SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

View Summary

Browse Responses

Filter Responses

Crosstab Responses

Download Responses

Share Responses

Customer Feedback Design Survey Collect Responses

Default Report + Add Report

Browse ResponsesDisplaying 9 of 11 respondents

« Prev Next » Jump To: Go »

Response Type:Normal Response

Collector:Test 2(Web Link)

Edit Response Delete

Custom Value:empty

IP Address:213.131.104.169

Response Started: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:47:01 AM

Response Modified: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:13:02 AM

Show this Page Only

1. Your Contact Details (Please note that you must complete at least six fields)

Organisation (If applicable) - Taylor Wimpey

Address Line 1 - 1 Masterton Park

Address Line 2 - Masterton Campus

Town - Dunfermline

Postcode - KY11 8PL

Tel No - 01383 845 700

2. Agent / Alternative Contact

Name - David Wardrop

Organisation - Montgomery Forgan Associates

Address Line 1 - Eden Park House

Town - Cupar

Postcode - KY15 4HS

Email - david@montgomery-forgan.co.uk

Tel No - 01334 654936

3. Do you agree to the above statement?

YES, I agree to the above information.

Show this Page Only

1. Please choose from one of the following questions:

Angus Local Development Plan - MainIssues Report

Analyze Results

Home My Surveys Survey Services Plans & Pricing + Create Survey

dunnichen Sign Out Help

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

Monifieth

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 1: Do you support the preferred options for the LDP spatial strategy and itsimplementation, as shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3?

NO

The strategy for the South Angus HMA is not supported. There is no logic in identifying significant housing development withinCarnoustie (a Tier 3 settlement) rather than Monifieth (part of a Tier 1 settlement). Reference to paragraph 3.14 of the MIR suggeststhat there is a meaningful difference and benefit to allocating land at Carnoustie rather than within either Muirhead/Birkhill orMonifeith both of which are principal settlements within the South Angus HMA and both of which are specifically defined within theDundee Core Area. It is submitted that there is, in fact, no tangible difference in such an allocation in respect of impacting on DundeeCity Council’s flawed proposed strategy which is to focus in on brownfield development, most of which are Council owned. What itwould do however is add to the journey time to those commuting to Dundee as the majority of new residents in either Monifieth orCarnoustie would likely do. From this, Carnoustie is generally in a less sustainable location than Monifieth. This response to Question1 is set out more fully in the accompanying supporting statement.

2. QUESTION 2: Would you support the implementation of a "Development Charge" systemin Angus, so that public sector finances would be used to front-fund the development ofinfrastructure that is required to service new development, with costs being recoupedonce new homes / business premises are sold?

NO VIEW

Taylor Wimpey can confirm that their site at The Grange can be delivered without any requirement for Council ‘front funding’ of therequired site development infrastructure. Subject to securing the necessary consents, development of the Grange and the delivery ofboth private and affordable housing within the first period of the LDP can proceed. This response to Question 2 is set out more fullywithin the accompanying supporting statement.

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 3: Do you agree that new housing development on unallocated small and“windfall” sites should be considered as additional to new housing on allocated sites?

YES

Taylor Wimpey submit that, consistent with Scottish Planning Policy, windfall sites should not be considered as part of the housingland supply and should therefore be in addition to new housing on allocated sites. This response to Question 3 is set out more fullywithin the accompanying supporting statement.

2. QUESTION 4: Do you agree that the Angus LDP should not allocate land just tocompensate for the possible failure of some sites to deliver new homes on expectedtimescales?

NO

Scottish Planning Policy requires a “generous supply of land to meet identified housing land requirements across all tenures.”(paragraph 70). With TAYplan establishing an average annual build rate, a more flexible housing number context than as previouslyprovided for within old style Structure Plans, there is a deliberate shift to greater flexibility in the number of sites/units which LDPscan look to allocate. There is no doubt that for various reasons, sites allocated in the Angus LDP will either not come forward or theirprogramming will be delayed. As such a more generous supply of land needs to be identified within the LDP to ensure that there issufficient effective housing land and that a continuous 5 year supply is available at al times. This is particularly critical in addressingthe existing affordable housing shortfall. In South Angus HMA, proposing to allocate the majority of development at one site which isin multiple ownership and has not been knowingly tested against the effectiveness texts set out within PAN 2/2010 is a considerableand unnecessary risk. Instead, if the Council intend to identify one site only, it ought to be a site that there is firm confidence inrespect of deliverability, and of deliverability in the first phase of LDP period. Taylor Wimpey’s land at The Grange is effective and isin the ownership of a developer with a proven track record of delivering private and affordable housing development. Should theCouncil consider that an increase in the potential housing land supply is necessary, as they should, land at The Grange, in additionto the preferred option at Carnoustie is ready to deliver in the first period of the LDP. The points set out in this response to Question4 are set out more fully within the accompanying supporting statement.

3. QUESTION 5: Do you agree that the housing land supply of the Angus LDP should bereleased in two phases during the 10-year plan period?

YES

Taylor Wimpey agree that the LDP period being divided in two is the correct approach. This will ensure that sites allocated within

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

phase 1 which are to be delivered within this period, such as their land at The Grange, Monifieth, can come forward with confidence.Reference to diagram 5 indicates that for South Angus HMA 550 units are required to come forward in period 2014-2019 with thebalance of 290 to come forward in 2020-2024. This approach requires land to be identified for housing uses which is capable ofdelivering this number of units within this plan period. As set out further within Taylor Wimpey’s response, the proposed allocation ofland at Carnoustie offers no confidence in the units identified for delivery within the preferred phasing programme being delivered.An other issue to consider is that this two phase approach requires the addition of a draw down mechanism where additional land(phase 2) can come forward before the second period of the LDP where phase 1 sites are either not delivering any units asprogrammed or the delivery of these units is delayed resulting in a housing land supply shortfall. A robust and efficient mechanismneeds to be put in place either within the LDP or through Supplementary Planning Guidance to ensure that this is in place to dealwith any shortfall efficiently and effectively. The points raised in this response to Question 5 are set out more fully within theaccompanying supporting statement.

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 6: Do you agree with the preferred option of requesting a contributiontowards meeting the calculated affordable housing needs from new housing sites?

YES

Taylor Wimpey acknowledge the significant and increasing affordable housing shortfall within the South Angus Housing Market Area.Given this, it is critical for the LDP to identify land which is effective and which can deliver housing, including affordable housing,within the first period of the LDP. In this, Taylor Wimpey’s land at The Grange, Monifieth is both effective and could come forward atthe earliest opportunity. Taylor Wimpey are committed, as landowners as well as developers, to make provision for 25% affordablehousing on this site. With a notional capacity of up to 400 units, up to 100 units would be affordable. Of the sites indicated as‘preferred’ within the MIR there is no known timeframe to deliver housing at Carnoustie nor what the affordable housing element willbe within this allocation. With this and with Ashludie, Monifieth being correctly considered as a post 2024 proposal, the Council canhave no confidence that the LDP will practically address the affordable housing shortfall in the foreseeable future, if at all. The pointsraised in this response to Questions 6 & 7 are set out more fully within the accompanying supporting statement.

2. QUESTION 7: Do you think that any percentage affordable housing contribution shouldbe lower than the national benchmark (25% of the total number of homes) in the first five-years of the Angus LDP (2014-2019), because of economic difficulties and uncertainties?

NO

Taylor Wimpey acknowledge the significant and increasing affordable housing shortfall within the South Angus Housing Market Area.Given this, it is critical for the LDP to identify land which is effective and which can deliver housing, including affordable housing,within the first period of the LDP. In this, Taylor Wimpey’s land at The Grange, Monifieth is both effective and could come forward atthe earliest opportunity. Taylor Wimpey are committed, as landowners as well as developers, to make provision for 25% affordablehousing on this site. With a notional capacity of up to 400 units, up to 100 units would be affordable. Of the sites indicated as‘preferred’ within the MIR there is no known timeframe to deliver housing at Carnoustie nor what the affordable housing element willbe within this allocation. With this and with Ashludie, Monifieth being correctly considered as a post 2024 proposal, the Council canhave no confidence that the LDP will practically address the affordable hosing shortfall in the foreseeable future, if at all. The pointsraised in this response to Questions 6 & 7 are set out more fully within the accompanying supporting statement.

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 8: Do you think that the Angus LDP should seek to reduce carbon emissionsby encouraging live-work accommodation in the rural area?

No Response

2. QUESTION 9: Do you think that the Angus LDP should promote the development ofcommunity hubs (for business and personal use) in order to help reduce transport-relatedemissions in the rural area?

