09 03 03
Crathes, Drumoak & Durris Community Council
(CDDCC)
Minutes of Meeting
Tuesday
3 March 2009 – Drumoak Church Hall from 19.30 hours
1.
Sederunt
Community
Councillors: Jean Downie, David Morrish, Jenny
Watson, Diana
Aberdeenshire Councillors (Ward 18): Wendy Agnew, Graeme Clark
Aberdeenshire Councillors (Ward 16): Linda Clark
Apologies: Tony Butcher, Karen Clark, Ann Ross
Members of the Public: About twelve were present
2. Previous
Minutes
The
minutes of February 2009 were proposed
by Jenny Watson and seconded by David
Morrish and accepted as an accurate record, subject only to the observation
that Doug Allstaff had erroneously been referred to - in section 4 - as Don
Allstaff.
3. Presentation on behalf of CHAP in respect of
their
Doug
Allstaff invited CHAP to give their pre-arranged presentation. This was a Powerpoint presentation, given by
one representative from CHAP and two from Halliday Fraser Munro.
The declaredly
low-key presentation discussed the new planning process in outline, identifying
the stage at which it currently stands.
It went on to describe CHAP’s brief for their
Notwithstanding
earlier-published materials, CHAP wished to engender a broad-ranging public
consultation, to see what people wanted in such a village, and would be working
from “a blank sheet of paper”. An
indicative layout of the proposed village was shown, although it was stressed
that this was not pre-determined.
Their
objective was to get the Eco-Village included in the forthcoming Local
Development Plan.
David
Morrish made the point that there was no village in the existing Structure
Plan. He asked for confirmation that the
default situation, in the absence of further planning permissions, was that the
quarry would be reinstated to agricultural land, as laid down in previous
planning conditions. This was confirmed by
CHAP, although the point was made that further planning permissions could
change this. For example, CHAP might yet
apply for further sand and aggregate extraction permissions.
CHAP said
that they envisaged conducting their own consultation meetings and that they
would also wish to conduct 2 or 3 workshops, involving CDDCC and the public
and, ideally, a representative from Aberdeenshire Council Planning Department.
In
response to a question about possible integration with other proposed
developments and with Drumoak itself, CHAP said that it was open to CDDCC to
propose that, if it thought fit.
It was
accepted by CHAP that, were the proposal to proceed, an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) would be necessary.
Jenny
Watson made the point that, in any consultation, it must be clear to all that
CDDCC was “in the driving-seat”. This
was agreed by CHAP. The issue of the
cost of a consultation process was also considered. CHAP agreed, in the light of CDDCC’s limited
financial resources, to bear all relevant costs.
Doug
Allstaff thanked the representatives of CHAP for a useful presentation. They then left the meeting.
4.
Discussion of CHAP’s presentation
In
subsequent discussion, the following points were made:-
·
The
new Planning System was even more complex and opaque than the one that it
replaced
·
It
was not clear how the overlapping consultation processes of the Structure Plan
and Local Development Plan, not to mention the Developer Bidding process, the
Capacity Planning exercises and the Major Issues Paper were being conducted and
the significance of each. Nor was it
clear when and how comment on each of these was possible and permissible.
·
New
statutory powers had been introduced (coincidentally less than a week before)
which gave each Community Council the right and duty to “shape the development
of its own area”. This meant that, even
if developers might previously have chosen not to follow good practice by
involving Community Councils, they were now effectively compelled to so
do. These new statutory powers needed to
be investigated, even though the practical extent of them might only become
apparent with time.
·
It
was essential that CDDCC should act even-handedly, as between developers. In this connection, it was noted that Ryden,
acting on behalf of Stuart Milne/George Wight, had asked permission to make a
presentation. It was clear that CDDCC
should welcome this, as well as any presentations by developers behind other (smaller)
development bids in its area. By
rearranging scheduled presentations, it would be possible to accommodate Ryden
for the May meeting.
