28 LEGAL REASONS WHY THE WPR CANNOT BE BUILT IN THE GREENBELT

1 Introduction

The nub of the problem is that the plans lead to a wholesale annihilation of the Greenbelt between the western edge of Aberdeen, Kingswells, and Miltimber, whilst other parts of the indicated route in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are also likely to have a severe impact on the natural and living environment.  The WPR is an unimaginative attempt to continue to satisfy alleged transport needs by cramming a trunk-road into the limited boundaries of Aberdeen, a proposal which was devised some 20 years ago, when the devastation it would bring to Aberdeen’s Greenbelt would not have been appreciated as it is now.

2 Material Considerations

2.1 Statements of Policy

2.1.1 Greenbelt Policies NEST :

The present WPR plans will lead to a coalescing urban-sprawl with a resulting wholesale annihilation of the Greenbelt between the western edge of Aberdeen, Kingswells and Bieldside and the eastern edge of Aberdeenshire. This contravenes the following policies in the NEST structure plan, as highlighted in bold, as well as Scottish Office Circular 24/1985:

NEST: POLICY 19: Wildlife, Landscape and Land Resources

Development which would have an adverse effect... on species and habitats identified as priorities in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan will only be permitted where the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised or any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social and economic benefits of national importance.

Reason 1: The WPR  contravenes above policy.

NEST:  Green Belt
4.32 Green Belt policy … objectives are:

  • to maintain the identity of communities within Aberdeen and surrounding settlements by clearly defining their boundaries and preventing coalescence;
  • to maintain the landscape setting of the city; and
  • provide countryside for recreational purposes.

4.33 The Green Belt has been successful in preventing unnecessary sprawl and has assisted the progressive regeneration of Brownfield sites in Aberdeen and this has created public confidence in its effectiveness. Green Belt policy remains an important component of the strategy focussing development into settlements and encouraging the redevelopment of Brownfield sites and thus supporting the main elements particularly promoting, protecting and enhancing the natural environment and reducing the need to travel.

4.34 Scottish Office Circular 24/1985 on “Development in the Countryside and Green Belts” states that land within Green Belts must be critically assessed as part of any development plan review. It states that the stability and endurance of Green Belt can be achieved only where a balance between containment and growth of urban development can be sustained on a long-term basis and in terms of this plan it must support the principles of sustainable development and travel reduction. Therefore in addition to meeting the land requirements of this plan, any review of Green Belt should determine whether land is still essential to meet the aims of the policy or whether it might contribute to the longer term supply of development land (Strategic Reserve). Such an assessment will also serve to relieve pressure on more sensitive Green Belt areas and on valuable urban open space.

Here, in 4.34, the Scottish Office Circular 24/1985 is selectively quoted, as an examination of the relevant text makes clear:

Scottish Office Circular 24/1985 : “Development in the Countryside and Green Belts”

Page 1 states that policy for development in the countryside is founded on three propositions, the second of which being:

…Urban sprawl and, in particular, the coalescence of settlements, and ribbon development should be avoided.

3. The policy on development in the countryside continues to be founded on the following propositions:-
(i) Existing settlements are more likely to be able to accommodate additional development with least servicing costs and minimum impact on agriculture and amenity generally. Development should therefore be encouraged on suitable sites in existing settlements.
(ii) Urban sprawl and, in particular, the coalescence of settlements, and ribbon development should be avoided.>

6. The Secretary of State attaches great importance to the need to preserve the existing designated green belts and to the need to establish confidence in their permanence. Development within designated green belts should continue to be strictly controlled.

7. Stability and endurance of green belt policies can be expected only where a balance between the containment and growth of urban development can be sustained on a long term basis. Authorities should review green belt policies in structure plans in the light of the need to achieve this balance and, in doing so, should relate the demand for all forms of development to a long term settlement strategy for the structure plan area, taking a realistic view of all the locations where the demand can be met. In undertaking such reviews authorities should seek to identify land on the inner boundaries of green belts and within settlements in green belts which is no longer making any significant contribution to the purposes for which the green belt in question was established, and consider whether that land ought to be earmarked for development, thereby helping to maintain the long term integrity of the green belt by relieving pressure on other more significant areas. As regards towns and villages within green belts consideration should be given to identifying the scope for the development of infill sites, and for bringing into use previously developed land that is lying derelict, and has little or no inherent agricultural value or value for green belt purposes. Where it is concluded that it would not be appropriate to release land so identified for development, consideration should be given to means whereby it might be improved with the aim of restoring its value as a green belt component. At the same time authorities should seek to give support to their green belt policies by ensuring that derelict, vacant and underused sites within the urban area, including sites in their ownership for which they have no use or which they have no prospect of being able to develop within a reasonable period, are readily available in sufficient quantity to meet developers' needs for such land.

