Councillor's move to keep protected land at Kintore fails to go forward
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
East Garioch Councillor Glen Reid spoke out against the decision to remove the protected status for land beside Kintore's Midmill School at a meeting that saw the adoption of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2022.
The area had been previously reserved for a secondary school and then for community recreational space.
At the Full Council meeting on Wednesday, Councillor Reid put forward a motion that the protected land status should be restored, however it was deemed not competent by the local authority's legal adviser.
He said: “I would like to give members some background to the issue relating to the P7 land in Kintore.
"At the meeting of the Garioch Area Committee on the sixth of September, following changes proposed by the Reporter, the committee was asked to advise Full Council of any element of the Reporter’s Report that they should not accept.
"The proposed changes included (Issue 35) that ‘site P7 (east of Midhill Primary School) is now no longer needed for a secondary school...Recreational open space is not justified and the site should be incorporated within the OP1 allocation (houses).’
"I found this incredibly short-sighted and was of the opinion that this land needs to be protected for a potential school/community use in the future.
"In the paper, as is mentioned in today’s paper, it listed the four circumstances in which authorities may depart from recommendations, one of which was, ‘where recommendation(s): Are based on conclusions that could not reasonably have been reached based on the evidence considered at the Examination.’
"I pointed out that the following would have been known to the Reporter at the time of the Examination; Kemnay Academy is old (built in 1982), Kemnay Academy is over capacity, 67 per cent of all pupils at Kemnay Academy are bussed there from Kintore and Blackburn and there are approximately 1250 homes zoned for building in Kintore.
"Our planning officers confirmed that this was known to the Examiner as they had made similar arguments.
"The planning officer said: ‘You’re not alone. We wouldn’t have protected the land in the proposed plan unless we agreed with the views that you gave there.’
"The whole committee agreed and the matter is before us today where we have now been told on page 16 that education provision was not an issue that the Reporter was asked to consider at the examination, and, consequently, lack of consideration of a site for the provision of education facilities is not material to the Reporters Recommendations.
"This is incredibly frustrating.
"So, ignoring the clear education requirement, as it has been stated in this paper that the Reporter was not asked to consider this, what was known to the Reporter:
"It is known that Kintore has 1250 homes zoned for building, 1000 of which are next to this parcel of land and the other 250 are within 500 yards of it.
"It is known that these 1250 new houses will be family houses, averaging at least three bedrooms and will near on double the population of the town.
"It is known that there will be a need for community facilities. This is known by our planners and this is why they tried to protect the land.
"It is known that there is no more perfect site for such community facilities than this parcel of land which is next to Midmill School.
"It is known that there are issues in communities when facilities are placed on the outskirts of the settlements, such as in Ellon and Alford with their academy campuses outside their towns.
"With all of this known to the Reporter, I believe that to remove the protected status was not a reasonable conclusion.
"The definition of reasonable is: ‘having sound judgement; fair and sensible’ and in my opinion this conclusion is neither sound, fair or sensible.
"However, in a meeting yesterday and a subsequent email yesterday evening, I was told by officers: ‘In this case, planning policy guidance requires that planning authorities must be able to demonstrate that the Reporter made a clear error when examining the evidence in front of them. This goes much further than having a different opinion or disagreeing with the conclusions reached by the Reporter; or in them exercising their planning judgement.’
"Once again, I find this incredibly frustrating.
"The reasons given by the Reporter in not protecting the land for recreational open space are:
"Protecting land for recreational open space is not justified - I believe it is, as did our planners, and it is the most suitable land available.
"The change in purpose of the site (P7) (for example from education provision to recreational open space) only materialised at Proposed LDP stage, therefore the residents of Kintore cannot be unduly affected given it had not been allocated for open space in the past or such an allocation form part of the plan consultation process - I counter that the residents will be unduly affected regardless of when it materialised.
"The site is no longer required for its original purpose i.e. a secondary school - Education officers currently do not wish it, but it may be needed in 10 years time and then it will be too late.
"I may or may not have been able to demonstrate that the Reporter made a clear error in the eyes of our planning department and solicitors, that is for you to decide, but I feel I have and there is also no doubt in my mind that it is not a reasonable decision.
"I am fundamentally opposed to the removal of the protected status of this land and I haven’t heard anything today that reassures me that this land will absolutely remain protected for the community in the future.
"If we leave this to Development Masterplan Process then we are leaving this to ifs and perhaps.
"If we leave it to the developer to produce their Masterplan perhaps we will get one that suits the community.
"If we leave it until the developer produces their Masterplan, my constituents will have to wait years until they know what is going on in the heart of their community.
"And we have heard today that if we leave this to the Development Masterplan Process, the number of houses (1000) are an indication only, and although our planners at this stage have no ambition to increase it, this may happen.
"The only way to protect this land is if we decide today to protect it and I cannot in good conscience not try to protect it.
"Our planners have an obligation to the overall plan, but I have an obligation to my constituents, the residents and students, both the current ones and the ones who will occupy the 1250 new homes.
"I therefore intend to move a motion, which may or may not be ruled as competent, as follows:
"I would like to move a motion that we adopt the Local Development Plan with the Reporters recommendations, with the exception of the recommendation number one on page 1099 to “Remove site P7 from the protected land section in the settlement features table on page 589 and from the Kintore settlement maps on pages 595 to 598 and including the site as part of allocation OP1 instead.
"My planning reasoning behind the motion is because the P7 site is a key location in the village, is entirely suitable for community uses, and should not be included in the OP1 allocation, within which it would likely be proposed for housing, to the detriment of good place planning and I believe that the decision is not reasonable and there has been a clear error. I seek a seconder.”
The motion was seconded by Councillor Neil Baillie, and Councillor Trevor Mason spoke in favour of it, but the council’s legal advisor outlined that although she understood the reasoning behind the motion, there required to be substantive evidence to demonstrate the Reporter made an error, and therefore advised that the Provost declare the motion not competent. The Provost concurred and it did not proceed.
