09 04 07
Crathes, Drumoak & Durris Community Council
(CDDCC)
Minutes of Meeting
Tuesday
7 April 2009 – Drumoak Church Hall from 19.30 hours
1.
Sederunt
Community
Councillors: Jean Downie, Ann Ross, Jenny Watson
(Chair), Diana
Aberdeenshire Councillors (Ward 18): Peter Bellarby, Graeme Clark
Aberdeenshire Councillors (Ward 16): Linda Clark
Apologies: Tony Butcher, Karen Clark, David Morrish, John Baillie, Doug
Allstaff,
Representatives
of Grampian Police: PC Kirsty Lawie, PC Kevin Lynch
Members of the Public: Katharyn Atkinson, Steph Craigie, Sue Grover, Cliff Grover, Angus Donaldson, Neil Campbell
2. Previous
Minutes
The
minutes of March 2009 were proposed
by Nicola Chambury and seconded by Jean
Downie and accepted as an
accurate record.
3. Minute Secretary for June meeting
Diana
4. Police Matters
PC Kevin Lynch gave a report of local incidents occurring between 3rd March and 5th April 2009:-
THEFT
Housebreaking with intent – Coalford Yard, Drumoak - Undetected
Attempted Theft of Gas Bottle from outside house, Drumoak – Undetected
VANDALISM
Damage to car-
BREACH OF THE PEACE
Harassment call on A93, between Durris and Stonehaven. Person arrested.
ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES
Speeder – A93, near Drumoak. Male driver charged.
Drink Driver – A93, involved in RTC. Male driver charged
WILDLIFE
Sheep Worrying – Owner of dog charged.
Poaching – River Dee, Durris. Two males charged
ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISIONS
0 Fatal RTC's.
0 Serious injury RTC's
0 slight injury RTC's
1 damage only RTC – details exchanged between drivers
Suspicious incidents – 3, suspicious male/female seen on track leading to isolated house, two males touting for jobs in Drumoak area, white van seen at building site driver acting dodgy
Road traffic other – 5, male overtaking at speed, person driving with no licence, Abandoned vehicle, tailgate, Jammed Traffic lights
Animals – 0
Youth calls – 0
Alarm activations – 3, All in order at sites
Drunk drivers – 0
Missing Person – 2 – As per concern call, elderly male traced on roads around Drumoak/Durris/Netherley areas.
Concern – 1, elderly male on A93, as per previous reports, traced and taken home
Assist Member of Public – 2
Unlawful dumping – 1, Asbestos dumped on farm land amongst other debris, environmental health called.
5. Presentation about the K&M Local
Community Planning Group (LCPG)
Jacqui
Christie (one of two time-sharing Local Community Planning Officers based at
Viewmount in Stonehaven - her colleague being Karelia Wright)
gave a Powerpoint presentation about the K&M Local Community Planning Group
(LCPG). She described, in particular,
the various bodies represented on the group, which included a representative
(David Nelson) of the K&M Community Councils. She made the point that much of the
information contained in her presentation could also be accessed via http://www.ouraberdeenshire.org.uk/
She
referred to the substantial number of Planning for Real© exercises which had
taken place over the last two years, particularly in the south of K&M. More such were planned.
She
referred also to the Local Community
Plan 2008 – 2012, which was the main outcome report of the process. Hard copies of this had been exhausted,
although a reprint was envisaged.
Meanwhile, it could be accessed via the site noted above. Hard copies would be sent to Community
Councils, once reprinted. There were a
further 3 local public consultations planned for this document and it would be
kept updated every 2/3 months during its currency.
Jenny
Watson suggested that it would be useful to have a subsequent presentation
demonstrating what input from Community Councils had actually been implemented
as part of this process. Jacqui Christie
said that this feedback could be done by David Nelson, the CC representative on
LCPG.
Jenny
Watson thanked Jacqui Christie for her presentation.
6. Potential Travellers’ Camp at Jackieshillock
Jenny Watson stated that this proposal was no longer being pursued by Aberdeenshire Council.
7. Planning Applications
7.1 Crathes
A
planning proposal had been lodged for conversion of a steading near the Neuk to
“storage units”. As steadings are for
storage (of agricultural materials), it was not clear what was intended in this
case. To investigate further (Action: Nicola Chambury)
7.2 Durris
Nothing
to report
7.3 Drumoak
7.31 Proposed Culter
Car Showroom
Geoffrey
Atkinson said that he had attempted to discover the present position of the
proposed Culter Car Showroom on the Drum Straight, but
the relevant planner was on holiday. He
opined that the lack of any apparent action might relate to the effect of the
recession on car sales and the borrowing capability of firms in that business.