8. The findings of any review of green belt policies should be incorporated in a structure plan alteration at the earliest possible opportunity. Once such an alteration has been approved, adopted local plans covering parts of the relevant green belt should, where necessary, be adjusted and the remaining local plans required to complete the definition of green belt boundaries should be completed as soon as possible, in accordance with a programme agreed between all authorities concerned.

9. Once the measures in paragraphs 7-8 have been completed, further adjustment of green belt policies and boundaries should be needed only in exceptional circumstances.

 

GREEN BELTS:

3. In accordance with the policy set out in Circular 40/1960, green belts have been established for three main purposes:-
(i) to maintain the identity of towns by establishing a clear definition of their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence;
(ii) to provide countryside for recreation or institutional purposes of various kinds; and
(iii) to maintain the landscape setting of towns.

4. Green belts have been designated where there are strong development demands on land adjacent to large towns and cities and there is a need for particular stability in the policies designed to control these demands. In these circumstances:-
(i) structure plans should set out the urban settlement structure necessary to meet the demographic, economic and social needs of the area within and outwith the city or town over the period to which the structure plan relates;
(ii) outwith the areas identified in this settlement structure, development should be very strictly controlled by green belt policies and designations in structure plans;
(iii) local plans should define the precise boundaries and secure the continuity of green belts. Towns and villages within green belts should not be allowed to expand beyond the limits thus established;
(iv) there should be a general presumption against any intrusion into designated green belts; in particular, approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings and the extension or change of use of existing buildings, for purposes other than agriculture, horticulture, woodland management and recreation, or establishments and institutions standing in extensive grounds (such as wooded policies or parkland) or other uses appropriate to the rural character of the area.

End quote: Scottish Office Circular 24/1985

Reason 2: The WPR contravenes Scottish Office Circular 24/1985.

NEST: POLICY 27: Green Belt

The area of Aberdeen Green Belt will be maintained as set out in the Key Diagram. Local plans will set the detailed boundaries so that:

  • the landscape setting and identity of urban areas is protected and enhanced and coalescence prevented;
  • development required by structure plan policies is accommodated;
  • degraded land can be restored and opportunities are created for landscape renewal; and
  • land safeguarded for long term development (Strategic Reserve Land) is identified and protected from development that would prejudice its eventual use.

The boundaries of the Aberdeen Green Belt and Strategic Reserve Land will be subject to review by both Councils. The review should aim to protect and enhance the prime ecological, landscape and recreational assets of the Green Belt, meet the aims of sustainable transport and identify land for the long term development needs of Aberdeen and surrounding settlements. Future recreational needs should be accommodated and a strategic network of recreation areas identified. The review should indicate the final definition of built up areas, beyond which it is more sustainable to develop existing edge of city communities along main transport corridors.

To safeguard its long term development viability, Green Belt policy will also apply to Strategic Reserve Land. This will apply until the land is released for development through the development plan process.

4.35 The general extent of the Green Belt remains unchanged. However, adjustments are necessary to allow for other plan policies to be accommodated such as park and ride sites and the western peripheral route. Additionally, local plans should identify land that can accommodate the increasing demand for appropriate indoor and outdoor sports facilities and so relieve pressure upon urban open space. Provision should also be made for the area’s informal recreational requirements – not only for the lifetime of the plan but for the longer term. Therefore, local plans should confirm the concept of linked recreation areas including linkages into the urban areas. Such corridors require protection from development and will require initiatives such as the provision and enhancement of pathways and cycle routes. Finally, long term development land for possible developments beyond the lifetime of the plan (Strategic Reserve Land) should be identified and safeguarded. Taken as a whole, this assessment will reduce the need for further boundary reviews and increase confidence in the role of the policy.

