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that development will only be supported if it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses. The policy sets out the considerations in this regard which includes impact from noise, traffic movements, construction impacts and loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. 4.6.2 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) complement the aforementioned policies by advocating that the design of residential environments must seek to ensure that adequate levels of natural light can be achieved within new development and unacceptable impacts on light or sunlight to nearby properties are avoided. Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings sets out British Industry Standards on the accepted distance between windows to ensure personal privacy is maintained. 4.6.3 The site is neighboured by residential properties to the north, west, south west and south. The property to the south is a considerable distance and would be relatively detached from the built development of this proposal. The properties to the south west (within the area recently approved and under construction) would have limited interaction with this development due to their location. Plot 1 within that development would have a gable window which would face towards the rear garden of plot 74 within this development. This may have some impact on the privacy standards within the rear garden of the proposed plot 74. Any future resident would be aware of this when purchasing their property and therefore this is not a significant issue worthy of refusal of the application. As the properties under construction are to the south of this proposal there would also be some potential for overshadowing within the garden of plot 74. This however would only be when the sun is due south, which is usually when the sun is at its highest. The garden would benefit from sunlight for the majority of the afternoon and early evening and is unlikely to be significantly impacted in summer. Again, the future resident would also be purchasing their property with the knowledge of the position of the neighbouring property. The impact on plot 74 is therefore acceptable. 4.6.4 In terms of the interaction between the development and Duloch Home Farm (steading conversion to the west), it is noted that the development would be set back from these properties by some 30m. Initially the western most block of flats (plots 76-87) was relatively close to these properties. The applicant was requested to move the block further east which has been undertaken. The minimum window to window distance required between properties is 18m and the block of flats and the semi-detached properties to the south easily meet this standard. Another consideration in terms of privacy is the overlooking of gardens. There is no standard distance set for this, however as the minimum garden length designated by Fife Council is 9m, this could be assumed to be a reasonable distance standard in terms of a boundary to a neighbouring property. As there are no guidelines in this regard, there is no requirement for this distance to increase with height of property. The block of flats would be at least 19m from the boundary of the rear gardens of Duloch Home Farm. This is more than double that which is applied between two properties using the 9m garden length requirement and is therefore considered acceptable in this instance. It is noted that the block of flats would have three storeys which may increase the likelihood of overlooking however this is not considered likely to result in a significant privacy issue given the distance achieved between the properties.

198

4.6.5 The block of flats would be elevated relative to Duloch Home Farm. The submitted cross section shows that the finished floor level of the nearest block of flats would be 2m higher than Duloch Home Farm on its eastern side and around 1.1m higher on its western side although this would not result in the western side being any lower overall. The site of the flats currently is raised due to soil mounds however the overall change in height from current ground levels (if these were removed) would be between 1 – 1.5m. It is not considered that the block would be overbearing given the distance between properties however there is the potential for the building to cause some overshadowing to the neighbouring properties given its overall height and it being slightly elevated. The standard 25 degree daylight test has shown that there would be no significant loss of daylight to the properties within Duloch Home Farm. There is the potential for the block of flats to cause some overshadowing towards the end of the rear gardens of these properties during the morning hours of the day. This test is carried out at the equinox (March 21) and shows at most one of the properties rear gardens would be partly shadowed for 1.5 hours and another for 1 hours. This would be for a limited period and is unlikely to affect a large portion of the garden given the existing boundary treatment and distance between the block and these gardens. The gardens are likely to retain good levels of sunlight during the rest of the day when it is presently received. Any overshadowing effect is likely to be minor and concentrated towards the rear of the gardens. The BRE Sunlight and Daylight Guidance states that at a garden should retain at least 2 hours of sunlight a day following neighbouring development. This would easily be achieved in this scenario. It is therefore considered that this would not cause any significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of these properties. 4.6.6 Old Duloch House is located to the north of the property and surrounded by trees. The property has a large expanse of garden. A 10m buffer zone has been retained around the site boundary to retain the setting of this property given it is a listed building and thereby there would be limited interaction between this site and that property in terms of loss of residential amenity. Given the proximity of the existing residential properties, a scheme of works would be required which would specify measures to mitigate construction noise, dust and outline good working practises and working hours. 4.6.7 Internally, all the properties meet the minimum window to window distances between habitable windows apart from the eastern most block of flats which would be within 18m of the front windows of the properties to the south. This is not considered to be significant as these are windows to the front of the property which although may be to habitable rooms, would expect a lower standard of privacy given there is low front boundary treatment and that the road is only 6m from the window. It is also noted that the proposal is only marginally short of the standard in this area. The future residents of both the flats and these properties would be aware of the situation prior to purchase. Due to the rough block pattern of the site layout and the relationship of some of the properties within the site, there is likely to be some overshadowing of some of the proposed gardens from neighbouring proposed properties. This is probably only likely to be noticeable within plots 47, 66 and 225 which have rear gardens which are surrounded by a number of properties many of which are due south. It is unlikely that this would cause any significant harm to residential amenity with daylight unlikely to be affected due to the open aspect. Again, these property owners would also be buying on the knowledge of the position of neighbouring properties. The relative distance between the gardens and neighbouring properties should also reduce any impact. 4.6.8 The site is located adjacent to the M90 motorway and thereby properties towards the eastern edge of the site have the potential to be affected by road traffic noise. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment with the application which considers this potential impact. The noise assessment noted that some type of barrier would be required to provide mitigation for the properties in this location. The proposed noise barrier proposed would be a 2.5m high acoustic