·
It
was clear that CHAP wished to bypass the question of whether or not there
should be a Park Eco-Village and to concentrate public discussion on what the
Village should be like. This had been
seen from CHAP’s extensive television and internet advertising campaign and
from the large advertising hoardings on the
·
It
was noted that members of CDDCC had given each other the assurances sought in
·
Unfortunately,
it was far from clear what the timescale needed to be for presentations and
consultations, in order to fit in with the ongoing SP/LDP process. It was apparent that CDDCC could be faced by
the need to run multiple parallel exercises on behalf of different developers,
who might in some respects be rivals.
·
It
was also noted that, by sponsoring a public consultation exercise in
conjunction with a developer, CDDCC might be seen to be endorsing the proposed
development. This was regarded as a serious
concern. The ideas of running public
consultations without the developers and, alternatively, of running
consultations with all developers jointly present were debated. It was recognised that, whilst these might avert
some pitfalls, CDDCC might not have the required managerial resources and time.
·
Graeme
Clark noted that there was an all-day session for Councillors on the Main
Issues paper on 25 April, hence this date might need to influence the timescales. David Morrish said that he believed that this
must effectively be to consider the questions raised in Piers Blaxter’s letter
of 2 December 2008, upon which CDDCC had already submitted its formal comments
(a copy of which had been circulated to Councillors).
·
It
was clear that Community Councils were breaking new ground in the development
planning area and that further discussion would be required. It was equally apparent that Councils and
Councillors were breaking new ground. It
was of no comfort whatsoever that it would be “easier the second time round”.
·
It
remained clear that CDDCC needed to be informed in its actions by the views of
its constituents. In this connection, a
public meeting had been organised during February in respect of the development
bids for Crathes, Woodlands of Durris and Kirkton of Durris. There had been insufficient resources to do
the same for the Drumoak area, but CDDCC had conducted an earlier public
meeting, about a new school for Drumoak, which had explicitly addressed the
issue of where any local housing development should be. Its current views were shaped by these two
sources.
·
There
was, however, an un-missable opportunity for CDDCC to gather further evidence by
including an appropriate questionnaire with the Parish Newsletter (which was to
be published imminently). This had the
particular advantages that (a) it was delivered to every household in Drumoak
and Durris and, by a long-standing arrangement with CDDCC, copies also being available
in Crathes - this latter being outwith the Parish (b) the forthcoming edition
would contain much background material about the developer bids, (c) a short
timescale was feasible for the questionnaire, which would be useful to inform
CDDCC’s short term actions. To print and
distribute the questionnaire with the Newsletter (Action:
·
It
was welcome that developers wished to engage with CDDCC and it was incumbent
upon CDDCC to respond as helpfully as possible.
Further discussion would, however, be necessary in order to decide how (even
whether) to engage in joint public consultation with developers and, more
particularly, at what stage in the process.
Clearly, consultation must not be driven by the commercial imperatives
of the developers.
·
The
difficulties of conducting meaningful public consultation when proposals were
lacking in detail were also considered.
It was thought possibly appropriate to defer public consultation – or at
least CDDCC’s participation in it – until a somewhat later stage. The public were unlikely to wish to be
consulted repeatedly and it might prove more productive to engage them when
proposals were better focussed. This, of
course, would run counter to the ideal of encouraging democratic involvement
from an early stage.
·
It
was clear that CDDCC needed to have further discussions on the complexities of
this whole area, before deciding how best to proceed. To do this prior to reverting to CHAP on
their suggestions (Action: CDDCC)
·
There
was also the opportunity during the statutory consultation period (finishing 24
April) to object to the “finalised” Structure Plan. Whether to so do and, if so, in what terms,
would be discussed at 7 April meeting of CDDCC
5. Potential Travellers’ Camp at Jackieshillock
David Irvine of Drum had reportedly contacted the Trustees of the Jackieshillock facility to clarify whether the restrictive covenant still existed.