4.36 In applying the above policy, local plans will require to resolve the following:

  • protecting the landscape setting of Aberdeen, its diversity, vantage points and sense of place with reference to the Landscape Character Assessment;
  • reducing the need to travel – sporadic or isolated development should be avoided and sites within or adjacent to the urban area or transport corridors favoured wherever possible;
  • protecting and enhancing habitats and recreational resources – assets such as District Wildlife Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, golf courses, recreation areas, woodlands and pathways; and<
  • siting and design – development should be subject to robust and detailed design guidance to ensure quality and sustainable development.

4.37 National guidance sets strict limits on the type of development that can be permitted in Green Belt and this will be endorsed through local plans to take account of strong development demands around Aberdeen.

Reason 3: The WPR  contravenes these policies.

NEST: POLICY 28: Development in the Green Belt

No development will be permitted in the Green Belt for purposes other than those essential for agriculture, forestry, recreation, mineral extraction or restoration or landscape renewal.

Local plans may identify opportunity sites for appropriate sport, recreation and countryside uses and such other uses appropriate to the rural character of the area where specific locational or operational criteria mean that they cannot be accommodated within the existing urban area or within areas outwith the Green Belt designation. Such opportunity sites will remain in Green Belt.

All such development must be of the highest quality in terms of siting, scale, design and materials in accordance with guidance from the relevant local plan.

Reason 4: The WPR contravenes this policy.

2.1.2 ABERDEENSHIRE Environment Policies

From Chapter 3 of Finalised Aberdeenshire Local Plan:

Policy Env 15: River Engineering works
River engineering works that would have an adverse effect on … protected species … will be refused.

Reason 5: The WPR contravenes this policy.

Policy Env 8: Trees and woodland
Development that would cause the loss of, or serious damage to, trees or woodlands, which are … of significant ecological, recreational, historical, shelter or landscape value, will be refused unless:
a) its public benefits at the local level clearly outweigh the value of the habitat;
b) the development will be sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on the biodiversity of the site, including its environmental quality, ecological status and viability; AND
c) there will be no further fragmentation or isolation of habitats as a result of the development.

Reason 6: The WPR contravenes this policy.

Policy Env 9: Forestry and Woodland Creation and Enhancement
The Council seeks to promote the creation and protection of … forests and woodlands   .. and the enhancement of … shelter belts.

Reason 7: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

2.1.3 National Planning Policy guidance (NPPG’S)

NPPG 14: NATURAL HERITAGE Trees and Woodlands
50. Trees and woodlands are of great importance, both as wildlife habitats and in terms of their contribution to landscape character and quality, and hedgerows and shelterbelts are important features of the landscape in some parts of the country. Significant areas of Scotland have suffered environmental degradation as a result of progressive deforestation and past industrial activity and the expansion of woodland cover can make an important contribution to their rehabilitation. Planting with native species and the encouragement of natural regeneration can often offer the greatest benefits in terms of the natural heritage.
51. Planning authorities should seek to protect trees, groups of trees and areas of woodland where they have natural heritage value or contribute to the character or amenity of a particular locality. Ancient and semi-natural woodlands have the greatest value for nature conservation. In relation to commercial woodlands, authorities should make realistic allowance for rotation cycles and the requirements of management.

Reason 8: The  WPR  contravenes this policy.

NPPG17: TRANSPORT AND PLANNING Settlement Strategy and Housing

26. Planning authorities should ensure that their settlement strategy is consistent with the aim of reducing travel demand and puts greater reliance on means of transport other than the private car. In considering the transport implications of future patterns of development in their area, planning authorities should seek out opportunities to help redress the impact of traffic on the environment.

29. Locations that are highly accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, including land most accessible to stations or interchanges, should be developed at highest densities. Priority should be given to development linked to the existing rail network.

Reason 9: The WPR contravenes this policy.