No Response

3. QUESTION 10: Do you agree with the preferred options that are shown in Tables 7 and8 for determining the location of new development?

No Response

Show this Page Only

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

1. QUESTION 11: Do you agree with the preferred options that are shown in Tables 9 and10 for avoiding greenhouse gas emissions?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 12: Do you agree with the preferred options that are shown in Tables 11 and12, for guiding and considering renewable energy proposals?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 13: Do you agree with the preferred options that are shown in Tables 13 and14 for dealing with the increased risk of flooding and erosion?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 14: Do you agree with the preferred options that are shown in Tables 15, 16,17 and 18 concerning how the Angus LDP can help to deliver sustainable prosperity?

No Response

2. QUESTION 15: Do you think that it’s necessary to have a long-term vision to guidespecific improvements in each of the Angus town centres?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 16: Do you agree with the preferred options that are shown in Tables 19, 20and 21 for the development of high quality places?

No Response

2. QUESTION 17: Do you think that more planning advice and guidance is needed on localdesign requirements?

No Response

3. QUESTION 18: Do you think that it’s necessary to integrate new homes with other uses(such as offices, local shops and new community facilities)?

No Response

4. QUESTION 19: If you think that the Angus LDP should establish long-distance networksof habitats and/or recreational paths between towns and villages (see alternative optionfor green networks in Table 20), can you suggest any objectives for creating andmaintaining these networks?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 20: Are there any other main issues for the Arbroath area that should be

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

considered for the Angus LDP? Please explain your answer.

No Response

2. QUESTION 21: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofArbroath?

No Response

3. QUESTION 22: Do you agree with the preferred option for the development of land inand around Arbroath?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 23: Are there any other main issues for the Brechin area that should beconsidered for the Angus LDP? Please explain your answer.

No Response

2. QUESTION 24: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofBrechin?

No Response

3. QUESTION 25: Do you agree with the preferred option for the development of land inand around Brechin?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 26: Are there any other main issues for the Carnoustie area that should beconsidered for the Angus LDP? Please explain your answer.

Taylor Wimpey consider that the principle of allocating land for the period 2014-2024 for housing purposes at Carnoustie is flawed.Instead, development for this period ought to be directed towards Monifieth which, as part of the Dundee Core Area (a Tier 1Settlement) must accommodate significant housing development before Carnoustie (a Tier 3 Settlement) unless there are soundreasons for not doing so. It is submitted that the reasons set out within the MIR explaining that only land at Carnoustie rather thanMonifieth is preferred as the location of the only significantly sized housing allocation within the LDP are not at all robust. This is setout in more detail within the statement submitted by Taylor Wimpey. Notwithstanding the flawed principle of directing development toCarnoustie within the plan period, the credibility of the preferred option as a major residential allocation which must be able to make asignificant contribution to the housing completion rates being met is challenged. The preferred site is firstly in multiple ownership andsecondly, developer interest/commitment is unknown. Both are significant challenges to overcome in delivering housing here. Inrespect of the specific site characteristics of the preferred option, the following comments are submitted. Critique on the PreferredMajor Development Site at Carnoustie Site Description The site consists of a sequence of mainly arable fields stretching from thenorth-western edge of Carnoustie as far as the A92 Arbroath Road. Pitskelly Farm is located within the south western area of theland and consists of a main farmhouse, large shed and ancillary farm buildings, together with a small row of cottages. There aregroups of trees around the farmhouse, and hedgerows defining some but not all of the field edges. Otherwise the area is an openlandscape with a sense of being elevated above sea level but of an even topography. Location Whilst located close to the edge ofthe settlement it is physically divorced from it by protected open space and belts of mature trees with virtually none of the site directlyabutting the existing urban area. It is a walk of around 2km to the town centre from Pitskelly Farm and there are no communityfacilities within easy access of the site. The western boundary consists of one of the main access points to Carnoustie from UpperVictoria on the A92. The southern edge consists of Shanwell Road. The east and staggered arrangements of northern boundary arepoorly defined and consist of field boundaries. Visibility Much of the site area is visible from the A92 although as part of the widerlandscape. It is difficult to discern this site within the wider area as it has such few defining features. There is no intervisibility withCarnoustie. The edge of the settlement is defined by mature belts of trees, and the physical divide of a scarp slope with defines achange in landscape character area. Hence Carnoustie sits at a much lower level to the site. Capacity for Development Capacity isdefined as being the interplay between topography and natural site features. Manmade structures and roads can be brought intoconsideration. The site has few natural or manmade features and “bleeds” into the surrounding landscape; most importantly in termsof defining capacity, it is relatively flat. The site therefore has poor capacity for development. Creating capacity through a plantinginfrastructure would be possible but would be at odds with the landscape character of the wider area and therefore difficult tosuccessfully achieve. Summary This is not an obvious site selection for new development. It has poor landscape capacity, and isvisibly completely divorced from the existing settlement but also with poor physical links. It is at a distance from all facilities where

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

getting into a car would be the preferred option for most residents, most of the time. The site has an odd shape which adds to thesense of being a site with little sense of identity. Meeting key targets for success place-making of distinctive, safe and pleasant, easyto move around, welcoming, adaptable and resource efficient would be particularly hard to achieve and any cross benefits toCarnoustie in terms of regeneration are likely to be low. Residents will find it easier to get on the A92 into Dundee rather than useCarnoustie. The only way that this site could work would be to accept that it is not an extension to Carnoustie but a new villagesettlement on the edge; to be built along sustainable principles it would require to be of a scale to accommodate some shops,community facilities and a primary school. With visibility so high it would require careful design thought and a high level of bespokedesign in order to create a sens of identity and protect the character of the A92 corridor at this point. This would require landassembly and proper JV establishment in order to achieve a scheme of integrity; this would take time, negotiation and seriousinvestment in both infrastructure and design. Comparison with Grange Farm Grange Farm is a smaller land area but with well definedcapacity stemming from defined urban edges, topography and roads. Mature trees lend the site some character. Whilst also at adistance from the town centre (just over 1.5km) from the town centre it has sports and cafe/commercial facilities as well as existingfrequent bus services close to the site. The primary school is well within recommended walking distance. It forms a natural extensionto the existing urban area. It benefits greatly from being within the ownership of the promoter and with infrastructure in place fromprevious phases of development. It therefore is a site that has capacity, and is immediately effective. The alternative options havethe same fundamental issue of principle, with the site specific issues raised against each in turn with the MIR reflecting TaylorWimpey’s own thoughts. In any event, notwithstanding the clear site specific issues with the preferred or preferred alternativeoptions, development of the scale envisaged within the MIR for South Angus within the LDP period 2014-2024 ought to be directedto Monifieth as part of a Tier 1 settlement and not to Carnoustie as a Tier 3 settlement. In summary, it is submitted that there is nostrategic justification to support the allocation of land for residential development purposes of the scale envisaged by the Council inCarnoustie instead a suitable location at Monifieth. In site specific terms and in matters of deliverability, each site in Carnoustie isflawed and each does not compare favourably with land at The Grange. The points raised in response to Question 27 are set outmore fully within the accompanying supporting statement.

2. QUESTION 27: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofCarnoustie?

NO

Please see answer to question 26.

3. QUESTION 28: Do you agree with the preferred option for the development of land inand around Carnoustie?

NO

Please see answer to question 26.

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 29: Are there any other main issues for the Forfar area that should beconsidered by the Angus LDP? Please explain your answer.

No Response

2. QUESTION 30: If you are a farmer or represent an agricultural business, do you thinkthat an “agripark” in the Forfar area, which would be a new business park specifically foragricultural businesses, is both desirable and economically viable?

No Response

3. QUESTION 31: Do you agree with the preferred option for the development of land inand around Forfar?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 32: Are there any other main issues for the Kirriemuir area that should beconsidered by the Angus LDP? Please explain your answer.

No Response

2. QUESTION 33: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development of

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

Kirriemuir?

No Response

3. QUESTION 34: Do you agree with the preferred option for the development of land inand around Kirriemuir?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 35: Are there any other main issues for the Monifieth area that should beconsidered by the Angus LDP? Please explain your answer.