199

fence at the rear of plots 32 to around 230, increasing to 3m between 229 and 226. A 2.5m acoustic fence would be provided between the SUDS basin and the motorway. With this acoustic barrier chosen a further noise assessment was undertaken which proved that habitable rooms within the properties would easily meet the minimum noise standards. The gardens would be within acceptable limits although they would be toward the upper limit of acceptability of between 54dB and 55dB. The British Standard on noise notes that the optimum noise in gardens is 50dB or less however 55dB would be considered the upper limit. This could however be accepted in urbanised areas or near busy transport routes. Given the proximity of the motorway this standard has been considered acceptable for this site and Public Protection have indicated that this is acceptable. They have asked however that a condition requiring validation of the noise levels within the properties be provided prior to habitation. 4.6.9 The noise mitigation would result in the properties along the eastern edge of the site having a 2.5-3m high acoustic fence. This could be to some degree imposing on residents, however as it would only be between 0.7m and 1.2m higher than a standard fence this is not considered unacceptable. It is also noted that the gardens in this area are more than the minimum length and area and thereby would retain a good degree of amenity. Behind the fence also would be a buffer of vegetation providing some visual amenity. The planting of the fences would help provide some softening and this should be a condition of any consent. Updated plans of the landscaping in this location and updated boundary treatment plans should be requested through condition. 4.6.10 The proposed development would not have a significant impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. There may be some minor impacts in terms of overshadowing and privacy however these are not significant and would not be considered to breach acceptable standards. Internal residential amenity in terms of privacy, loss of daylight and sunlight is largely within the acceptable standards although some plots may suffer some minor impact. The noise from the motorway can be adequately mitigated and therefore it is considered that the development complies with the Development Plan, Proposed FIFEplan and National Guidance in this regard. 4.7 Open Space, Play Provision, Landscaping 4.7.1 The SPP in terms of sustainable development advocates the protection of, enhancement and promotion of access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment. The part of the policy aimed at maximising the benefits of Green Infrastructure sets out a set of policy principles to help guide the delivery of this. The planning system should ensure this is an integral element of places, facilitate the long term integrated management of Green Infrastructure and provide for easy and safe access to Green Infrastructure. 4.7.2 Policy E5 of the Adopted Local Plan states that housing proposals of 10 houses or more are required to provide a minimum of 60sqm of total open space per household, alongside accessible and secure equipped play, sport and recreational facilities commensurate to the scale of development. It also insists that maintenance arrangements are established for public and common areas, and where it is proposed to pass such spaces to the Council, a 25 year maintenance fee shall be passed to the Council. 4.7.3 Fife Council's Making Fifes Places Planning Guidance sets an aspiration that all residents within Fife will be within 250m of a 0.2 hectare area of open space. If this is the case then a development site will not be expected to provide green space on site but the open space requirement can be met through a contribution per house towards the upgrade of the existing open space. Local equipped play areas must be provided on site for developments which have over

200

200 houses that are more than 500m from an existing equipped play area. Generally new housing within 500m walking distance of an existing equipped play area will not be required to provide these facilities on site but may be required to make a financial contribution to the upgrade of existing facilities. 4.7.4 Based on the standard set within Policy E5 of the Adopted Local Plan, the site would be required to provide 5400sqm of open space. The development provides this through a number of usable open space areas within the site. The main area of open space is at the south west corner of the site and this would integrate with open space approved through a neighbouring consent. This area alone is over 2200sqm and contains a small play area. In accordance with the Making Fife's Places Planning Guidance this development would not require to provide a play area as it is less than 200 units however when considered with the area to the north the whole development would be over 200 units. In addition the closest play area is almost 400m to the north west when measured from the edge of this development. A play area has therefore been proposed with this development. Full details of the play equipment have not been provided at this stage and this should be requested through condition. A monetary contribution of £1,000 per market unit is usually requested for play provision and it would be expected that at least this amount is used for the play equipment. 4.7.5 The proposal includes a good variety of landscaping and the open space including shrubs, trees and meadowland planting which would create more attractive spaces compared to areas of primarily amenity grassland. The landscaping proposed throughout the site is considered to be of high quality and would add the overall appearance of the development. 4.7.6 Overall, the development would meet the requirements of the Adopted Local Plan and relevant Planning Guidance in this regard. 4.8 Visual/ Landscape Impact 4.8.1 Policies E3, E4 and E15 of the Adopted Local Plan state that new development must make a positive contribution to the quality of its immediate environment and, amongst other criteria, retain, enhance, protect and be sympathetic to the landform and landscape quality of an area. Any significant adverse impacts, including those on the natural environment, will not be supported. New development must make a positive contribution to the quality of its immediate environment both in terms of its environmental impact and the quality of place it will create. 4.8.2 The development site would be situated at the edge of the settlement but the site is largely secluded from most views from outwith the settlement. A tree belt to the south screens views from this direction and the level difference between the motorway and the site obscures the majority of views from the motorway itself. Wider views from this direction are obscured by topography between the site and other residential areas. The main change arising from the proposal would be the formation of housing in the area of the site adjacent to the motorway. This would change the view of the settlement edge from the motorway. As noted, the views into the site from the motorway are currently largely obscured. When travelling north it is not until the motorway rises to be closer to level with the site that views are possible and travelling south, views are not possible until after the Aberdour Road flyover. Passing views of the site are possible and currently the site presents a large open space with housing in the short to medium distance and the prominent area of trees surrounding Old Duloch House. 4.8.3 The proposal for the eastern boundary of the site is to have an acoustic screen in the form of a fence along with screen planting. A bund is likely to be required for the development land to

201

the north however this does not currently have consent. Screen planting would obscure views of the fence or any other acoustic barrier over time. Views of the housing over the top of the fencing and landscaping would be possible. Given that only fleeting views of the site, predominantly while travelling south, are currently possible (apart from in slow moving traffic where views would be more prolonged) it is not considered that this change would be significant. The site has been allocated for housing for some time and there is already a backdrop of housing development in the short to middle distance. Having a landscape buffer with housing behind would not create an adverse visual impact. It is also noted that when travelling along the M90 in this area, there are only fleeting views into Dunfermline due to the various bunds, areas of landscaping and flyovers which obscure views. This would not greatly change this experience. 4.8.4 The proposal would not have any significant landscape or visual impact with screen planting proposed to soften the proposed acoustic barrier and to some degree the housing units. The proposal therefore would be in accordance with the Development Plan in this regard. 4.9 Built Heritage 4.9.1 In general terms the SPP (2014) states that the planning system should promote the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment and its contribution to sense of place, cultural identity, social well-being, economic growth, civic participation and lifelong learning. The planning system should also enable positive change in the historic environment which is informed by a clear understanding of the importance of the heritage assets affected and ensure their future use. Change should be sensitively managed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the fabric and setting of the asset, and ensure that its special characteristics are protected, conserved or enhanced. 4.9.2 Policy E8 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development affecting a listed building, or its setting, shall preserve the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. The design, materials, scale and siting of any development shall be appropriate to the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting. Policy 14 of the Proposed FIFEplan replicates this policy. 4.9.3 The main consideration in this regard would be the relationship between the development and the Category A listed Old Duloch House. The consideration of the impact would largely relate to the impact of the blocks of flats on the setting of the listed building as the majority of the other residential units are some distance from the listed building and would in most views not be seen in the same setting. As noted previously, this site has been allocated for residential development for some time and has had previous detailed consents for the residential development. It has always been accepted that the wider setting of the listed building would be subject to change from the current open aspect it is situated within. 4.9.4 The main views to the house are fleeting across the site from the motorway and from the north from Aberdour Road. The Built Heritage Officer has been consulted and considers that in principle the development of the area of residential development is acceptable however feels that hard landscaping or car parking against the boundary of the curtilage of the listed building would be insensitive to its setting. The applicant has since revised the area of the site associated with the block of flats to pull the parking area further south and provide a buffer between the block of flats, parking area and the curtilage of the listed building. A 10m buffer is achieved in the south east and south west corners of the curtilage of the Listed Building. The buffer area contains a footpath but is free from other development. The buffer at its thinnest would be 6m and this is where the curtilage of the listed building juts towards this development site. Either side of this the

202

buffer is consistently above 7m wide and over 8.5m wide for the majority of its distance. The buffer achieved here is considered sufficient particularly as the listed building itself is further to the north and screened by trees. 4.9.5 The buffer itself would be a mixture of shrubs, grasses and trees. It is considered that additional trees could be planted in this buffer area to provide further screening and this should be included in the condition requiring further trees across the site. The planting towards the south east corner of the listed building however is a 10m wide tree belt which is proposed to travel northwards into the neighbouring site. This would be a considerable belt of trees which would provide significant screening for the flats particularly in views from the north from Aberdour Road. It is unlikely that the listed building and the flats will be easily visible in the same context, particularly from the north, when these trees are established.