2.1.4 ABERDEEN’S Natural Environment Policies (NEP’S)

With respect to Aberdeen City’s relevance to this Inquiry, it is stressed that Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City produced an integrated Structure Plan (NEST) and, more importantly, the WPR corridor can not be considered separately in the two unitary Councils, when, of course the corridor meets at the boundaries.  WPR plans in either Council determine completely the plans in the other Council. It would be a dereliction of duty for one Council not to consider the effects in the neighbouring area of the other Council.

From Chapter 2 of Aberdeen City’s MFLP:

Natural Environment Policy 1: Green Belt
In the Green Belt there will be an embargo against all development …

Reason 10: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

Natural Environment Policy 2: Application of Green Belt policy to Strategic Reserve land
In these areas there will be an embargo against development ….

Reason 11: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

Natural Environment Policy 5: Landscape Protection
Development proposals shall be compatible with the landscape character of the surrounding area in terms of siting, scale, massing, colour, design, density, orientation and materials; and  otherwise be capable of being absorbed within Sites without adverse affects upon landscape features, character or a local amenity.

Reason 12: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

Natural Environment Policy 6: Approaches to the City
Development will not be permitted that will adversely affect the amenity of the main approaches to the City and the City Centre by road or rail and from Aberdeen airport.

Reason 13: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

Natural Environment Policy 7: Linear and Boundary Features
There will be a presumption against any development which may destroy or impair the integrity of linear and boundary features. The council will encourage the retention and improvement of these features particularly concerning wildlife corridors, tree lines, hedgerows, drystone dykes, consumption dykes, boundary features of watercourses. In development proposals, only where an overriding need can be demonstrated, will permission be given to remove or alter linear or boundary features.

Reason 14: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

Natural Environment Policy 8: Enhancement of the Landscape and Wildlife Habitats
The City Council will seek a positive contribution to the appearance of the landscape and the quality of natural habitats in its determination of planning applications.

Reason 15: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

2.1.5 The Green Belt Review

Balanced sustainability:
Whilst sympathetic towards the concept of "sustainable transport" and a Green Transport Policy, this has to be balanced against other environmental needs, as is  acknowledged in the Green Belt Review p5, where, writing of the desirability of locating housing near transport corridors and the urban edge, it cautions that:

… this development model should not prevail unconditionally and it needs to be balanced against planning, landscape and coalescence issues.

Open farmland in the Green Belt should be retained:
a) because it is a very important part of the environment for large numbers of residents and
b) because elimination will lead to coalescence and the loss of distinctive communities

Reason 16: The WPR  contravenes this policy.

2.2 Social Considerations

2.2.1 Alignment of the WPR at Milltimber

The principle of Proportionality requires that any development, which is being considered for such an environment, is carefully weighed with respect to the benefits such development might bring to the population at large. Since the present proposals bring a negligible traffic benefit to Aberdeen and since alternative proposals (such as a tunnelled by-pass closer in) bring more benefit as well as cause less damage, the present proposals should be rejected

Reason 17: The presently proposed AWPR  contravenes the proportionality principle (damage should be the least possible for the achieved benefit).

2.3 Nature Conservation

Apart from objecting to the general unsuitability of siting a four-lane motorway with grade separated crossings, feeder roads, as well as associated housing estates, industrial parks, filling stations and fast-food outlets in the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Greenbelt (see 2.2 above), I am more specifically objecting to:

2.3.1 Alignment of the WPR crossing the river DEE

The River Dee is a most sensitive habitat for fauna and flora, as well as a natural habitat for the enjoyment of human beings. The principle of Proportionality requires that any development, which is being considered for such an environment, is carefully weighed with respect to the benefits such development would bring to the population at large.  No such evidence is provided in the FALP, indeed, no debate at all appears to be part of the FALP.

Reason 18: The WPR contravenes most, if not all, of above policies and guidelines with respect to alignment at the River Dee.

2.3.2 Alignment of the WPR to the west of Countesswells Woods

The Countesswells Woods, sizeable parts of which fall within the area notated for NE2 – Strategic Reserve Land, is an extremely popular destination and attraction for hundreds of walkers and cyclists every week. It is well known that it abounds with a wide variety of flora and fauna, having a very diverse habitat. It is used as a study area by many local schools.