Taylor Wimpey’s own land at The Grange, Monifieth. Previous submissions to the pre MIR stage articulated a residentialdevelopment of up to 400 units all set within a well defined and robust long term boundary for Monifieth. The 400 units include a25% affordable housing contribution. It is noted that the MIR identifies The Grange as the preferred alternative option, with thepreferred option being Ashludie Hospital and an associated large undefined greenfield release of land which rolls out to the east. It issubmitted that The Grange should be identified as the preferred option for housing development of up to 400 units over the planperiod 2014-2024 for the following reasons. The identification of land at Ashludie Hospital/associated greenfield release is suggestedby the Council to be a long term option. Indeed, this is projected beyond the LDP period. Given the, lack of any development atAshludie despite the site’s inclusion in previous local plans and the unknown deliverability, technical and landscape issues of thewider greenfield land, this longer term frame is not unreasonable. It is therefore questioned why, given TAYplan’s requirement toallocate housing land for 10 years, that it indicates that Ashludie is the preferred option for development at Monifeith to be allocatedwithin the LDP for development post 2024. As such the LDP should not identify land at Ashludie and beyond for developmentpurposes. At the most, the LDP could indicate that post 2024, this would be the intended direction of future growth if required. TheGrange, Monifieth is also a more appropriate location for development than Carnoustie given its Tier 1 rather than Tier 3 status; giventhat in contrast to Carnoustie which is in multiple ownership, land at The Grange is owned by Taylor Wimpey where plans areadvanced; and, there is a commitment to include 25% affordable housing. Instead, the preferred alternative at The Grange, with themany benefits set out within the attached supporting statement including the early delivery of both private and affordable housingdoes what TAYplan requires and can be done in a positive manner. It is also noted that there is reference within the MIR to apotential site for a park and choose, with Monifieth cited as one of several possible locations. As this is seen as a long term projectby TAYplan Action Programme, it is right to note that Ashludie may be a suitable long term location for this. Given this timescale,there is no requirement for The Grange to accommodate such a facility. The points raised within this response to Question 36 are setout more fully within the accompanying supporting statement.

2. QUESTION 36: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofMonifieth?

NO

Please refer to the answer given to question 35.

3. QUESTION 37: Do you agree with the preferred option for the development of land inand around Monifieth?

NO

Please refer to the answer given to question 35.

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 38: Are there any other main issues for the Montrose area that should beconsidered by the Angus LDP? Please explain your answer.

No Response

2. QUESTION 39: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofMontrose, Ferryden and Hillside?

No Response

3. QUESTION 40: Do you agree with the preferred option for the development of land inand around Montrose, Ferryden and Hillside?

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 41: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofEdzell?

No Response

2. QUESTION 42: Do you think that 50 new homes would be a suitable level of newhousing to meet local needs, or to support regeneration of the local economy withinEdzell over the period 2014-2024?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 43: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofFriockheim?

No Response

2. QUESTION 44: Do you think that 50 new homes would be a suitable level of newhousing to meet local needs, or to support regeneration of the local economy withinFriockheim over the period 2014-2024?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 45: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofLetham?

No Response

2. QUESTION 46: Do you think that 50 new homes would be a suitable level of newhousing to meet local needs, or to support regeneration of the local economy withinLetham over the period 2014-2024?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. QUESTION 47: Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development ofNewtyle?

No Response

2. QUESTION 48: Do you think that 50 new homes would be a suitable level of newhousing to meet local needs, or to support regeneration of the local economy withinNewtyle over the period 2014-2024?

No Response

Show this Page Only

1. Do you want to complete another section of the Main Issues Report Questionnaire?

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results

http://www.surveymonkey.net/...oMR8JRsEqPRuPHXCMznegBSyOMsZqn5o6glIdpHcSeFOnZzhhxBPo6FOeAFHSXiAMf4WvJ1ZQhgyz5pl8CSmsasJXY%2f%2bFVbzYU0%3d[27/12/2012 15:50:15]

NO, I want to submit my response.

Copyright © 1999-2012 SurveyMonkey

Follow Us:Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Our Blog Google+ YouTube

Help:FAQs & Tutorials Contact Support

About Us:Management Team Board of Directors Partners Newsroom Contact Us We're Hiring Sitemap

Policies:Terms of Use Privacy Policy Anti-Spam Policy Security Statement Email Opt-Out

Dansk Deutsch English Español Français Italiano Nederlands 日本語 Norsk Português Русский Suomi Svenska 中 (繁體)

Question 1

Do you support the preferred options for the LDP spatial strategy and its implementation, as shown in

Tables 1, 2 and 3? Please explain your answer and give details of any alternative option that you

think is better.

The strategy for the South Angus HMA is not supported. There is no logic in identifying significant

housing development within Carnoustie (a Tier 3 settlement) rather than Monifieth (part of a Tier 1

settlement). Reference to paragraph 3.14 of the MIR suggests that there is a meaningful difference and

benefit to allocating land at Carnoustie rather than within either Muirhead/Birkhill or Monifeith both of

which are principal settlements within the South Angus HMA and both of which are specifically defined

within the Dundee Core Area. It is submitted that there is, in fact, no tangible difference in such an

allocation in respect of impacting on Dundee City Council’s flawed proposed strategy which is to focus in

on brownfield development, most of which are Council owned. What it would do however is add to the

journey time to those commuting to Dundee as the majority of new residents in either Monifieth or

Carnoustie would likely do. From this, Carnoustie is generally in a less sustainable location than

Monifieth.

This response to Question 1 is set out more fully in the accompanying supporting statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Question 2

Would you support the implementation of a “Development Charge” system in Angus, so that public

sector finances would be used to front-fund the development of infrastructure that is required to

service new development, with costs being recouped once new homes/business premises are sold?

Please explain your answer.

Taylor Wimpey can confirm that their site at The Grange can be delivered without any requirement for

Council ‘front funding’ of the required site development infrastructure. Subject to securing the necessary

consents, development of the Grange and the delivery of both private and affordable housing within the

first period of the LDP can proceed.

This response to Question 2 is set out more fully within the accompanying supporting statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Question 3

Do you agree that new housing development on unallocated small and “windfall” sites should be

considered as additional to new housing on allocated sites? Please explain your answer.

Taylor Wimpey submit that, consistent with Scottish Planning Policy, windfall sites should not be

considered as part of the housing land supply and should therefore be in addition to new housing on

allocated sites.

This response to Question 3 is set out more fully within the accompanying supporting statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Question 4

Do you agree that the Angus LDP should not allocate land just to compensate for the possible failure

of some sites to deliver new homes on expected timescales? Please explain your answer.

Scottish Planning Policy requires a “generous supply of land to meet identified housing land requirements

across all tenures.” (paragraph 70). With TAYplan establishing an average annual build rate, a more

flexible housing number context than as previously provided for within old style Structure Plans, there is a

deliberate shift to greater flexibility in the number of sites/units which LDPs can look to allocate.

There is no doubt that for various reasons, sites allocated in the Angus LDP will either not come forward

or their programming will be delayed. As such a more generous supply of land needs to be identified

within the LDP to ensure that there is sufficient effective housing land and that a continuous 5 year supply

is available at al times. This is particularly critical in addressing the existing affordable housing shortfall.

In South Angus HMA, proposing to allocate the majority of development at one site which is in multiple

ownership and has not been knowingly tested against the effectiveness texts set out within PAN 2/2010

is a considerable and unnecessary risk. Instead, if the Council intend to identify one site only, it ought to

be a site that there is firm confidence in respect of deliverability, and of deliverability in the first phase of

LDP period. Taylor Wimpey’s land at The Grange is effective and is in the ownership of a developer with a

proven track record of delivering private and affordable housing development.

Should the Council consider that an increase in the potential housing land supply is necessary, as they

should, land at The Grange, in addition to the preferred option at Carnoustie is ready to deliver in the first

period of the LDP.

The points set out in this response to Question 4 are set out more fully within the accompanying

supporting statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Question 5

Do you agree that the housing land supply of the Angus LDP should be released in two phases

during the 10-year plan period? Please explain your answer.

Taylor Wimpey agree that the LDP period being divided in two is the correct approach. This will ensure

that sites allocated within phase 1 which are to be delivered within this period, such as their land at The

Grange, Monifieth, can come forward with confidence.

Reference to diagram 5 indicates that for South Angus HMA 550 units are required to come forward in

period 2014-2019 with the balance of 290 to come forward in 2020-2024. This approach requires land

to be identified for housing uses which is capable of delivering this number of units within this plan period.

As set out further within Taylor Wimpey’s response, the proposed allocation of land at Carnoustie offers

no confidence in the units identified for delivery within the preferred phasing programme being delivered.

An other issue to consider is that this two phase approach requires the addition of a draw down

mechanism where additional land (phase 2) can come forward before the second period of the LDP

where phase 1 sites are either not delivering any units as programmed or the delivery of these units is

delayed resulting in a housing land supply shortfall.

A robust and efficient mechanism needs to be put in place either within the LDP or through

Supplementary Planning Guidance to ensure that this is in place to deal with any shortfall efficiently and

effectively.