4.9.5 With the development being set off the boundary of the listed building and planting being provided between the development and the curtilage of the listed building it is considered that the setting of the listed building has largely been retained. The proposed blocks of flats would not adversely affect the setting of the listed building with the existing trees which would be enhanced by further planting. The setting of Old Duloch House would therefore largely be retained within its immediate surroundings. The proposal therefore would be in accordance with the Development Plan in this regard. 4.10 Natural Heritage/ Trees 4.10.1 SPP (Valuing the Natural Environment) states that developers should seek to minimise adverse impacts through careful planning and design, considering the service that the natural environment is providing and maximising the potential for enhancement. Planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. Direct or indirect effects on statutorily protected sites will be an important consideration. 4.10.2 Policy E21 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development that will have an adverse effect on European Protected Species will not be permitted unless the developer meets the specified criteria. Policy E23 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that development that may affect national and local priority habitats or species, as identified in the Scottish Biodiversity List or Fife Local Biodiversity Action Plan, will not be permitted unless the developer submits an appraisal showing that there will be no adverse effect on the habitat or species within the ecosystem, or, any significant adverse effect is clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of significant local importance. The policy concludes by stating that all development should contribute to the overall environmental enhancement by taking into account the benefits to biodiversity as per Policy E3. Policy 13 of the Proposed FIFEplan also outlines that development proposals will only be supported where they protect or enhance natural heritage. 4.10.3 The proposal has been supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. It notes that much of the site is of little value in terms of ecology with the natural heritage interest being restricted to boundary vegetation. There are however areas of trees/ woodland along the south site boundary and the boundary with Old Duloch House. No evidence of protected species was found although there was suitable habitat for badgers and reptiles. The Appraisal recommends that further surveys for reptiles and badgers are undertaken prior to works starting to ensure that no protected species has moved into the site given their mobility. The Appraisal also outlines enhancement proposals such as tree planting and provision of long grass.

203

4.10.4 It is noted within the landscaping plans, that the areas of interests are largely retained within the proposal. A buffer has been included around Old Duloch House where the vegetation would be enhanced. The southern and eastern boundaries are also to be retained and enhanced. The Council's Natural Heritage officer is content with the conclusions of the Appraisal but would like to see the mitigation and enhancement measures secured through condition. This would include the planting of additional trees and areas of long grass not shown on the landscaping plans. The applicant has agreed to this being a condition of any consent. 4.10.5 There are no significant trees within the site however there are significant areas of trees neighbouring the site around Old Duloch House and in the land to the south. Initially the Council's Tree Officer expressed concern that the car parking and bin stores for the flats were too close to the trees around Old Duloch House and could impact on these trees roots. The buffer in this area has been increased. While a footpath is shown through this area, the footpath could be constructed in a material which would not impact on the roots. The Tree Officer outlines that they require details of tree protection measures and this should be added as a condition of any consent and should be implemented during construction to avoid any impact on the trees. 4.10.6 The site is not of significant natural heritage importance and no protected species were found on site. The development therefore would have no significant impact on natural heritage subject to the mitigation and enhancement measures within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal being secured. The development is therefore in accordance with the Development Plan in this regard. 4.11 Affordable Housing 4.11.1 Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan advises that housing proposals must accord with the strategic plan housing land requirement and this is further considered in Fife Council's updated Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011). Policy 2 of the Proposed FIFEplan states that open market housing development must provide affordable housing at the levels shown in Figure 2.2 for each Housing Market Area (HMA), consistent with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance. This should be fully integrated into new development and be indistinguishable from other forms of housing. In order to achieve mixed and balanced communities, mixed tenure developments will be promoted. 4.11.2 The original consent for the Masterton masterplan area required 5% of the land to be allocated within the masterplan for affordable housing. This was shown in an area to the north west of this site. While planning permission was approved for affordable housing in this area, due to substantial objections the Registered Social Landlord did not construct the site. Since then, each subsequent residential site has been required to provide affordable housing for their own specific development. This development is therefore required to provide 25% affordable housing in accordance with the requirements for this Housing Market Area. The applicant has agreed to this being provided and this would be secured through a planning obligation. The applicant has still to agree the mix of affordable housing with an appropriate RSL but they would be offering at least 23 of the units on site. 4.11.3 The proposal would provide 23 units (or 25% of the proposed units) for affordable housing which would be in accordance with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan in this regard. 4.12 Education

204

4.12.1 Policy D1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new developments to make appropriate payments to offset the effects of the development on local infrastructure and services. Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan would also be relevant to this application. This has been amended through examination to state that developer contributions will be sought in relation to development proposals that will have an adverse impact on infrastructure capacity. The kinds of infrastructure to which this policy applies include transport, schools, affordable housing, greenspace, public art and employment land. The contributions will mitigate development impact by making a contribution to existing infrastructure, or providing additional capacity or improving existing infrastructure; or providing new infrastructure. This is reinforced in the Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015). 4.12.2 The Education Service has been consulted and indicates that this development is within the catchment of Woodmill High School, St Columbas Roman Catholic High School and Masterton Primary School and St Johns Roman Catholic Primary School. Education have indicated that Woodmill High School and Masterton Primary School have capacity issues which require a solution. 4.12.3 There are three sites proposed within the Masterton Primary School catchment, these include this site, Meadowlands to the north and Dover Heights. The Dover Heights site is allocated for 225 units within the Proposed FIFEplan however no application has yet been submitted. The solution for Masterton Primary School taking these sites into account would be a four class extension at the cost of £1.9million which would be borne by these three sites. The solution for Woodmill High School is still under review and will be subject of an update to the Planning Obligations Framework in due course. 4.12.4 As noted this site forms part of the Masterton masterplan area which is part of the Dunfermline Expansion area (DEX). Since 2009 a consistent approach has been applied in the accumulation of education contributions in this area. In 2009 a report was submitted to the City of Dunfermline Area Committee which outlined that the planning permissions within the DEX area were in the process of being extended and that the planning permissions in these areas had no provisions for taking education contributions although capacity issues in terms of Primary School provision were anticipated. This report however said that there was justification in requesting education contributions if any subsequent detailed applications were made for proposals with an uplift in unit numbers above their allocation within the associated Local Plan. This report states that £6,000 should be taken for every uplifted unit. This agreed position has been applied consistently in the Masterton masterplan area given the consents in place and would be applied here instead of the Planning Obligations Framework criteria for calculating contributions. 4.12.5 At this time this site (along with the area to the west) was allocated for 160 units. The area to the west developed for 135 units by which was an uplift of 55 units as this was only the delivery of 50% of the land area and on the basis of £6,000 per unit, £330,000 was provided. Taking this forward to this site, 26 units have already been delivered on this eastern part of the site and with this additional 90 units the over provision for this half of the site would be 36. The required contribution would thereby be £216,000. The applicant however has agreed to index link this payment since the contribution level was set in 2009 and through this exercise the payment has been agreed at £236,844. This would provide the portion of the cost of the Primary School solution directly attributable to the development of this site, with the balance to be spread across the remaining two sites. 4.12.6 The agreed process for the DEX area was to address general education issues and this has in the past been mostly used to resolve Primary School issues. However, there is a known