7.32
Proposed SSPCA Animal Refuge
Geoffrey Atkinson reminded the meeting that this issue had been deferred until receipt of reports from SEPA and about noise. A response had been received from SEPA, although further work (on the feasibility of a SUDS[1]) was expected. A noise report had also been received.
Geoffrey Atkinson declared himself to be an affected neighbour to this proposed site and – at the recommendation of Peter Bellarby – absented himself from the meeting for the duration of the discussion.
The noise report was discussed, but not
found easy to comprehend. Although it
apparently stated that there would be no problem, the validity of the
assumptions, on which this statement was based, was unclear. To draft a letter to the planners, asking for
a layman’s version of the noise report (Action:
8. Road
Safety
8.1 Myrebird
Junction
Nicola Chambury reported that the Roads Department and the house owner had agreed a cutback of plant growth and a lowering of the fence (which would achieve sightlines appropriate to 40 mph). This was acceptable to the house owner and would contribute positively to the improvement of traffic safety.
The status of the possible policy of
reducing national speed limits on single carriageway rural roads to 50 mph
(from 60 mph) was raised. CDDCC was
divided on whether this would be effective and/or beneficial. It was left to individual members to write to
Sir
8.2
Junction of
A reply had recently been received to CDDCC’s letter
of 2 August 2008 about the above. This
indicated that design work for lowering hedges - and possibly the drystone dyke
- was pencilled in for 2009/10 and that an approach would be made by
Aberdeenshire Council to CHAP (as the relevant landowner) thereafter.
9.
Youth Amenity
9.1 Drumoak
Youth Project
.
An invoice had recently been received from
Aberdeenshire Council, in the sum of £4,300 inc VAT, for DYP’s contribution
towards the cost of BMX cycle ramps in
It was felt that these ramps – together with the
construction of the Youth Shelter and the basic all-weather pitch, plus the
engagement of Aberdeenshire Council in more recent works in
10.
Schools
10.1
Graeme Clark stated that the Education and
Learning Committee had recently visited
He reaffirmed that money had been earmarked for the new School, with completion due in 2012/13.
An additional staff WC had been requested at the present site. Whilst this would not add to the amount of sewage outflow (the number of users being the same in total), it would represent an additional convenience.
Concern was expressed to the Committee at
the fact that the proposed site for the new
11. Health Services
This is
included as a standing item, as it is one of CDDCC’s objectives for 2009.
There
were, however, no specific items to discuss at this time.
This is
included as a standing item, as it is one of CDDCC’s objectives for 2009.
With the
exception of the recent Questionnaire on Development Bids, organised in
conjunction with the Drumoak & Durris Newsletter, there had been no
specific initiatives, nor were there any items to discuss at this time.
13.
Drumoak Post Office
Jenny Watson noted that Margaret had given notice of her intention to retire as Postmistress and that her daughter, Ann, had been appointed by Post Office (Counters) Ltd., as the new Postmistress.
To obtain a suitable gift, on behalf of CDDCC, to mark its appreciation of Margaret’s many years of service to the community (Action: Jenny Watson)
14. Illness of Tony Butcher
To find
out from Tony’s wife what would be a suitable mark of sympathy and
encouragement to Tony Butcher (currently in Glen O Dee) and to send it on
CDDCC’s behalf (Action: Nicola Chambury)
15 AOCB
15.1 Structure Plan “Main Issues” Meeting
Graeme
Clark stated that the meeting of Councillors had taken place on 25 March, as
scheduled. CDDCC’s email of 23 March to Ward
16/Ward 18 Councillors, following on from the local Questionnaire on
Development Bids had been forwarded to Piers Blaxter and taken into account at
the meeting. This email is attached as an Appendix to these minutes.
The
outcome of the meeting was to be a “traffic light” report classifying each
Major Issue as red (not to be
proceeded with), amber (could
possibly be proceeded with subject to the resolution of certain issues) or green (to be proceeded with). This would be published on or around 30
April. A 6-week period of public
consultation would commence on 18 May. Any
of the classifications could, in principle, become the subjects of Appeal.