The points raised in this response to Question 5 are set out more fully within the accompanying

supporting statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Question 6 & 7

Do you agree with the preferred option of requesting a contribution towards meeting the calculated

affordable housing needs from new housing sites? Please explain your answer.

Do you think that any percentage affordable housing contribution should be lower than the national

benchmark (25% of the total number of homes) in the first five-years of the Angus LDP (2014-2019),

because of economic difficulties and uncertainties? Please explain your answer.

Taylor Wimpey acknowledge the significant and increasing affordable housing shortfall within the South

Angus Housing Market Area. Given this, it is critical for the LDP to identify land which is effective and

which can deliver housing, including affordable housing, within the first period of the LDP.

In this, Taylor Wimpey’s land at The Grange, Monifieth is both effective and could come forward at the

earliest opportunity. Taylor Wimpey are committed, as landowners as well as developers, to make

provision for 25% affordable housing on this site. With a notional capacity of up to 400 units, up to 100

units would be affordable.

Of the sites indicated as ‘preferred’ within the MIR there is no known timeframe to deliver housing at

Carnoustie nor what the affordable housing element will be within this allocation. With this and with

Ashludie, Monifieth being correctly considered as a post 2024 proposal, the Council can have no

confidence that the LDP will practically address the affordable hosing shortfall in the foreseeable future, if

at all.

The points raised in this response to Questions 6 & 7 are set out more fully within the accompanying

supporting statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Question 27

Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development of Carnoustie? Please give

reasons for your answer and (if appropriate) describe any alternative option that you would prefer.

Principle of a Large Housing Allocation at Carnoustie

Taylor Wimpey consider that the principle of allocating land for the period 2014-2024 for housing

purposes at Carnoustie is flawed. Instead, development for this period ought to be directed towards

Monifieth which, as part of the Dundee Core Area (a Tier 1 Settlement) must accommodate significant

housing development before Carnoustie (a Tier 3 Settlement) unless there are sound reasons for not

doing so.

It is submitted that the reasons set out within the MIR explaining that only land at Carnoustie rather than

Monifieth is preferred as the location of the only significantly sized housing allocation within the LDP are

not at all robust. This is set out in more detail within the statement submitted by Taylor Wimpey.

Notwithstanding the flawed principle of directing development to Carnoustie within the plan period, the

credibility of the preferred option as a major residential allocation which must be able to make a significant

contribution to the housing completion rates being met is challenged.

The preferred site is firstly in multiple ownership and secondly, developer interest/commitment is

unknown. Both are significant challenges to overcome in delivering housing here.

In respect of the specific site characteristics of the preferred option, the following comments are

submitted.

Critique on the Preferred Major Development Site at Carnoustie

Site Description

The site consists of a sequence of mainly arable fields stretching from the north-western edge of

Carnoustie as far as the A92 Arbroath Road. Pitskelly Farm is located within the south western area of

the land and consists of a main farmhouse, large shed and ancillary farm buildings, together with a small

row of cottages.

Character

The character is of open farmland as evidenced within the accompanying photographs. It falls into the

landscape character type “Dislope Farmland” as distinct from the landscape character type “Coast with

Cliffs” and “Coast with Sand” within which Carnoustie itself falls.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

There are groups of trees around the farmhouse, and hedgerows defining some but not all of the field

edges. Otherwise the area is an open landscape with a sense of being elevated above sea level but of an

even topography.

Location

Whilst located close to the edge of the settlement it is physically divorced from it by protected open

space and belts of mature trees with virtually none of the site directly abutting the existing urban area. It

is a walk of around 2km to the town centre from Pitskelly Farm and there are no community facilities

within easy access of the site.

The western boundary consists of one of the main access points to Carnoustie from Upper Victoria on

the A92. The southern edge consists of Shanwell Road. The east and staggered arrangements of

northern boundary are poorly defined and consist of field boundaries.

Visibility

Much of the site area is visible from the A92 although as part of the wider landscape. It is difficult to

discern this site within the wider area as it has such few defining features. There is no intervisibility with

Carnoustie. The edge of the settlement is defined by mature belts of trees, and the physical divide of a

scarp slope with defines a change in landscape character area. Hence Carnoustie sits at a much lower

level to the site.

Capacity for Development

Capacity is defined as being the interplay between topography and natural site features. Manmade

structures and roads can be brought into consideration. The site has few natural or manmade features

and “bleeds” into the surrounding landscape; most importantly in terms of defining capacity, it is relatively

flat. The site therefore has poor capacity for development. Creating capacity through a planting

infrastructure would be possible but would be at odds with the landscape character of the wider area and

therefore difficult to successfully achieve.

Summary

This is not an obvious site selection for new development. It has poor landscape capacity, and is visibly

completely divorced from the existing settlement but also with poor physical links. It is at a distance from

all facilities where getting into a car would be the preferred option for most residents, most of the time.

The site has an odd shape which adds to the sense of being a site with little sense of identity. Meeting

key targets for success place-making of distinctive, safe and pleasant, easy to move around, welcoming,

adaptable and resource efficient would be particularly hard to achieve and any cross benefits to

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Carnoustie in terms of regeneration are likely to be low. Residents will find it easier to get on the A92 into

Dundee rather than use Carnoustie.

The only way that this site could work would be to accept that it is not an extension to Carnoustie but a

new village settlement on the edge; to be built along sustainable principles it would require to be of a

scale to accommodate some shops, community facilities and a primary school. With visibility so high it

would require careful design thought and a high level of bespoke design in order to create a sens of

identity and protect the character of the A92 corridor at this point. This would require land assembly and

proper JV establishment in order to achieve a scheme of integrity; this would take time, negotiation and

serious investment in both infrastructure and design.

Comparison with Grange Farm

Grange Farm is a smaller land area but with well defined capacity stemming from defined urban edges,

topography and roads. Mature trees lend the site some character. Whilst also at a distance from the

town centre (just over 1.5km) from the town centre it has sports and cafe/commercial facilities as well as

existing frequent bus services close to the site. The primary school is well within recommended walking

distance.

It forms a natural extension to the existing urban area. It benefits greatly from being within the ownership

of the promoter and with infrastructure in place from previous phases of development. It therefore is a

site that has capacity, and is immediately effective.

The alternative options have the same fundamental issue of principle, with the site specific issues raised

against each in turn with the MIR reflecting Taylor Wimpey’s own thoughts.

In any event, notwithstanding the clear site specific issues with the preferred or preferred alternative

options, development of the scale envisaged within the MIR for South Angus within the LDP period

2014-2024 ought to be directed to Monifieth as part of a Tier 1 settlement and not to Carnoustie as a

Tier 3 settlement.

In summary, it is submitted that there is no strategic justification to support the allocation of land for

residential development purposes of the scale envisaged by the Council in Carnoustie instead a suitable

location at Monifieth. In site specific terms and in matters of deliverability, each site in Carnoustie is

flawed and each does not compare favourably with land at The Grange.

The points raised in response to Question 27 are set out more fully within the accompanying supporting

statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

Question 36

Do you agree with the preferred option for the future development of Monifieth? Please give reasons

for your answer and (if appropriate) describe any alternative option that you would prefer.

Taylor Wimpey’s own land at The Grange, Monifieth. Previous submissions to the pre MIR stage

articulated a residential development of up to 400 units all set within a well defined and robust long term

boundary for Monifieth. The 400 units include a 25% affordable housing contribution.

It is noted that the MIR identifies The Grange as the preferred alternative option, with the preferred option

being Ashludie Hospital and an associated large undefined greenfield release of land which rolls out to the

east.

It is submitted that The Grange should be identified as the preferred option for housing development of

up to 400 units over the plan period 2014-2024 for the following reasons.

The identification of land at Ashludie Hospital/associated greenfield release is suggested by the Council to

be a long term option. Indeed, this is projected beyond the LDP period. Given the, lack of any

development at Ashludie despite the site’s inclusion in previous local plans and the unknown deliverability,

technical and landscape issues of the wider greenfield land, this longer term frame is not unreasonable. It

is therefore questioned why, given TAYplan’s requirement to allocate housing land for 10 years, that it

indicates that Ashludie is the preferred option for development at Monifeith to be allocated within the LDP

for development post 2024. As such the LDP should not identify land at Ashludie and beyond for

development purposes. At the most, the LDP could indicate that post 2024, this would be the intended

direction of future growth if required.

The Grange, Monifieth is also a more appropriate location for development than Carnoustie given its Tier

1 rather than Tier 3 status; given that in contrast to Carnoustie which is in multiple ownership, land at The

Grange is owned by Taylor Wimpey where plans are advanced; and, there is a commitment to include

25% affordable housing.