205

capacity risk at Woodmill High School and a solution to all High School issues within Dunfermline will be addressed through the updated Planning Obligations Framework. To resolve the High School issue the applicant has offered to make a contribution of £182,871. This has been calculated based on a per unit figure which will be applied in the updated Planning Obligations Framework to the uplifted units. For the purpose of this exercise, 25% of the units would not provide contributions as this would be the affordable element as required within the Planning Obligations Framework. As the policy applied to the DEX area, due to existing consents, does not apply to acquiring High School payments, this contribution is largely voluntary by the developer in order to assist in addressing the capacity issues at Woodmill High School. Further contributions will be taken across Dunfermline to address all High School capacity issues in due course. It is considered that this contribution has been calculated fairly and would be a reasonable amount to take from this site given its planning history and potential associated impacts. 4.12.7 Overall, this development would be required to contribute £419,715 for education purposes. This area is the last of the Masterton masterplan area and thereby will be the last where the former DEX agreement is applied. Given the planning history for the site, this is the maximum this site can reasonably achieve on education contributions. This would not however create any shortfall in the delivery of the Primary School solution as the other sites would provide the additional contributions in this regard. The contribution level would not significantly increase for these sites by taking this approach. This proposal would provide a Secondary School contribution which would be added to the wider contributions taken for the Secondary School solutions of Dunfermline. While the Planning Obligations Framework has not been applied here, the proposal would comply with the Adopted Local Plan and Proposed FIFEplan as an appropriate level of contribution would be received to address educational capacity issues. 4.13 Public Art 4.13.1 Adopted Local Plan policy E14 requires all Major developments to make provision for public art. Supplementary guidance by the Council sets out further detail on how this should be achieved. Fife Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Guidance and Policy 4 of the Proposed FIFEplan sets out when public art is required and ties to the Making Fifes Places Supplementary Guidance (2015) which provides further details on how public art should be integrated into a site and when and where this should be provided. 4.13.2 As this is a Major application, public art would be required. The plans indicate that this would be integrated into the open space areas. A condition should therefore be applied requiring a Public Art Strategy for the site. 4.13.3 The development would comply with the relevant policies and planning guidance subject to the aforementioned condition. 4.14 Site Conditions, Stability, Minerals and Air Quality 4.14.1 PAN33 advises that suspected and actual contamination and instability should be investigated and, if necessary, remediated to ensure that sites are suitable for their proposed end use. Policy E6 of the Adopted Local Plan advises development proposals involving sites where land instability or the presence of contamination is suspected, the developer is required to submit details of a site investigation to assess the nature and extent of any risks presented by land stability or contamination which may be present and where risks are known to be present, appropriate mitigation measures should be agreed with the Council and where possible remediation strategies should be agreed prior to the determination of any planning application.

206

4.14.2 The Air Quality and Land Use Planning (2004) document and PAN51 (Planning and Environmental Protection) are relevant in considering how air quality matters are considered through the planning system. Policy 10 (amenity) of the Proposed FIFEplan states that development proposals that lead to a breach of National Air Quality Standards or a significant increase in concentrations of air pollution within an existing Air Quality management Area (AQMA) will not be supported. 4.14.3 The Council's Land and Air Quality Team has stated that the site has been agricultural land for much of its known history, however there may be an area of made ground within the site. They advise that a condition requiring notification to the Council of any unsuspected contamination that is encountered be applied to any consent. 4.14.4 The site is within an area designated as having a low risk in terms of coal mining legacy. An informative should be added to any consent outlining this. 4.14.5 The Council's Land and Air Quality Team stated that an Air Quality Assessment was required for the development. This has been submitted and concludes that the development would have no significant impact on air quality. The Assessment does however suggest that dust mitigation measures should be implemented during the construction phase to avoid any impact on amenity in this regard. A condition requiring a scheme of works would be added to any consent to consider this impact. The Council's Land and Air Quality Team have agreed with these conclusions. 4.14.6 The development therefore would have no impact in terms of land and air quality and would be in compliance with National Policy and the Proposed.

CONSULTATIONS Land And Air Quality - EPES Indicate that there may be made ground

within the site and suggest a condition be added requiring that the developer notifies the Council of any unsuspected contamination that is found. Also requested an Air Quality Assessment. This has been submitted and they agree that there is no significant air quality risk from this development.

Parks Development And Countryside No comments. Transportation No objections subject to conditions relating to

the adjustment of the road arrangement in one part of the site, driveway gradients, parking standards, visibility, garage size and wheel cleaning facilities.

Historic Environment Scotland No objections and no comments. Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objections. They do note part of the site

may be at risk from surface water flooding and indicate that mitigation for future

207

residents may be required. The proposed SUDS is acceptable to them.

Community Council No comments. Transport Scotland No objections subject to contribution being

sought for strategic interventions. Land And Air Quality - EPES No objections subject to condition on potential

contamination. Education (Directorate) No formal response received however interim

position has identified risk at Masterton Primary School and Woodmill High School. Masterton Primary School solution has been identified as 4 class extension at cost of £1.9 million. This should be spread over three sites within catchment.

Housing And Neighbourhood Services No response however 25% affordable housing applied.

Structural Services - Harbours, Flood And Coast

No objection in principle. Further information has been requested following submission of various pieces of information.

Environmental Health (Public Protection) - EPES

No objection as development has been shown to meet the required noise standards albeit the gardens would be towards the higher end of the spectrum.