Graeme Clark referred to an email from the Head of Planning confirming that Jackieshillock was currently being considered as a travellers’ site by Council officers. It went on to say that only if their initial assessment of the site indicated that it might be suitable for a transit site would the issue formally be raised with Councillors and “wide consultation with the local community” undertaken “either prior to, or as a result of, the submission of a planning application”.
6. Speeding
on
To press Mark Skilling for a response on
this topic (Action: Doug Allstaff)
7. Myrebird Junction
Nicola Chambury said that she had attended a meeting with representatives of the Council Roads Department and with the resident of the house at the junction. They had looked at alternative ways of restricting traffic speeds at such locations. It had been pointed out that introducing speed restrictions at every potentially-dangerous countryside junction would be very disruptive to traffic and hence likely be widely ignored. A substantial issue is that police will not support a lowered speed limit if their expectation is that it would be widely ignored by motorists as being inappropriate to the road in question.
There was, however, good news in respect of the Myrebird Junction itself. The Roads Department and the house owner had agreed a cutback of plant growth and a lowering of the fence that was acceptable to the house owner and would contribute positively to the improvement of traffic sightlines.
8. SSPCA
SEPA and noise reports were awaited.
9. Drainage on A93
Two particular flooding problems on A93 had
been drawn to CDDCC’s attention by Geoffrey Atkinson and others. To inform Mark Skilling of these (Action: Doug Allstaff)
10.
Proposed Low Cost Housing at Denside of Durris
It was assumed that this application was being processed.
11.
Graeme Clark stated that £1.4 million had
been allocated in the Council’s 2009/10 budget for the new
12. Drumoak Youth Project
.
To invite Gail Bleakley to attend future CDDCC meetings
(Action: John Hopkins)
13. Planning Applications
Nothing
additional, of note.
14. Culter Car Showroom
Graeme
Clark had reported at the February meeting that the planners would not tell the
applicants in advance where the pipelines were, so the application had been
deferred whilst the H&SE were contacted for this information. He did not know of any progress on this
matter.
15 Forthcoming Meetings and details of Presentations
·
7 April, Irvine Arms, Drumoak – includes
presentation by Jacqui Christie or
Karelia Wright on Local Community Planning
·
5
May, TBA (probably Drumoak Church Hall) - includes presentation by Rydens on
development bids in Drumoak
·
3 June, Irvine Arms, Drumoak - includes
presentation on Community Composting
· 7 July, Irvine Arms, Drumoak – no presentation scheduled.
·
4 August, Irvine Arms, Drumoak – includes
presentation by Linda Grey on Community
Learning
Note that
July meetings have often been cancelled in recent years, because of the
difficulty of raising a quorum at holiday times, but the July date will be kept
under review, in the light of the progress on the Structure Plan / Local
Development Plan
To inform all outside presenters of changes to the above programme (Action: Jean Downie)
All meetings to commence at 1930 hours
JFH 15/3/09
|
Distribution |
||||
|
Email |
Email |
Email |
Post |
Other |
|
CDDCC Councillors (excl. Jenny Watson) |
Danny Law (Deeside Piper) |
|
Jenny Watson |
Website
www.durris.net (also for previous
minutes) |
|
Cllrs. Linda Clark, Karen Clark, Jill Webster (Ward 16) |
Leanna
MacLarty (Press and Journal) |
|
Crathes Hall Notice Board (via David Humble) |
|
|
Cllrs. Peter Bellarby, Graeme Clark, Mike Sullivan, Wendy Agnew (Ward
18) |
Kirkton
of Durris Hall Notice Board (via Sheila Watt) |
PC |
Drumoak
Public Hall Notice Board (via Ian Pirie) |
By Hand |
|
Mr W Munro, Area Manager, Kincardine & Mearns |
Rev. |
|
Banchory Public Library |
Park
Shop (via John Hopkins) |
|
Mr L Allen, Area Manager, Marr |
Neighbourhood
Watch Co-ordinator – |
|
Drumoak
Church Hall Notice Board (via Morag Keith) |
Drumoak
Post Office (via John Hopkins) |