Instead, the preferred alternative at The Grange, with the many benefits set out within the attached

supporting statement including the early delivery of both private and affordable housing does what

TAYplan requires and can be done in a positive manner.

It is also noted that there is reference within the MIR to a potential site for a park and choose, with

Monifieth cited as one of several possible locations. As this is seen as a long term project by TAYplan

Action Programme, it is right to note that Ashludie may be a suitable long term location for this. Given

this timescale, there is no requirement for The Grange to accommodate such a facility.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

The points raised within this response to Question 36 are set out more fully within the accompanying

supporting statement.

Montgomery Forgan Associates

The Grange, MonifiethLand for HousingSubmission to Angus CouncilMain Issues Report response

December 2012

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

This is a written representation to Angus Council with respect to the promotion of land at:

The Grange, Monifieth.

New homes at the Grange will form a new suburb for Monifieth that completes the developed edge, is

responsive to the landscape context and provides excellent local access to employment, retail and leisure facilities.

Taylor Wimpey owns the site, and is committed to delivery, The Grange could provide up to 380 new homes of mixed

type and tenure.

Contents

1. Introduction pg. 6

1.1 Purpose of this Submission pg. 6

1.2 Location pg. 7

2. Monifieth pg. 8

2.1 Planning pg. 8

2.2 Settlement History pg. 11

2.3 Setting pg. 13

2.4 Connections pg. 14

3. Land at the Grange pg. 15

3.1 Site Description pg. 15

3.2 Land Use pg. 16

3.3 Local Facilities pg. 16

3.4 Local Connections pg. 16

3.5 Topography pg. 19

3.6 Views pg. 20

3.7 Landscape Analysis & Opportunity pg. 23

4. Development Framework pg. 25

4.1 Proposal Description pg. 25

4.2 Landform & Landscape pg. 25

4.3 Character pg. 25

4.4 Connections pg. 25

4.5 Drainage & Utility Servicing Strategy pg. 26

5. Benefitting Monifieth pg. 28

5.1 Community Benefit pg. 28

6. Summary pg. 29

Appendix 1 pg. 31

Transport and Access Appraisal Report pg. 33

Figure 01: Location pg. 7

Figure 02: Historic Mapping pg. 12

Figure 03: View from the B962 looking east toward Monifieth pg. 13

Figure 04: Aerial Photograph pg. 15

Figure 05: Local Facilities - Photographs pg. 17

Figure 06: Local Facilities & Walking Distances pg. 18

Figure 07: Views of the Site pg. 21

Figure 08: Views from within the Site pg. 22

Figure 09: Landscape Analysis pg. 23

Figure 10: Development Framework pg. 24

Figure 11: Connections pg. 26

Figures

pg. 6

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Following an earlier submission to the pre Main Issues Report stage of the new Angus Local Development Plan, (LDP), this masterplan report has been prepared in support of Taylor Wimpey’s formal responses to the questions posed within the Main Issues Report (MIR).

This statement provides context to Taylor Wimpey’s submission that land at The Grange rather than at Carnoustie or Ashludie be identified for residential purposes within the Angus LDP.

1. Introduction1.1 Purpose of this Submission

This statement also provides support to the other responses made by Taylor Wimpey in response to the Angus LDP MIR.

pg. 7

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Monifieth is an attractive coastal town located within the south western edge of Angus almost at the border with Dundee City Council. It is the fifth largest settlement in Angus.

The southern edge of Monifieth bounds the Tay and the town extends north, as far as the A92. The Angus Gateway Centre, or Ethiebeaton Retail Park, lies to the immediate north of Monifieth and the A92 and encompasses both retail and leisure activities. The western edge of Monifieth abuts the Dundee City Council boundary; in the past

1.2 LocationMonifieth was a suburb of Dundee rather than being a settlement within Angus.

The Grange site, subject of this submission, is located within an area between the existing edge of the settlement, and the A92 and Angus Gateway Centre. This was land which was once part of the Grange of Monifieth Estate, but which is now largely built on. The site encompasses some 42 acres/17 hectares and offers a good opportunity to round off the northern edge of the town.

Figure 01: Location

pg. 8

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Scottish Planning PolicyWith regard to housing land, Scottish Planning Policy confirms within paragraph 66 that the planning system should enable the development of well designed, energy efficient, good quality housing in suitable locations and allocate a generous supply of land to meet identified housing land requirements across all tenures.

These objectives are reinforced within paragraph 70 which states that the delivery of housing through the Development Plan to support the creation of sustainable mixed communities depends on a generous supply of appropriate and effective sites being made available to meet need and demand and on the timely release of allocated sites.

In setting out the settlement strategy, SPP identifies a number of key considerations including:

• the efficient use of existing buildings, land and infrastructure;

• accessibility of houses, services, open space and employment opportunities by a range of transport options;

• coordination of housing land release with investment in infrastructure including transport and educational investment, and with other major proposals;

• the deliverability of the strategy; and,

• the protection and enhancement of landscape, natural built and cultural heritage, biodiversity and the wider environment, including consideration of flood risk.

Paragraph 78 of SPP confirms that “The type of development that can be achieved should be considered when sites are being selected”. It goes on to advise that “the siting and design of new housing should take account of its setting, the surrounding landscape, topography, character, appearance, ecologies and the scope for using local materials”.

Critically, new housing development should be integrated within public transport and active travel networks such as footpaths and cycle routes rather than encouraging dependance on the car. In identifying locations for housing a number of factors must be taken into account including:

2. Monifieth2.1 Planning

• the relative accessibility of sites by a choice of transport options;

• the availability of infrastructure;

• whether development can be achieved within the required time frame;

• the provision of choice across the housing market area; and,

• the design, quality and density of development that be achieved.

SPP acknowledges that the majority of housing land requirements will be met within or adjacent to existing settlements.

As will be set out further within this submission, the allocation of land here does not run counter to these factors given that the site is accessible; can come forward without undue delay; and can be to the highest design and environmental standards.

pg. 9

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

TAYplanThe proposed Angus LDP must conform with TAYplan. Within TAYplan, Monifieth is specifically identified as forming part of the Dundee Core Area which is defined within Policy 1: Location Priorities. Policy 1(A) states that “Tier 1 settlements have the potential to accommodate the majority of the region’s additional development over the plan period and make a major contribution to the region’s economy.”

Policy 1(B) then sets out a sequential approach to the identification of land for development. This is as follows:

1. Land within principal settlements;2. Land on the edge of principal settlements; and,3. Other land subject to caveats.

Within Tier 1 and within the South Angus Housing Market Area, there are two settlements, Monifeith and Muirhead/Birkhill. Elsewhere within the South Angus HMA, Carnoustie is identified as a Tier 3 settlement which is defined as a settlement which has “the potential to play an important but more modest role in the regional economy and will accommodate a small share of the region’s additional development which is more about sustaining them.”

Policy 5 sets out TAYplan’s housing strategy whose principle aim is to be ready to support the progress of economic recovery in the region.

Policy 5(A) requires LDPs to “allocate land which is effective or capable of becoming effective to meet the housing land requirement up to year 10 from the predicted date of adoption, ensuring a minimum 5 years effective land supply at all times and work towards the provision of a 7 years supply of effective housing land by 2015 to support economic growth.”

Policy 5(A) continues by requiring LDPs to allocate land within each Housing Market Area “to provide an effective and generous supply of land” Within the South Angus HMA, an annual average of 80 units are identified.

Finally, Policy 5(C) established a presumption against land releases in areas surrounding the Dundee and Perth Core Areas where it would prejudice the delivery of Strategic Development Areas or regeneration within the core areas or conflict with other parts of the plan.

Based on the strategic context set out within TAYplan Policy 1 and 5, the following key principles can be established.

• new development must be directed first to a Tier 1 settlement, where the sequential approach will apply; then to a Tier 2 settlement, where the sequential approach will apply and then finally to a Tier 3 settlement, again where the sequential approach will apply.

• in respect of the South Angus HMA, the first location for new development land must be either Monifieth or Muirhead/Birkhill as the only two Angus settlements defined within the Dundee Core Area and the South Angus HMA.

• in principle, and subject to site specific characteristics, development must be directed to either Monifieth or Muirhead/Birkhill before being directed towards the next ranked settlement which for the South Angus HMA is Carnoustie which is defined as Tier 3.

• both brownfield land and greenfield will require to be identified to ensure there is sufficient choice and flexibility and, critically, deliverability of housing land.