Transportation And Environmental Services - Operations Team

No comments

Parks Development And Countryside No comments

REPRESENTATIONS

There have been 9 letters of objection received in relation to this application including follow up letters of objection from two residents following a period of further notification. The points of objection include: Residential Amenity: - The flats will overshadow neighbouring properties and their gardens; - The flats will be built on a higher level dominating the area; - The flats will reduce the privacy of neighbouring properties and their gardens; - Rise in noise and disturbance particularly during construction; - Impact from dust during construction; - Noise, pollution and disturbance during construction; -The proposed footpath connections would compromise the privacy and ambience of neighbouring properties.

208

Response: The objections dealing with the impact of the flats have been addressed in sections 4.6.4, 4.6.5 and 4.6.6 of the report. Noise and disturbance is a consequence of development but is controlled through other environmental statutory controls. Noise and disturbance from the development and the construction process is not a material planning consideration. The dust from construction is considered in section 4.14.5 of the report. The proposed footpath connections have always been envisaged for this area through the Masterton masterplan. This pre-dates the steading conversion development and other neighbouring development. It is not considered however that the increase in the footpath’s use would significantly reduce amenity for existing residents. Design and Built Heritage: - Block of flats are insensitive to character of Duloch Home Farm; -Compromise rural environment; - Boundary of the western site should include 1.8m high fences rather than low boundary treatment as shown; - Various plans have shown different forms of development in the part of the site where the flats are proposed. Flats are not considered appropriate and instead objectors would have expected two storey units at maximum; - Were told that a SUDS pond would be developed next to Duloch Home Farm. Response: The design aspects in terms of the relationship between the flats and Duloch Home Farm are considered in section 4.3.7 of the report. The objectors were concerned that the development would change the current rural environment setting. This site is allocated for residential development and thereby the area has been subject of change away from a rural environment since the late 90’s. It is presumed that the comment on boundary treatment refers to the boundary treatment for the block of flats rather than the semi-detached units as there is a proposed 1.8m high wall for the semi-detached units. The block of flats have a 1.3m high railing fence defining the boundary. Higher boundary treatment is not considered necessary and may also create a long length of footpath/ private road which has high boundary treatment on either side. It is not clear which plans the objectors are referring to in terms of the type of development that would be situated closest to their properties. The Masterton masterplan has always shown the SUDS to be located at the east of the site and the 2006 application has the SUDS in the same location. Two storey units are proposed in this location in the 2006 application. This however does not set a precedent, and while the blocks of flats may be undesirable to the neighbouring properties they are not considered unacceptable in terms of loss of residential amenity or design. Transportation Issues: - Access to this new estate will be via the single track road which is currently used by 9 houses plus a private house. This will impact on the objector's access to their property; -The proposed footpath connection from this development to the wider footpath network would reduce the width of the private road. This would be a health and safety risk for pedestrians as they cross when cars are using the road. Response: These matters are covered in section 4.4 of the report. Access to this site would not be via the private access and thereby there would be no direct access in terms of traffic. A proposed footpath connection is proposed and this would provide sufficient width for a vehicle and a delineated path for pedestrians to reduce the risk of conflict. Legal/ landownership issues: - The objectors indicate that they have right of access over part of the north west of the site and are concerned that it’s loss would impact on their rights;

209

Response: This would be a legal matter between the applicant and the objector and not a material planning consideration. This however has been resolved through an agreement that the footway would be constructed at almost grade with the road thereby allowing a vehicle to use it for manoeuvring if absolutely necessary. Delineation would be provided through kerbing and a different surface. This is outlined in section 4.4.5 of the report. Impact on infrastructure/ facilities - Impact on local services such as doctors, schools, dentists and community services. Response: The impact on education facilities is addressed in section 4.12 of the report and can be resolved. Impact on doctors, dentists and community services are considerations of the allocation of sites through the Development Plan process through consultation with the NHS. Constraints in this regard have not been identified for this site.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed development complies with the relevant policies within the Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) and Approved SESplan (2013) as the area is allocated for further residential development. The site remains allocation for residential development within the Proposed FIFEplan (2014). The design, scale and layout of the development is acceptable for the location and would be in accordance with site capacity for the Local Development Plan and Proposed FIFEplan allocation. The site is acceptable in design and layout and would create a development which would be permeable and well connected with the existing residential area to the west. Sufficient open space and landscaping is proposed that would create a strong sense of place and identity. The development is considered acceptable in all aspects and would not cause any significant harm in terms of amenity, flooding, transportation, built heritage and also would not adversely affect the natural heritage of the area. There are educational constraints for the area and a solution has been identified. This development would contribute to that solution. RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved subject to: The conclusion of a legal agreement relating to: 1) Provision of 25% affordable housing on site 2) £419,715 for education and the following conditions and reasons: 1. In the event that contamination not previously identified by the developer prior to the grant of this planning permission is encountered during the development, all works on site (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the local planning authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, works on site shall not recommence until either (a) a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority or (b) the local planning authority has confirmed in writing that remediation measures are not required. The Remediation Strategy shall include a timetable for the implementation and completion of the approved remediation measures.

210

Thereafter remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy. Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy a Validation Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, no part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the whole site has been remediated in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy and a Validation Report in respect of those works has been approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure all contamination with the site is dealt with. 2. BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ANY RESIDENTIAL UNIT, written confirmation shall be provided to Fife Council as planning authority that Scottish Water have agreed to the adoption of the foul drainage from the site. Reason: To ensure the site has adequate drainage infrastructure. 3. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS ON SITE, a Scheme of Works designed to mitigate the effects on sensitive premises/ areas (i.e neighbouring properties and road) of dust, noise and vibration from the proposed development shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as Planning Authority for written approval. The use of British Standard BS 5228: Part 1: 2009 (Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites) and BRE Publication BR456 - February 2003 (Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities) should be consulted. The Scheme of Works shall provide details of the proposed working times for the site during construction. Development shall take place in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. 4. BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT STARTS ON SITE, a scheme of tree protection measures to protect trees adjoining the site during construction shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt this shall include measures to protect the trees to the south of Old Duloch House and to the south of the site. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of protecting the trees neighbouring the site. 5. The footpath proposed to the south of Old Duloch House shall be constructed in a material which would avoid damage to the roots of the trees to the north. Prior to the construction of this footpath full details of the materials to be used shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: To protect the trees neighbouring the site to the north. 6. BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT STARTS ON SITE, final landscaping details shall be submitted for the written approval of Fife Council as planning authority. These details shall include a final landscaping plan with additional tree planting throughout the site and in particular along the adjoining boundary with Old Duloch House. Additional planting for the eastern boundary shall also be provided along with planting of the acoustic fences.

