Benefits of link road questionable

Dear Editor Councillor Colin Stewart was recently quoted as saying the Local Development Plan process is the result of “extensive dialogue and engagement between the council, key stakeholders, communities and developers.”

Luncarty’s experience is quite different.

PKC objected to an application for 250 houses to the south of Luncarty in 1996. An appeal was dismissed after a public enquiry. The Scottish Office Reporter concluded development “would result in considerable changes to the character of the village”.

Without consultation, PKC identified 200 houses to the south of Luncarty in its Main Issues Report of 2010, based on the perceived benefits of the Cross Tay Link Road for the village.

The proposed LDP of 2012 included a minimum of 200 houses. A large turnout from PKC attended a public meeting in Luncarty that year when villagers unanimously rejected development to the south of their village. Luncarty had already doubled in size.

Despite consultation, the number in the final plan was increased: “The maximum permitted to 2024 will be 300 houses.” Since then, PKC staff and transport organisations have raised this to 650, based on a desktop exercise for contributions to the CTLR. There was no discussion with Luncarty residents. Rather than meeting Luncarty’s needs, the village is to provide a surrogate funding mechanism.

A full council meeting last December approved the CTLR phase two report, but not all members agreed to it. The public had no access to the report before its approval. PKC stated “a detailed communications plan” and “extensive consultation” with the public would follow.

The report, not made public until July, identifies significant environmental impacts.

Questioning the withholding of the report, I was told, “it is a technical report prepared for council officers to enable them to make a recommendation to the elected members.”

Design and public consultation are not to follow until 2019. The ability to influence at this late stage is unlikely, an experience quite different to Transport Scotland’s consultation on the A9 dualling.

The benefits claimed for the CTLR remain questionable. Alistair Godfrey Isla Road, Luncarty