As a settlement defined within a Tier 1 Core Area, TAYplan allows a significant scale of development to be directed to suitable land in Monifieth. However, the MIR (paragraph 6 of Monifieth Settlement Section) advises that given the dominance of Dundee City within the core area, “the amount of new development that is planned for Monifieth will therefore need to be carefully considered in view of what is likely to happen in Dundee, which will be delivered by Dundee City Council’s LDP.”

As indicated within the MIR, South Angus HMA is to identify land for 840 new houses and an additional 350 houses from an Indicative Housing Land Requirement (both table in paragraph 7.3 of MIR) for the period 2014-2024.

The MIR identifies South Angus HMA as comprising the principal settlements of Carnoustie and the Angus part of the Dundee Core Area (Monifieth and Birkhill).

The MIR then sets out the preferred strategy which is to ensure that the majority of new development occurs within Carnoustie and the Dundee Core Area with

pg. 10

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

outward expansion of these settlements occurring only if development cannot be accommodated within the existing boundaries. In doing so, the MIR recognises the preference to advance brownfield redevelopment opportunities.

In attempting to address these issues, the MIR preferred option for South Angus HMA is to allocate a significant amount of land at Carnoustie for the LDP plan period. This appears to be the only new land which is proposed for housing within the MIR within the South Angus HMA within the LDP period. Beyond this period, a long term potential allocation comprising Ashludie Hospital and greenfield land beyond is suggested for Monifieth post 2014.

It is submitted that this approach is flawed both in terms of principle and in detail. TAYplan requires the identification of land which is effective with large scale land releases to be directed to Tier 1 settlements, which include Monifieth, first before turning to Tier 2 settlements and then finally Tier 3 settlements. Given the locational similarities of Monifieth and Carnoustie, there is no reason in principle why development of the scale at envisaged by the Council at Carnoustie is directed there rather than to Monifieth. It is submitted that in practical terms both will have a similar effect on Dundee City Council’s preferred, albeit flawed, spatial strategy which focuses on brownfield redevelopment and very limited and deferred greenfield releases.

Given this fundamental flaw in the principle of directing development to a Tier 3 settlement rather than a Tier 1 settlement, in matters of detail the preferred and alternative options at Carnoustie are less suitable for development than Taylor Wimpey’s land at The Grange, Monifieth. This is set out in more detail within Taylor Wimpey’s response to Question 27 of the MIR. This short document sets out the benefits of locating development at The Grange.

In considering the broad strategy outlined within TAYplan the principle of allocating land at Grange, Monifieth, in lying within the Dundee Core Area, is confirmed with the information set out within this submission confirming the sustainability of the subject lands to accommodate approximately 380 residential units in a logical, sustainable and high quality manner.

pg. 11

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

As a place, Monifieth dates back to Pictish times. Early history is focussed around a monastery (possibly giving the town its name), linseed oil production and weaving. The village itself was originally established within the south of what is the current settlement area, on the edge of the Tay and consisted of a small grid of development. The area within this submission, South Grange, was formerly an estate to the north of the settlement nucleus containing a large house and significant planting.

Like Dundee, Monifieth expanded rapidly during the industrial revolution, and the railway line was built in 1838 serving Dundee, Monifieth and Arbroath. This led to significant expansion up until the first quarter of the last century and at that time the population tripled accordingly. Development expanded the village into a town largely to the east but also to the west and north. This took the form of a grid network. Development was terraced to the east, and consisted of large properties within large plots to the north. The establishment of a golf course encouraged a role for Monifieth not only as a home for workers within the surrounding mills but as an outer suburb of Dundee for the “jute barons”.

Expansion slowed during the remaining part of the 1900s up until the 1970s and Monifieth underwent a second wave of rapid growth up until 2000 or so. This spread development onto the land around the Grange Estate, producing the style of “housing estate” development typical of the time. Development also expanded to

2.2 Settlement History

1865 1903

the east, again around a series of cul-de-sacs, and also crossed the Dighty Burn to the west and incorporated Monifieth High School.

Over the past 10 years significant improvement has been made to the A92, including an improved roundabout, a new roundabout and sections of dualled route. Further infill of the settlement area up to the improved road and new roundabout has taken place, including land to the west of the submission site.

The growth of Monifieth is shown on the accompanying pages which also demonstrate that future growth of the town is therefore constrained; Monifieth cannot grow further west as it already meets with the edge of the City of Dundee. To the south it is constrained by the railway line and the Tay, and the Golf Course lies to the immediate east. Given the unsuitability of land to the north east, as concluded during the last local plan review, the only area suitable for the future growth of Monifieth is to the north at the Grange.

pg. 12

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

1923

1984

2000

1960-68

1994-95

2010

Figure 02: Historic Mapping

pg. 13

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Monifieth sits at a transition point between the urban conurbation around Dundee and the Angus landscape beyond. The western edge of Monifieth is so closely aligned with Dundee that it is perceived as an extension to the city, especially when travelling west to east along the A92. Monifieth is not seen in its entirety as it is generally a south-facing settlement which slopes down and away from the A92, and the defining features of the settlement are not visible from the road.

This perception of development leading out of Dundee is consolidated by the recent expansion to the east of Dundee at Linlathen and Balmossie and the westwards expansion of Monifieth particularly on the other side of the Dighty Burn. This is only then interrupted by the change in scale of buildings that are encompassed by The Angus Gateway and the views forward into the Angus landscape. Monifieth is still visible at this point too, with some housing close to the road and some further back amongst trees. Direct views are filtered to a degree by a slight embankment and by vegetation both along the road and amongst the development at the edge of Monifieth.

Perception of Monifieth from the east is influenced by the character of the landscape which is defined as “Coast with Sand” by the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment (LUC for SNH 1999). This landscape character type takes in the area east of Monifieth and is typified by being a links landscape, but has a hinterland of undulating agricultural land behind it. Whilst Monifieth is seen within the context of the sea- or Tay Estuary- in views from the east, when within the town there is a limited sense of being within a coastal settlement. This is due to a combination of topography, urban form and the mature belts of tree planting that are scattered through the town particularly around Hill Street, Crow Hill, Ashludie Hospital and Seaview Primary School. The

2.3 Settingexception to this is when within the south of the town, as levels drop and there are glimpses through to water. Even here, however, there is no great coastal panorama from the urban edge as views are interrupted by the railway line being on embankment.

Figure 03: View from the B962 looking east toward Monifieth

pg. 14

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

The Core Path NetworkThe Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 placed a statutory responsibility on all authorities to draw up a Core Paths Plan. The Angus Council Core Paths Plan was adopted in December 2010. The Core Path Plan illustrates the establishment of Core Paths and their linkages, and how these connect to the green space network including the coast, the Green Circular Cycleway, and National Cycle Route 1 (see below). Hence there are good connections between the town, the Angus Gateway Centre, the rural hinterland to the east and the schools and landscape around the Dighty Water to the west. These are shown on the diagram within Appendix 1 (Figure 3 Existing Accessibility).

Cyclists and EquestriansNational Cycle Route 1 (NCN 1), known as the Coast and Castles Cycle Route, and the Dundee Green Circular Cycleway pass through Monifieth. NCN 1 is to the south of the town and the Circular Route is to the south and west. The ‘Monifieth path network’ has also been developed and this affords direct connectivity with the site frontage.

The crossing over the A92 to the east of the West Grange roundabout, from Monifieth, is a Pegasus crossing which provides equestrian, cycles and pedestrian crossing facilities. This was installed to facilitate movement of horses between stables on the north side of the A92 and Monifieth beach.

Public TransportMonifieth benefits from being on the rail network; the railway station is located to the south of the town near the town centre and the beach. This is a service that operates between Dundee and Carnoustie calling at several stations in between. Train services are however currently limited with one train per day in each direction.

Monifieth is well served for buses, particularly the north of the town as the majority of services call in at the Angus Gateway, many starting or terminating there.

2.4 ConnectionsStrategic Road NetworkMonifieth is bounded to the north by the A92 which gives the town good main access to the strategic road network, allowing access to the wider network of Central Scotland. This is the main route for trips north to Arbroath, Montrose, Stonehaven and Dundee. It also provides a key connection to the wider trunk road network – the A92 towards Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy, and the A90 toward Aberdeen, Perth and, via the latter, to the M90, A9 and A85.

Local Road NetworkMonifieth itself is permeated by a network of local roads offering a wide range of connections to the town and further afield. Leading into the town from the A92 are Grange Road and Victoria Road which join the local road network leading toward Monifieth town centre and to the A930 which connects west-east to the south of the town.

pg. 15

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

The site is predominantly in agricultural use, as grassland. It is broadly rectangular. In examining the historic maps this was once 2 larger and 2 smaller fields but now consists of a single field. A single remnant hedgerow from the previous division remains, consisting of a limited amount of hedgerow planting and three mature trees.