211

Reason: In the interests of amenity and providing screen planting for the listed building. 7. The landscaping proposed for the eastern boundary, as approved through the final landscaping scheme required by condition 6 of this planning permission, shall be completed in accordance with following timetable. - The landscaping for the eastern boundary with the M90 motorway shall be completed

contemporaneously with plots 32-36 and 226 -234. The landscaping along the eastern boundary shall be completed prior to the completion of the last residential units within these plots.

- The landscaping proposed to screen the acoustic barrier shall be complete within 6 months of completion of the acoustic barrier.

- The landscaping along the southern boundary shall be complete prior to the completion of the last residential unit within plots 20-31.

- The landscaping within the central open space which includes the play area shall be completed in accordance with the timetable for completion of the play area approved through condition 15 of this consent.

- All other landscaping shall be completed prior to the completion of the last unit on site.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition.

Reason: In the interests of amenity for future residents. 8. BEFORE EITHER OF THE BLOCKS OF FLATS ARE COMPLETED, the tree planting proposed around Old Duloch House shall be complete.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and providing screen planting for the listed building 9. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, details of the future management and aftercare of the proposed landscaping and planting shall be submitted for approval in writing by this Planning Authority. These details shall include consideration of the various habitats proposed on site and shall incorporate measures to promote biodiversity. Thereafter the management and aftercare of the landscaping and planting shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term. 10. All planting carried out on site shall be maintained by the developer in accordance with good horticultural practice for a period of at least 5 years from the date of planting. Within that period any plants which are dead, damaged, missing, diseased or fail to establish shall be replaced annually. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term. 11. BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT STARTS ON SITE a public art strategy including the details of the proposed items of work relating to this strategy shall be submitted for the written approval of Fife Council as Planning Authority. The strategy shall demonstrate that the value of the works contributing to the public art strategy shall meet the terms of the Council's Guidance on Public Art

212

in terms of the financial value of the items of work. The strategy shall propose a scheme of public consultation which shall involve Local Members and local community group or groups (if available) and shall include a phasing timescale for the implementation of the public art works. Thereafter the public art works shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the details and phasing approved under this condition. Reason: To ensure the development contributes to the quality of the environment and meets the terms of the Council's guidance on public art. 12. Gable enhancement shall be provided on plots 38, 46, 52, 56, 57, 62, 67, 218, 222 and 226 as identified on drawing 201451/02/08 B approved through this application. BEFORE ANY WORK STARTS ON SITE, full details of these gable enhancements shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition.

Reason: In the interests of design and passive surveillance. 13. The mitigation and enhancement measures as set out within section 4.5 of the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (RSK – November 2016) shall be carried out on site. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and ecology. 14. The acoustic barrier specified on drawing number 20451/02/08 B approved through this application shall be fully constructed prior to the occupation of any residential unit on site. Before the occupation of any residential property on site but after completion of the noise mitigation measures, a further noise survey shall be submitted to Fife Council as planning authority to demonstrate that the following internal sound levels can be achieved with windows open for ventilation:

a The 16hr LAeq shall not exceed 35dB between 0700 and 2300 hours when readings are taken in any noise sensitive rooms in the development. b The 8hr LAeq shall not exceed 30dB between 2300 and 0700 hours when readings are taken inside any bedroom in the development. c The LAMax shall not exceed 45 dB between 2300 and 0700hrs when readings are taken inside any bedroom in the development. d The 16hr LAeq shall not exceed 55 dB between 0700 and 2300 hours when readings are taken in outdoor amenity areas. No properties shall be occupied until written confirmation from Fife Council as planning authority has been received that this report is acceptable. Before occupation of any of the residential units between plots 31-37 or 226-234, written evidence shall be submitted to Fife Council as planning authority to demonstrate that the above internal sound levels have been achieved with windows open for ventilation. None of these properties shall be occupied until written confirmation Fife Council as planning authority has been received that they are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided. For the avoidance of doubt evidence is not required for each of these plots, but one plot within this range which can be used as a suitable example for the others.

213

If it cannot be demonstrated that the aforementioned sound levels have been achieved, a further scheme incorporating further measures to achieve those sound levels shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. All works comprised within those further measures shall be completed and written evidence to demonstrate that the aforementioned sound levels have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development is first brought into use.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring the residential amenity of these properties is to an acceptable standard.

15. BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL UNIT, full final details of the play equipment to be provided within the play area shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. This shall include a timetable for completion of the play area. For the avoidance of doubt this shall specify by which unit completion the play area will be provided. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of providing adequate play provision for the site. 16. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON START, full final drainage details for the site shall be submitted for the written approval of Fife Council as planning authority. This shall include a drainage strategy which considers surface water flooding on the existing shared access road to the west and proves that the development of the flatted blocks would not result in exacerbation of any surface water flooding issues. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of mitigating flood risk. 17. All works done on or adjacent to existing public roads shall be constructed in accordance with the current Fife Council Transportation Development Guidelines. All roads and associated works serving the proposed development shall be constructed in accordance with the current Fife Council Transportation Development Guidelines. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design in layout and construction.

18. BEFORE THE OCCUPATION OF ANY DWELLING, the associated carriageways and footways shall be provided to at least binder level, including operating roads lighting, on all the roads and footways leading to and fronting that dwelling. Reason: To ensure adequate access to occupied dwellings. 19. Prior to the occupation of a residential unit, its associated access driveways shall be constructed to the satisfaction of Fife Council as Planning Authority at a gradient not exceeding 1 in 10 (10%) and shall have appropriate vertical curves to ensure adequate ground clearance for vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction.

214

20. The construction and delineation of the shared parking, manoeuvring, servicing, turning and access driveway areas shall be to a standard acceptable to Fife Council as planning authority. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction. 21. Visibility splays 2.5 metres x 25 metres shall be provided and maintained clear of all obstructions exceeding 600mm in height above the adjoining road channel level, at all internal road junctions, prior to the first occupation of any residential unit which will require to use this junction to access the property. The visibility splays shall be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visibility at the junctions of the vehicular access with the public road. 22. All roadside boundary markers shall be maintained at a height not exceeding 600mm above the adjacent road channel level through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visibility at road junctions. 23. There shall be provided within the curtilage of the site 2 No parking spaces per house type Andrew, Baxter and Chalmers for vehicles in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The parking spaces shall be provided prior to house occupation and be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 24. There shall be provided within the curtilage of the site 3 No parking spaces per house type Douglas, Fairbairn, Geddes, Maxwell, Moore, Stewart and Wallace for vehicles in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The parking spaces shall be provided prior to house occupation and be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 25. Prior to occupation of the 50th residential unit, a minimum of 18 visitor car parking spaces shall be completed and usable on site. All visitor car parking spaces shall be provided prior to the completion of all residential units within the site and be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visitor parking facilities. 26. Prior to occupation of the first flatted unit, the 40 No. parking spaces (24 No. within the car park and 16 No. within parking bays adjacent to the prospectively adoptable roads) for Plots 76 – 99 shall be provided in accordance with the current Fife Council Parking Standards. The remaining parking shall be completed prior the final occupation of blocks of flats. All parking spaces for the