Angus
Donaldson asked whether CDDCC’s support for the houses at Park could be
reviewed. After due deliberation, it was
agreed that this issue could be revisited during the forthcoming consultation
period.
15.2 Houses at Nether Sunnyside
Neil
Campbell asked what was the present status of Planning Proposal APP/2007/2614. To investigate this (Action: Graeme Clark)
16 Forthcoming Meetings and details of Presentations
·
5
May, Irvine Arms, Drumoak – no presentation scheduled
·
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
All meetings to commence at 1930 hours
JFH 8/4/09
|
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) |
APPENDIX
EMAIL TO LOCAL WARD COUNCILLORS ABOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BIDS IN CDDCC AREA
Dear Councillors of Wards 16 and 18,
Executive
Summary
Local Ward
Councillors have asked CDDCC to provide information about local opinion on the
Development Bids in advance of the Main Issues meeting on 25 March.
On the basis
of local public meetings and a widely-distributed public questionnaire, plus
other input face-to-face and by email and telephone, CDDCC proposes the
REJECTION of the Park Eco-Village, Crathes, Kirkton, Woodlands and East Mains
bids.
The 6-house
bid at Park is supported.
Qualified support is given to development of some of the sub-sites in Drumoak, but not to K133 sub-sites 5, 7, 8, 10 or 11.
The sites for
the extension of the cemetery (K134) and the new school (K133) in Drumoak are
supported.
Because it is
by far the largest of local bids, the Park Eco-Village is discussed in most
detail. It is esentially rejected by local opinion (91% against), but logical
and planning arguments against this bid are also presented.
At the 3 March meeting of the Crathes, Drumoak & Durris Community Council (CDDCC), the subjects of the Structure Plan, the Main Issues Paper and the Development Bids were discussed.
CDDCC was invited, by the local Ward Councillors present at the meeting, to provide input about local opinion on the development bids published for the CDDCC area, in time for the all-day meeting scheduled for 25 March, to discuss “Main Issues”.
This email is in response to that request.
CDDCC’s sounding of local opinion has been improvised but, we believe you will agree, thorough. This improvisation has, it is necessary to say, arisen because of the opaque nature of the new planning process and CDDCC’s resultant uncertainty about how and when to participate in it.
It has culminated in a local questionnaire, delivered with the parish Newsletter to every household in the Drumoak and Durris areas. The results of this questionnaire, along with the outcome of earlier public meetings in respect of Crathes, Woodlands and Kirkton and of locations for a new School/new development for Drumoak, underlie this email.
A copy of design of the questionnaire itself is attached. The full results of the questionnaire are tabulated and also attached.
There were 114 completed questionnaires received. This is getting on for a 10% response rate, which we understand is very good for this type of poll.
The headline results of the questionnaire (absolute figure shown first, then percentage of total) are:-
|
Q1 Wish to see:- No new houses = 25 (22%) Enough new houses to meet the needs of the local population = 64 (56%) Enough new houses to meet the needs of the local population plus some growth = 25 (22%) A major increase in the number of houses in the area = nil (0%) Q2 Prepared to see developments permitted in:- Crathes: Yes 22 (19%), No 92 (81%) Kirkton: Yes 22 (19%), No 92 (81%) Woodlands: Yes 22, (19%) No 92 (81%) Drumoak: Yes 29 (25%), No 85 (75%) Park: Yes 41 (36%), No 73 (64%) East Mains: Yes 21 (18%), No 93 (82%) Park Eco-Village: Yes 10 (9%), No 104 (91%) Elsewhere: 21 (18%), No 93 (81%) Q3 Broadly agree with CDDCC’s initial (expression of) view:- Yes: 89 (80%) No: 22 (20%) 3 blank responses (excluded from percentage calculation) |
The development bids:
Much preliminary detail has already been
published in respect of the Park Eco-Village, although the intending developer
(CHAP) has recently stated that consultation should now start with “a clean
sheet”. Because of this amount of available detail and because it is by
far the largest, the “Park Eco-Village” (K77) is considered first.
This particular development bid, which if permitted would treble the number of houses in the whole CDDCC area, is unusual in many respects. It has been the subject of an unprecedented television, newspaper, etc. advertising campaign. Large glossy briefing documents have been produced and substantial advance lobbying done.
