Development bids lead to homes on the range

THE developers behind a proposed #500m settlement to the south-west of

Aberdeen are confident it will still go ahead, despite the fact Grampian

Region's councillors have consigned the plan to the dustbin.

The idea of a new settlement to cope with a large share of the 17,000

houses required to be built in the Aberdeen area by 2006 was seen by

council officials as the most sensible way forward. It was also seen as

the best way forward by independent consultants they called in.

However, at the end of the day the councillors rejected it.

The Labour group had been firmly for the idea of a settlement to the

south west. The Liberal Democrats were also in favour of a new

settlement, but to the north. The Scottish Nationalists were in favour

of total dispersal -- adding new housing developments to existing

communities.

After major consultation exercises and a two-and-a-half year delay,

Grampian's Structure Plan has now been submitted to Scottish Secretary

Ian Lang for his approval. It proposes that the required housing

allocations be dispersed.

Stonehaven, for example, will receive 800 new houses in the next 11

years, Kingswells 900, Old Machar/Bridge of Don 300, Newtonhill 100, and

the Inverurie area 1300.

No compromise settlement site could be agreed and the Liberal

Democrats remain firmly convinced that, although a settlement may have

been the best option, to build it at Banchory Devenick -- the

developers' choice in the south west -- would have created more problems

than it solved.

However, the Stewart Milne Group who are behind the Banchory Devenick

scheme have not given up. It has appealed to the Scottish Secretary

against rejection of its planning application and now Aberdeen District

Council has added its weight to the campaign.

A delegation from the council has just asked Mr Lang to resurrect the

plan saying there was no technical justification for the Regional

Council's decision.

Mr Lang will consider the appeal at the same time as he considers the

Structure Plan. The Stewart Milne Group hope that, because of the unique

circumstances of the case, he will hold the first ''examination in

public'' for many years and decide to give them the go-ahead.

It is nearly nine years since Grampian Regional Council first

suggested that the area to the south west of the city was the best place

for any settlement.

In 1992, the draft Structure Plan appeared including such a settlement

and developers were invited to come back with more detailed proposals.

Their subsequent plans were investigated by Grampian's officials and

independent consultants. Both groups recommended the best option was a

south west settlement with a business park.

The director of economic development and planning, Dr Howard Fisher,

said the option had particular benefits:

* It was the best option in terms of costs to the public sector;

* It made the best use of existing infrastructure such as roads,

schools, water, and sewerage;

* It included a business park which was required by the Region;

* The Region would benefit from the provision of affordable housing

and community and sports facilities;

* There would be significant contributions from the developers towards

infrastructure and facilities;

* It would provide for future development in a marketable location;

* It lay beyond the Green Belt.

However, in July 1993, the members of Green Wedge, a small but highly

articulate and powerful opposition group of residents in the Banchory

Devenick area, were jubilant when the professionals' views were rejected

by the politicians who told their officials, following the closest

possible vote, to look at other sites.

In November 1993, Green Wedge had further cause to celebrate when the

south west settlement option was again proposed and again defeated.

After considering 26 potential new sites, the officials told the

elected members that there was no acceptable alternative to Banchory

Devenick and if that were not accepted then the ''clearly less

beneficial'' option was to spread the houses around existing

developments.

Once again, the professionals' advice was ignored and this time the

officials were told to find a site to the north west of the city.

Back they came in June last year and repeated their advice that the

only viable place for a new settlement was to the south west and if that

was not acceptable then dispersal was the only option.

Although it was inevitable that dispersal would cause widespread

objections from virtually every community where new houses were to be

built, that was their final choice.

In asking the Scottish Secretary to amend the Structure Plan to

include a new settlement, Aberdeen District Council say there was no

technical justification put forward by Grampian Region for the dispersal

option or for rejection of the new settlement concept earlier shown to

be viable.

Planning officer, Mr Bert Allen, said: ''Providing there is control

over the release of other Green Field sites, the City Council still

remains of the view that the balance of advantage lies in the inclusion

of a new settlement as part of Grampian's development strategy.

''The dispersal option does not avoid urban sprawl nor does it

encourage development within existing settlements. While the Regional

Council's strategy offers housing in a wide choice of locations, it is

less likely to provide for affordable housing or a choice of tenure.''

He added: ''Dispersal does not make the best use of existing

facilities such as roads, drainage, or school provision. Indeed, the

scale of development now being allocated locally may be inadequate to

secure sufficient contributions from developers to overcome shortfalls

on community and other forms of provision which may already exist.

''Some communities struggling to keep pace with the effects of recent

growth could well experience more pressure from additional

house-building which would place greater demands upon under-developed

services and facilities, and doubts about the chances of this option

being successful could lead to an increase in land speculation and put

pressure on the Green Belt.''

Mr Gordon Cochrane, executive director of the Stewart Milne Group,

said one of the major factors in favour of Banchory Devenick was that

the group had negotiated agreement with all the landowners that a large

proportion of the rise in land value if the development went ahead would

go towards providing infrastructure and community facilities.

He explained that the value of land multiplied many times when it

became development land and the landowners had agreed that, to enable

the go-ahead, their profits would be reduced, with the remainder going

to the infrastructure. They would still make handsome profits.

Other major benefits were that low-cost housing would be built on the

site and a high quality business park, providing the type of

accommodation which was badly required in the city area, would be

established.

He said the Regional Council had rejected the settlement option for no

sound financial or planning reasons.

The company, who planned to include three or four other national

developers to meet the required scale of development, had been

pleasantly surprised by the low level of objectors to the south west

settlement.

Mr Cochrane said: ''The dispersal policy was actually put to the

Region with a 'health warning' to their own officials and we have lodged

an appeal.

''We think there are special circumstances to this whole issue and a

unique opportunity could be missed. The decision eventually taken seemed

to fly in the face of all advice the council received from their own

officials, their own independent consultants, and the general view of

bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce, Grampian Enterprise, and the

Scottish Housebuilders' Association.

''Banchory Devenick is by far the best location for a new settlement.

We do feel the situation is so unique and the arguments so

overwhelmingly in favour of a new settlement, the Scottish Secretary

will review the whole housing section of the Structure Plan.''

Labour group leader on Grampian Region, Mr Bob Middleton, agrees.

He said: ''I was out that way recently and I thought 'what an

opportunity missed.' ''

He said that the council would have control over a new settlement and

they could build a community ''not just a lot of little boxes as in the

past''.

He continued: ''What is going to happen as a result of the Structure

Plan is there are going to be a whole series of inquiries, objections,

and folk getting in a stir because they don't want more houses beside

them. It is a recipe for disaster.''

However, Liberal Democrat leader on Grampian Region, Mrs Rhona Kemp,

thinks Banchory Devenick would have been a recipe for disaster.

She said: ''It does not have a good road network and is not close to a

rail line when we are trying to encourage people to use public

transport. The only spare capacity is in two schools which will be in

the new Aberdeen, Torry and Kincorth.''

She said the original consultants' report suggested a settlement to

the north west of city because it was the area of greatest growth and

still is.

''What we rejected was our officials' interpretation of the

consultants' report. Dispersal is better than Banchory Devenick because

it would have created more problems than it provided solutions.

''I really think when you are looking at new settlements you have to

take into account the traffic problems and you should not be increasing

them as Banchory Devenick would do.''