Site visit to slow up Pace Hill plan Extra homes bid in Milnathort sparks council debate
is about. Planning is about making good decisions which local people are happy with. It is not about maximising profits for developers.”
Expanding on his argument in the ensuing debate, Cllr Robertson continued: “If the landowners thought this site could accommodate [more] houses when the LDP was produced, they would have come forward with a revision for this site for extra houses. That never happened.
“I would suggest we have an obligation to go with the figure in the local plan. Let’s draw a line in the sand here and say ‘no more’.”
But making the case for the application to be approved Bruce Dunlop, managing director of Dundas Estates, argued the debate over the increase was not a reason to refuse, adding: “It has long been established at a national planning level that all figures contained in local plans are indicative.”
Asked to clarify how the housing numbers in the LDP should be treated during proceedings Geoff Fogg, the local authority’s legal manager, admitted the LDP should be treated as the “settled view of the council”.
But then he went on: “I don’t think it can be taken to the extent that the figure of 50 means that is also the settled view. My view is that is taking it too far. I think it is wrong to say the 50 should be regarded as a ceiling.”
Taking a different tack Cllr Richard Watters raised road safety concerns about a proposed single access to the site via North Street and asked if it would be competent to request a decision be deferred for a site visit, to which Mr Fogg replied: “It is always competent for a committee to defer. A site visit could be a reason for that deferral.”
But Cllr Mike Barnacle then moved to refuse the application point blank, remarking: “I would seek a revised application with a smaller number of houses.
“The real issue for me is the fact that there doesn’t seem to be much attention being paid to the numbers in the local plan.
“This is a recent trend to talk about indicative numbers. [A] 50 per cent [increase] calls into question the whole basis of forward planning.”
Cllr Gray then moved an amendment to approve the application and councillor Watters then followed with another amendment to defer for a site visit. The second amendment received the most votes and councillors will now visit the site to assess the application’s likely impact on the area and its infrastructure.
Cllr Murray Lyle, the convener of the committee, said planners would endeavour to bring the application back to the committee for a decision as soon as possible. Cllr Tom Gray Robertson Cllr Willie