It has been stated by CHAP that the area is
a brownfield site. The CC feels this is misleading. In its previous
planning applications for quarrying in the area, the applicant made great play
of its skill at sensitive restoration of quarried areas and made undertakings –
later included in planning conditions - to restore this area to farming
land. It is known that these undertakings significantly influenced the
Councillors of the day in granting planning permission. However, given
that the applicant has promised to return the land to farming use, the CC feels
this site should be seen not as a “brownfield site”, but as a “deferred
CHAP has also made significant play of the potential ecological credentials of its proposed development. The CC notes that eco-villages are much in the news, mostly as a result of their failure to achieve planning consent. I this case there is a significant topological factor. The location of this site, in an east-west valley floor, means both that the amount of available wind or sun is reduced. Houses will be in the shadow of the southern valley sides for a significant number of hours per day in winter, when the sun is low in the sky. This reduces potential for solar gain compared with more suitable sites. Assuming that eco-villages are a good thing, for energy conservation purposes this site is considered inappropriate.
It is also the case that any new
house construction in the
CHAP’s agents (Halliday Fraser Munro) have
claimed that the inspiration for the proposed development is the creation of a
new
This is seen by the CC as a speculative application to build a new town in an area of great landscape value, on the banks of a vulnerable river. The CC would urge the councillors to ensure that this bid in no way becomes a diversion from the existing re-instatemment requirements.
Furthermore:
Lastly, the “Park Eco-Village” was rejected by 91% of the respondents to the questionnaire, being by far the most unpopular of the proposed local development bids. It is also notable that not a single respondent voted for a “major increase in the number of houses in the area”.
CDDCC, backed by all its soundings of local opinion, would therefore urge that the Park Eco-Village development bid is REJECTED by the Main Issues Paper and excluded from the Local Development Plan - and any related plans.
If it is not excluded, then the CC
sees further issues with this bid. Given the current existence of the
quarries (which are actually due to be restored to agricultural use within the
next few years), permission to build houses here and to “landscape the site”
would lead to a de facto licence to continue quarrying operations over
this whole area on an open-ended basis. That this is part of CHAP’s
aspiration is seen from their glossy brochures, where they show the wholesale
relocation of
The Drumoak planning bids (K126, K133,
K134).
On the strength of an earlier public
meeting, which considered a new site for the
Drumoak is also the only CDDCC location with significant infrastructure (notwithstanding the ongoing farce of the expansion of the sewage treatment plant).
CDDCC has always supported “organic growth” in housing - the construction of additional single houses in its area and the extension or reconstruction of existing dwellings.
Whilst 22% of local people voted for no new houses at all, 56% voted for enough new houses for the local population and a further 22% for enough houses to meet the needs of the local population plus some growth.
If, to support the future needs of the local population, there has to be new house construction in the area, beyond “organic growth”, it should therefore be at Drumoak, but limited to not more than sub-sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9.
Any authorised housing should also be spread throughout the currency of the Structure Plan, rather than being “front-loaded”. This is so as to be consistent with the objective of supporting the ongoing needs of the local population.
The sites for the extension of the cemetery (K134) and the new school (K133), whilst not individually addressed in the questionnaire, were popularly supported in comments received and are here supported for these uses by CDDCC.
The 6-house bid at Park hamlet (K62).
This was supported by CDDCC and – although only 36% of the local population agreed – CDDCC still considers this a reasonable inclusion in the Local Plan. CC support is conditional on no new houses beyond a total of 6 being permitted at Park.
Bids at Crathes, Woodlands of Durris and
Kirkton of Durris
In addition to being included in the questionnaire, these particular sites were the subject of a public meeting on 28 January 2009. Some 70 people attended. There was virtually no support for development in these locations, so – notwithstanding the minority support (19% in each case, although coincidentally) in the questionnaire returns - CDDCC would therefore propose REJECTION of these bids.
Reference should
also be made to the attached statement of the “initial views on the Structure
Plan expressed by CDDCC” to which question 3 of the questionnaire refers.
Bids at East Mains of Drum (K120)
These sites were only supported by 18% of questionnaire respondents. CDDCC therefore proposes REJECTION of these bids.
Yours sincerely
David Morrish
On behalf of CDDCC
[1] SUDS was Sustainable Urban Drainage System, until they started to be constructed in rural areas, but the acronym has never successfully been revised. A SUDS is generally a soakaway, which collects surface water and delays it on its way to the river system (spreading the impact). It can also provide some natural biological clean-up to the water.
[2] The Drumoak Youth Project was launched in 2003. After its early years, it suffered for a long period from the lack of active and committed voluntary leadership.