Grange Nursing Home, built on the site of some of the old Grange buildings (latterly referred to as “South Grange”) lies within the south-west corner of the site. There is very little by way of boundary treatment between the Home and the site.

The southern edge is bounded by two large cul-de-sac developments which “back” on to the site. They have been established for some time and have mature gardens. Toward the south-east corner lies a group of mature trees which have been established for at least 150 years and which are on the site of a former quarry.

3. Land at the Grange3.1 Site Description

The eastern and north-eastern boundary abuts with the access off Ethiebeaton Roundabout that becomes Victoria Street, leading into the town centre. Next to the roundabout, within the site area is the almost complete remnant of a woodland roundel, again one that has been established for at least 150 years.

The A92 forms the north-western edge of the site, although is separated from it by a verge, cycle path and planted embankment.

The western edge, leading from the Grange Nursing Home is a track, now severed, that once connected North Grange with South Grange. It now connects Grange Road with the Nursing Home and beyond to the Cycle route that edges the A92 and connects down past the Dighty Water to the waterfront. To the west of the Grange path lies recent development which partially overlooks the site.

Figure 04: Aerial Photograph

pg. 16

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

As indicated previously, the site is in agricultural use. Over the summer it has been used as grassland and is now ploughed. There is evidence of extensive local use of the site for walking and access and this is clearly picked up on the accompanying aerial photograph. Residents within the area clearly use the site to shortcut to the facilities within the Gateway development at Ethiebeaton Roundabout or as a place to walk dogs.

As observed on site and indicated above, it is clear that Monifieth residents regularly use the facilities at Ethiebeaton roundabout. This includes a Dobbie’s Garden Centre, restaurant , Premier Inn, McDonalds, David Lloyd Leisure Centre, and retail outlet store. These are within 5 minutes walk of the site.

Other facilities local to the site include the Monifieth Health Centre and Ashludie Pharmacy, which are within 800m (10 minutes) walk. The two primary schools within Monifieth are roughly equidistant from the site and are shown on the accompanying diagram.

The site also enjoys good access to the core path network that includes both cycling and walking routes.

Pedestrians and CyclistsThe site is bounded to the east and north by Victoria Street which is provided with a wide and well-surfaced, although unlit, footway on the side of the street adjacent to the site. To the south of the site this becomes a footway on both sides of the carriageway.

The north-west of the site is bounded by the A92 which is provided with a segregated shared foot/ cycleway on the side adjacent to the site frontage. This forms part of the path network linking Monifieth to Arbroath.To the west the site is bounded by Grange Road, and to the west of that, James Herald Terrace- part of a relatively new residential development. A shared foot/cycleway is signed between the two and this connects with the foot/ cycleway running alongside the A92.

The Angus Gateway Centre to the north of the site is connected via a staggered Toucan crossing immediately to the west of Ethiebeaton Roundabout and accessed

3.2 Land Use

3.3 Local Facilities

3.4 Local Connections

from Victoria Street, A92 and Grange Road pedestrian routes.

Walking distances are shown on the accompanying “local facilities” diagram and on the isochrones drawing within Appendix 1. A significant part of Monifieth lies within a 1600m walk (20 minutes) of the site.

Cyclists from the site area can easily reach the cycle network via the core path network and gain access to Broughty Ferry, Dundee, Carnoustie, Arbroath and beyond. The paths to the north of the site next to the A92 are currently already well-used by cyclists. There are good connections from the site area via the road network for cyclists to get into town.

Public TransportThe train station is located to the south, and at the other end of the town from the Grange, but is within a 1500m walk of the site (around 20 minutes walk).

The Grange is particularly well-served for buses as the majority of services calling at the Angus Gateway (within 5 minutes walk). Bus ‘call’ stops are also located on Victoria Street outside Ashludie Hospital and in West Grange Road, west of the site. These are both within a 400m walk of the site (5 minutes) using existing footways and footpaths.

Local Road NetworkMonifieth is permeated by a network of local roads offering a wide range of connections to the town and further afield. Victoria Street, to the east and north-east of the site, and Grange Road, to the west of the site, join the local road network leading toward Monifieth town centre and the A930 which passes through the town.

Victoria Street connects with the A92 at Ethiebeaton Roundabout on the northern edge of the site. To the south west of the site Grange Road connects with West Grange Road via Ardownie Street, which then runs north to link with the A92 at West Grange Roundabout.

This close proximity to the A92 provides easy connections to the strategic road network directly from the site.

pg. 17

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Core path provision

Local leisure facility (private)

Local restaurant

Monifieth Health Centre

Seaview Primary

Monifieth High Street

Angus Gateway Centre

Figure 05: Local Facilities - Photographs

pg. 18

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Figure 06: Local Facilities & Walking Distances

pg. 19

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

The landform of the site is gently rolling and interspersed with a series of knolls, shown on the accompanying analysis drawings. Landform ranges across the site from 57m AOD at the highest point of the largest and most

3.5 Topographydistinctive knoll down to 45m AOD at the lowest point of the site. Initial height band analysis shows that levels within the site are contiguous within the surrounding context.

pg. 20

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

To the SiteThere are no clear views of the site from the north-west as the A92 is in slight cut at that point so the site is screened by landform and planting, similarly at Ethiebeaton Roundabout. There are no direct views from the south due to density of development, mature planting and private space. The exception is the Grange Nursing Home.

The site is most clearly visible from the east, particularly from the point at which Victoria Street wraps around the north east edge. Even here, however, the site is not seen in its entirety owing to local landform. A plateau on the former field boundary combines with the knolls to form a viewshed, with the mature trees clearly visible on the horizon line and the landform beyond dropping behind. The electricity substation to the north-east of the site is also quite prominent in local views.

There are also views to the site from the B962, Mains of Ardestie junction off the A92 (refer to photographs). Again only the eastern part of the site is visible, notably for the mature trees within and which edge the site. This view is seen within the context of a rolling landscape which is crossed by bands of mature trees and a site which is edged at both ends by development.

3.6 ViewsFrom the SiteViews from within the site toward the west and north are of a developed landscape; looking west there are prominent views of the adjacent recent housing which extends as far as the A92 and the Nursing Home. To the north, the road itself is not visible but lighting columns and the development mass of the Angus Gateway group of buildings can be seen which have the effect of bringing an urban character to the edge of the site. Beyond that mass there are attractive views to the north toward low rolling hills with mature woodland. Some of the significant mining activity within the landscape to the north can be discerned nonetheless this is an attractive view.

Views to the south are of the established edge of Monifieth, development from within the past thirty years where the landscape has matured. This edge is “closed” with rear garden hedgerow boundary planting and garden trees partially screening housing.

Views to the east are across the rural west Angus landscape, a series of low and undulating agricultural fields interspersed with mature trees. Woodland to the southern edge of the site combines with the woodland around the hospital to create a dominant mass that can be seen for some distance within the wider landscape.

pg. 21

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

View looking east from the core path

View to the site from the edge of the A92, looking south

Approach north from Victoria Street

View into the site from the north-eastern edge

Figure 07: Views of the Site

pg. 22

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

View west from edge of site

View looking east from the south-west

View looking south from within the site

View looking north along western boundary

View looking east from within the site

Figure 08: Views from within the Site

pg. 23

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

This site lends itself to residential development; there is a sense of it being a historical remnant and there is an opportunity to create a definable northern edge to Monifieth. This will also formalise the strong relationship between the Angus Gateway retail centre and the town, and consolidate the character of the urban area forming a clearer division between town and country.

The existing site features of woodland roundel, hedgerow trees and topography are integral to the attractive site character and should be retained as far as possible. There would need to be further detailed assessment on the condition of these; the woodland area shows signs of neglect and one of the hedgerow trees is showing signs of being under stress so a management plan would need to be put in place. Sensitivity is needed in designing the eastern edge with consideration as to how it relates to the landscape beyond and how a changed approach into Monifieth is defined. Similarly how development addresses the road needs careful consideration, and the perception of the settlement from the A92.

3.7 Landscape Analysis & Opportunity

Figure 09: Landscape Analysis

The ridge of land that connects knolls and the ridge between former field boundaries is important in long range views and should be left clear of development; this could form the main open space within the development that links with a relatively hidden area of open space on the southern boundary of the site.

The lowest parts of the site are on the eastern boundary and it would be logical to place the SUDS pond within the north-eastern edge as part of the urban-rural transition edge to the development.