A cornerstone of the City Council’s own policy, as articulated in MFLP, is to promote sport and recreation (e.g. Sport and Recreation Policy 2: ACCESS NETWORK). This is in accordance with Policy 17 of NEST: Countryside and Open Space.

Reason 19: The WPR contravenes this policy.

According to Forestry Enterprise, Countesswells Forest attracts more visitors each year than any other publicly managed forest in Scotland. Recreation is also, of course, one of the three objectives of green belt as set out in Annex 3 of Scottish Office Circular No. 24/1985: Development in the countryside and green belts.

Reason 20: The AWPR in its alignment west of Counteswells Woods, contravenes the policies in Annex 3 of Scottish Office Circular No. 24/1985: Development in the countryside and green belts. Countesswells Woods.

2.4 Suitability of Site

The Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Greenbelt is not a suitable site for a four lane motorway with grade separated crossings and adjacent housing developments and industrial parks. This sort of development completely contravenes all STATEMENTS OF POLICY, governmental or otherwise (See 2.2).

Reason 21: The WPR contravenes most, if not all, of above Statements of Policy, whether Governmental or by the respective Councils.

2.5 Appearance of the Proposed Development and its Relationship to its Surroundings

A four lane motorway with grade separated crossings, including 2 major river viaducts, and adjacent housing developments and industrial parks will appear in keeping with urbanised areas.

It will appear totally out of character in the sensitive landscape of the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Greenbelt, in fact it will utterly destroy the Greenbelt.  This sort of development completely contravenes all STATEMENTS OF POLICY, governmental or otherwise (See 2.2).

Reason 22: The WPR contravenes most, if not all, of above Statements of Policy, whether Governmental or by the respective Councils.

2.6 Archaeology

The present plans feature the WPR near the archeologically important Kingswells Consumption Dyke. The practice of realigning roads well away from archaeological sites is now well understood. Its is a dereliction of duty to ignore the importance of our heritage.

Reason 23: The WPR is sited too close to the archeologically important Kingswells Consumption Dyke, thus desecrating an important monument.

2.7 Compatibility with Existing Uses

The WPR appears to be totally incompatible with existing uses of the Greenbelt.

Reason 24: The WPR is incompatible with the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Greenbelt, especially in the neighbourhood of Milltimber (Dee crossing) and related to the amenity value of Countesswells Woods.

2.8 Desirability of Retaining the Existing Use

The desirability of retaining the Greenbelt in its present form or even enhancing its value, is repeatedly confirmed in both Council’s own Policy Statements and in governmental policies (see 2.2 above)

Reason 25: The WPR contravenes both Council’s stated Policy aims of Greenbelt retention and enhancement, as wells as similar governmental policies.

2.9 Need

Neither the NEST Structure Plan nor the FALP offer any supporting evidence, in fact very little is written about the WPR in either Plan, why this four-lane motorway would be required.  This, of course, is a dereliction of duty of both Councils in Planning terms.  It prevents the freeing up of the designated land for better purposes; in this case the enhancement of the Greenbelt.

Neither is any supporting evidence provided, whether this WPR plan is in the best interest of the population at large, what the social and long term impact may be, what the financial implications are with respect to e.g. deferral of other projects for the common good, the impact on tourism in the ‘Gateway to the Highlands’, the effect of a declining population on this plan, the declining North Sea oil activities, etc.

Reason 26: The need for the WPR has not been documented in either the Structure Plan or the Local Plan, neither the Aberdeenshire nor the City Local Plan.

2.10 Existence of a Better Alternative Site

From the above discussion, it is inescapable, that if such a four-lane motorway eventually is deemed to be justifiable, this WPR has to be aligned outside the Greenbelt.  Several alternative alignments appear feasible.  We will found upon these with separate plans, which will be the subject of subsequent documentation.

Reason 27: Environmentally less damaging alternatives appear to be available.

2.11 Impact

From the above, the impact of a four-lane motorway with grade separated crossings, feeder roads, as well as associated housing estates, industrial parks, filling stations and fast-food outlets in the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Greenbelt will be completely unacceptable from a natural environment and a human perspective, especially for our weaker citizens in CAMPHILL.

Reason 28: The overall impact of the WPR on Aberdeen’s and Aberdeenshire’s Greenbelt will be devastating.