215

flatted units shall be for communal use only and be retained through the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking facilities. 27. All garages adjacent to dwellinghouses shall be located at least six metres from the road boundary and all driveways in front of dwellings having a minimum length of six metres from the road boundary. Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate space for vehicles to stand clear of the public road. 28. BEFORE ANY WORK STARTS ON SITE, full details of adequate wheel cleaning facilities to be provided and maintained throughout the construction works so that no mud, debris or other deleterious material is carried by vehicles on to the public roads shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council, as planning authority. The approved facilities shall be provided, retained and maintained for the duration of operations on the site. Reason: In the interests of road safety and removing deleterious materials from the road. 29. BEFORE ANY WORKS STARTS ON SITE, an access strategy for pedestrian connections to the west of site shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. This shall include the following: - Details of a footway connection heading west and north from the site to connect to the existing footpath network to the west of the site. - Updated details of the footway shown travelling north to south on the western boundary of the site. This footway shall be provided at almost grade with the existing road and details of how this would be delineated from the road shall be provided. - Details of warning signs at either end of end of the private access road to the west of site warning the users of this access that it is used by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. - A timetable for delivery of these aspects. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and cyclist safety. 30. BEFORE ANY WORKS STARTS ON SITE, final boundary treatment details shall be submitted and approved in writing by Fife Council as planning authority. This shall include updated details for the acoustic fence along the eastern boundary. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition. Reason: In the interests of design and visual amenity. 31. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, an updated layout plan shall be submitted providing details of the streets fronting Plots 56 - 63 being provided with a carriageway width of 5.5 metres and 2 metres wide footways on both sides of the carriageway. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved through this condition.

216

Reason: In the interest of road safety; to ensure the provision of an adequate design layout and construction.

32. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, full details of the proposed arrangements for the management and aftercare of all landscaping areas (including the play area) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the management and aftercare of the landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term.

STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS

In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. National Policy and Guidance: SPP - Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Designing Streets (2010) PAN 65 Planning and Open Space (2008) PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land (2000) PAN 2/2010 Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits (2010) PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise (2011) Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance and other material considerations: SESPlan Strategic Development Plan (2013) Adopted Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012) Fife Councils Transportation Development Guidelines as an appendix to Making Fife's Places Planning Policy Guidance (2015) Fife Council's Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) Making Fifes Places Planning Policy Guidance (2015) Proposed FIFEplan (Fife Local Development Plan 2014) Fife Council's Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing (2011) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Daylight and Sunlight (2009) Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on Garden Ground (2007) Housing Land Audit 2016 Fife Council's Planning Customer Guideline on Minimum Distances between Window Openings Report prepared by William Shand, Case Officer and Chartered Planner Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer

Date Printed 09/01/2017

217

Duloch House

Path

MIDDLEBANK GROVE

MCDONALD STREET

7

2

1

34

44

12

52

78

36

182

70

57

64

27

35

17

25

66

37

10

59

47

91

22

87

42

5

69

93

9

14

77

30

32

68

89

50

8

20

41

29

6

1

12

1

7

3

2

4

4

7

2

37

5

Old Duloch

Duloch Home Farm

Well

ESS

MACPHERSON AVENUE

2

11

97

196

184

172

109

160

34

174

14

PIN

KE

RT

ON

CR

ES

CE

NT

Play Area

MID

DLE

BAN

K R

ISE

Balancing Pond

9

22

Path

17

16/02341/FULL

Land to East of Old Duloch House, Aberdour Road, Dunfermline

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 25 50 7512.5m

Legend

218

COMMITTEE: WEST PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE DATE: 22/02/2017

ITEM NO: 4 (I) APPLICATION FOR MODIFY/DISCHARGE OF PLANNING OBLIGATION : 16/03630/OBL

SITE ADDRESS: LAND AT CAPLEDRAE FARM CARDENDEN PROPOSAL : DISCHARGE OF PLANNING OBLIGATION FOR PLANNING

APPLICATION 04/04012/WOPP RELATING TO UPGRADING OF FOOTPATH, POND CLEARANCE, ERECTION OF FENCE, GRAZING OF LIVESTOCK AND PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES.

APPLICANT: MR THOMAS MCGREGOR

5 MORAY PLACE EDINBURGH EH5 6DS WARD NO: NW07

The Lochs CASE OFFICER: Kathleen Illingworth

DATE REGISTERED:

09/11/2016

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application requires to be considered by the Committee because: The legal agreement was required following a Committee decision.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for:

Unconditional Approval ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

219

1.0 Background 1.1 This application relates to a planning obligation associated with planning permission 04/04012/WOPP for residential development, which was approved in July 2007. The Development Site was, at that time, located within the Ballingry Meadows Wildlife Site. This would normally preclude development but at that time it was considered that the northern part of the site had greatest nature conservation value, and required improved management for its preservation. The key justification for this development (04/04012/WOPP) is that it provided for the ongoing management of the northern part of the wildlife site". That consent was therefore issued subject to a legal agreement regarding the upgrading and maintaining in perpetuity of a footpath; the excavation of a pond, provision of access to the pond for the removal of gorse and bracken; the erection and maintenance in perpetuity of a stock proof fence around the site; and the formation of a graze area. For clarity, the planning obligation related to land outwith the Development Site approved by outline planning permission reference 04/04012/WOPP. 1.2 This current application is to discharge the whole of the planning obligation relating to 'the Land' at Capledrae Farm. 1.3 The Agreement refers to The Landowners Undertakings (part 5) a brief description of the undertakings follows;-

5.1 The Landowner undertakes within two months of this Agreement coming into effect to upgrade the existing footpath shown hatched red on the Plan to 1.6m wide with rolled hard-core and whindust finish, all to the satisfaction of the Council. The Landowner shall thereafter maintain the said footpath to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. 5.2 The Landowner undertakes within two months of this Agreement coming into effect to clear out to the Council's reasonable satisfaction the northern pond outlined in blue on the Plan, provided always that the Landowner shall not be hereby obliged to excavate hard rock. 5.3 The Landowner undertakes to erect and maintain a stock proof fence around the Plot to a standard acceptable to the Council within two months from the date of this Agreement coming into effect. 5.4 The Landowner undertakes within 2 months from the date of this Agreement coming into effect to make and keep available the Plot as a graze area with traditional breeds of sheep and/ or cattle or other breeds. The Landowner shall thereafter allow the Council access along routes to be agreed and at times to be agreed to the site for the periodical removal of gorse and bracken and to monitor the site in all time coming. For the avoidance of doubt there is no obligation on the Landowner to keep traditional breeds of sheep and/ or cattle on the Plot. 5.5 The landowner shall free and relieve the Council of their reasonable legal expenses in respect of the preparation and execution of this Agreement including the recording dues and expenses of obtaining two extracts thereof.