The site is well connected to the Core Path network. There is an opportunity to maximise connections to this which also formalise the extensive network of desire lines that already exist across the site and lead to the network of facilities that are within close proximity to the site.

pg. 24

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Figure 10: Development Framework

pg. 25

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

The accompanying development framework is the result of thorough analysis of the site and its context. Through an iterative design process a plan has been reached that seeks to redress the issues on the setting of Monifieth as indicated within the previous section, retains and capitalises on the existing site features, and is a legible place with a clear street hierarchy that connects well with its context. This would be a positive addition to housing choice within Monifieth.

Open Space has been carefully considered in development of the plan with clear division between private and public realm. All public open space is directly overlooked to increase natural surveillance and to maximise benefit.

The plan has indicative capacity for up to 380 new homes; final numbers would be subject to detailed design.

The following sections outline aspects of the Masterplan framework in more detail.

The plan seeks to work with the existing landform as far as possible. Levels around the landscape features would need to be retained in order to ensure their longevity, the prominent knoll to the north has been incorporated into semi-private open space, and the plateau which is important in long range views from the east has been retained as far as possible within a generous band of open space that flows through the site from north to south. This connects with opportunities to link with existing green space on the southern boundary and allows for natural north-south movement. It could incorporate passive and active amenity features.

Further opportunity has been taken to connect to the casual path within the woodland area on the southern boundary that links into Murroes Place. Providing these connections and areas of open space will act as a resource for residents across the whole development area as well as the existing local residents.

A band of landscape has been retained to the east that would incorporate the SUDS pond and semi formal planting design. This landscaped edge provides both a natural lead into Monifieth and also serves to partially screen views with a sense of some transition landscape from the east.

The development proposal would form a new suburb on the northern edge of Monifieth. Standard house types would be used. A sense of place would be achieved through protection and enhancement of existing features, and provision of a legible layout that adopts the principles behind Scottish Government policy as contained with Designing Streets and Designing Places hence:

• Connections are maximised both within and outwith the site;

• A clear hierarchy of streets (streets, drives, places and lanes) allowing different characters to be developed and a resultant sense of orientation;

• Traffic is kept to a slow speed through careful placement of buildings and junction arrangement;

• All open space is integral to the scheme rather than leftover and is overlooked to ensure maximum safety and value;

• The privacy of existing residents around the edge of the development has been respected through back to back housing;

• Subject to detailed design, clear demarcation of public and private realm to ensure maximum usage of space and maximum site legibility.

Some of these principles are illustrated within the accompanying Development Framework Plan.

Pedestrians will be able to access the site making use of the existing off site footway and footpath network and the new linkages shown on the accompanying plan at Grange Road, Victoria Street, from the north onto the core path next to the A92,Fotheringham Drive and to Murroes Place.

Essentially this will formalise the informal footpath network that can clearly be seen on the ground but with further enhancement in choice.

4. Development Framework4.1 Proposal Description

4.2 Landform & Landscape

4.3 Character

4.4 Connections

Development is set back to the north of the site with housing addressing the good views to the north, but protected from the impacts of the road by enhancing the existing roadside planting along the edge with further amenity planting behind.

pg. 26

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

The contour of the site indicates a general fall (with local raised features) from west to east across the site and it is anticipated that acceptable foul and surface water drainage systems can be designed to allow gravity drainage to the eastern end of the site.

The natural receiving watercourse for the site area is a small watercourse located to the east of the eastern site boundary and discharge to the watercourse is likely to be the most suitable outfall for surface water drainage. Surface water drainage will require to adopt a surface water management train and sustainable (suds) drainage approach and there will be a presumption that discharge from the site does not exist the existing green field run off flow estimated at 4 litres per second per hectare.

Cyclists will be able to utilise all the new points of access and specific regard would be made to ensuring that links to the A92 shared foot/cycleway are appropriate for use by cyclists.

There will be good connections to the existing bus network as shown on this Development Framework Plan.

The site connects into the local road network with junctions onto Victoria Street on the northern and eastern boundary and through a junction with a slightly extended Grange Road. New access points would take the form of priority junctions. By taking these access points into the site this allows the design of a permeable street network; in its design it looks more to the traditional layout of Monifieth rather than the more recent development to the south characterised by cul-de-sacs with a resultant lack of legibility.

4.5 Drainage & Utility Servicing Strategy

Figure 11: Connections

pg. 27

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Residential development of the scale envisaged would generally require two levels of treatment and this could be provided within a regional treatment pond located at the north east corner of the site together with other measures such as filter drains, swales and basins.

Foul drainage capacity exists within the waste water treatment works for the area and Scottish Water DIA work will be necessary to identify the site specific foul drainage outfall location. Two options have been identified and comprise gravity foul drainage from the south east corner of the site and/or a pumped solution utilising existing Scottish Water assets to the north of the A92.

Water supply capacity exists within the local water treatment works and a suitable connection point within the mains infrastructure has been identified by Scottish Water.

The local electrical network includes the Ashludie Primary Sub Station immediately adjacent to the site and it is envisaged that new development supplies would be fed from the local infrastructure extended from the Primary Sub Station.

Gas supplies exist in the locality in the form of intermediate and low pressure pipework. The presence of intermediate pressure pipework suggests adequate gas capacity within the local area.Telecom supplies can be made available to the area by BT under their licence obligations to make a service available with site infrastructure installed by the developer.

In summary the site is considered to be an effective land supply on the basis of existing servicing provisions and capacities. Detailed analysis of existing networks would take place once development proposals have been firmed up.

pg. 28

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

New development on the northern edge of Monifieth offers a good opportunity for new homes which can maximise excellent sustainable transport links including walking, cycling and horse riding, as well as good links to the town centre, to local facilities and employment and to the strategic road network.

The site is owned by Taylor Wimpey, and has been for some time. This means that development is not constrained by option agreements. Taylor Wimpey are also committed to providing 25% of the development as affordable housing and are keen to start discussions with the Council.

A variety of housing choice and tenure would be available across the site as a whole. Contribution would be made to improved local educational facilities.

One of the most important elements of the proposal is the large area of parkland space that is proposed, flowing from north to south. Its location takes reference from the history of the field structure, and the existing features and site topography. It is of a scale to provide high quality active as well as passive open space. Not only will this benefit residents of the new development but the existing north Monifieth population; there is currently a clear under provision of well designed and accessible open space within the town. As a further benefit to all, the existing feature area of woodland on the northern edge, and the individual trees within the open space area, would be brought into management.

Development of the site can offer local training opportunities, beneficial for local employment. Taylor Wimpey offers structured training with support from CITB Construction Skills and the Scottish Apprentices and Training Council. Through this Taylor Wimpey offer a 4 year commitment to train and employ young people across a variety of trades; this would be similar to the award winning training initiative currently being run at the Raploch Regeneration scheme in Stirling.

5. Benefitting Monifieth5.1 Community Benefit

pg. 29

© Crown copyright, All rights reserved, 2012, License Number 0100031673. © Getmapping plc.

Land at the Grange, Monifieth, offers an opportunity for development that is sensitive to its location and provides a natural edge for growth. It is well placed to maximise the benefits of being located next to a range of facilities at the Angus Gateway, has good connections into the town centre and can easily be well-connected into the core path network.

Monifieth has a history of providing housing both locally and for the Dundee workforce; with its close location to both the town and the strategic road network the site at the Grange can continue this pattern.

A development framework has been drawn up which demonstrates some of the design principles that would be adopted in preparing a detailed masterplan. The aim is to develop a new neighbourhood edge for Monifieth that encompasses good design principles in order to create a place that is attractive to live in, easy to get around and well-connected with the existing settlement.

To summarise, the proposed site being promoted by Taylor Wimpey compares favourably when assessed against the effectiveness criteria set out within PAN 2/2010 as follows:

1 OwnershipIn contrast to the other potential sites within South Angus HMA, The Grange is owned by the developer Taylor Wimpey who, clearly, intends to develop the site at the earliest opportunity.

2 PhysicalAs set out in more detail within this statement, there are no technical constraints that would preclude the site’s development.

3 ContaminationThere is no requirement for this.

4 MarketabilityTaylor Wimpey as both owner and developer are committed to delivering this site at the earliest opportunity.

5 InfrastructureThere are no infrastructure constraints which would preclude the site’s development.

6 Land UseThe site is physically suitable for development as articulated within the development framework included within this statement.

The Council can therefore have confidence that the site is effective and will be brought forward for development within the first period (2014-2019) of the LDP.

6. Summary

Appendix 1Transport and Access Appraisal Report