1.4 The Supporting Statement advises that the obligations have been met and should be discharged;-

220

Clause 5.1 requires the path to be formed from hard core. The Supporting Statement advises that a footpath has already been formed and is grassed. The applicant contends that the hard standing of the path would make the path more attractive to increased human pedestrian activity and would have an impact (detrimental) on the bird species in the locality.

Clause 5.2 states that the pond is to be cleared. The Supporting Statement advises that an attempt to clear the pond was made in 2014. Two trial pits were dug and both encountered bed rock. Additionally, the applicant contends that the clearing out of the pond would be against the ornithological interest outlined in the ornithological statement submitted (Brimley Associates).

A stockproof fence has been erected. The applicant contends that this meets the terms of Clause 5.3.

The Supporting Statement advises that the adjoining field is used from spring to autumn for the grazing of cattle. The applicant contends that this meets the terms of Clause 5.4.

The Supporting Statement states that an assumption can be made that Fife Council would have already recovered their reasonable legal expenses. The applicant contends that this meets the terms of Clause 5.5.

1.5 The planning history for the application site is as follows: 04/04012/WOPP - Outline planning permission for residential development. Approved at committee in line with officer recommendation 31 July 2007 following the conclusion of a Legal Agreement. 07/03340/WFULL - Erection of 55 dwelling-houses comprising 14 detached and 41 terraced units, associated access, parking, landscaping and drainage scheme. Refused at committee in line with officer recommendation 3 July 2008. 08/01343/WFULL - Creation of graded landscape strip and SUDS retention pond to service residential development. Refused at committee in line with officer recommendation 3 July 2008. 09/01159/WFULL - Formation of landscaping strip and SUDS basin with associated landscaping works. Approved under officer delegated powers 26 April 2010. 09/01160/WARM - Erection of 51 dwelling-houses with associated parking, roads and public open space. Approved at committee in line with officer recommendation 26 April 2010. 2.0 Assessment 2.1 Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements require that planning obligations meet all of the following five tests as set out in paragraphs 14-25 of the circular: - Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms - serve a planning purpose and, where it is possible to identify infrastructure provision requirements in advance, should relate to development plans - relate to the proposed development either as a direct consequence of the development or arising from the cumulative impact of development in the area - fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the proposed development

221

- be reasonable in all other respects 2.2 Policy D1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires new developments to make appropriate payments to offset the effects of the development on local infrastructure and services. Policy 4 of the FIFEplan Proposed Local Development Plan (2014) advises that developer contributions will be required from development if it will have an adverse impact on strategic infrastructure capacity or have an adverse community impact. Policy 4 also states that developments other than a change of use to employment land or leisure site, will be exempt from these obligations if they are for the conversion or renovation of an existing building, particularly if it is listed and if they are for the re-use of derelict land or buildings or previously development land. This current application does not relate to any financial developer contribution it is only to consider whether the obligation meets the five tests and must stand on whether it no longer meets the five tests and can be discharged. 2.3 As advised above, an outline planning consent 04/04012/WOPP was issued on the 31/7/07. This consent was issued subject to a legal agreement regarding the upgrading and maintaining in perpetuity of a footpath; the excavation of a pond, allowing the provision of access to the said pond for the removal of gorse and bracken; the erection and maintenance in perpetuity of a stock proof fence around the site; and the formation of a grazing area. 2.4 As per section 1.4 above some works to the path have been carried out, attempts have been made to clear the pond, a stock proof fence has been erected and cattle are grazed on the land. Fife Councils Natural Heritage Team has been consulted, since the works were carried out in relation to a Wildlife Site, and raise no concerns. 2.5 Notwithstanding the above (works already carried out), the planning obligations are assessed with regards to the tests of the Circular. As per section 1.1 above the planning obligation related to land outwith the Development Site approved by outline planning permission reference 04/04012/WOPP. Clause 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 require the landowner (not the developer) to take action within 2 months of the start of Development. Whilst the original intent was to secure improvements to the area for wildlife conservation purposes, these works have now been done in part and it is confirmed by the submitted supporting information that the outstanding works envisaged in the obligation could actually make the area less attractive to wildlife by encouraging more leisure / visitor use. The agreement no longer meets and do not appear to serve any planning purpose and can therefore be discharged. The requirement of Clause 5.5 has been met and it can also be discharged. 2.5 It is therefore considered that the planning obligations relating to Clause 5.1 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 are no longer reasonable and do not serve a planning purpose. It is therefore considered acceptable to discharge the whole planning obligation attached to application reference 04/04012/WOPP.

CONSULTATIONS Fife Councils Natural Heritage Team No Objections

REPRESENTATIONS

No representations have been received in relation to this application

222

CONCLUSIONS

The planning obligation attached to application reference 04/04012/WOPP is no longer necessary or reasonable. It is therefore considered that the Planning Obligation attached to application reference 04/04012/WOPP should be discharged. RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved unconditionally

STATUTORY POLICIES, GUIDANCE & BACKGROUND PAPERS

In addition to the application the following documents, guidance notes and policy documents form the background papers to this report. Development Plan Adopted Mid Fife Local Plan (2012) FIFEplan Proposed Local Development Plan (2014) Other Guidance/Legislation Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements Fife Council's Planning Obligations Framework Guidance (2015) Report prepared by Kathleen Illingworth, Case Officer and Planner. Report agreed and signed off by Mary Stewart, Service Manager and Committee Lead Officer Report prepared by

Date Printed 01/02/2017

223

Shelte

r

Play Area

Track

Ruin

Stone

Benore Care Centre

Place

Cottages

Garage

123.7m

111.9m

BALBEDIE

ESS

LO

CH

LE

VE

N R

OA

D

NE

W F

LO

CK

HO

US

E

AVENUE

7

2

518

1

49

52

200

202

40a

3

42

50

48

56

15

40

21

6

13

34 32

14

21

4

76

64

6347

198

37 90

87

2

Garage

2

1

Lister House124.

4m

Shaw Park

View

BALBEDIE AVENUE

18a

54

218

30

2024 26

75Shelte

r

BALBEDIE

3

AVENUE

52

40

16/03630/OBL

Land at Capledrae Farm, Cardenden

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Economy, Planning & Employabilty Services

Application Boundary

±0 20 40 6010m

Legend

224