arbeadiegreenspace.org
Arbeadie Green Space
A community asset under threat
Arbeadie Green Space is an area of broadleaved woodland and species-rich scrub extending west from Upper Arbeadie Road. The area connects with Corsee pine woods and the diversity of habitat supports a wide range of wildlife including rare birds, badgers and the iconic red squirrel. The woodland is home to significant veteran trees. The scrub area is undergoing natural succession – it is essentially rewilding itself.
Sadly the area is under threat from a housing development.
If this development goes ahead the rest of the area could also be at risk in the future.
In 2019 the local community resoundingly rejected a plan to build a housing estate on land at Upper Arbeadie. The developer refused to take no for an answer, appealed to the Scottish Government Reporter and got a slightly amended development included in the Local Development Plan for Aberdeenshire.
We will now have to fight the development again when the Planning Application is lodged.
Members of the community must make their voices heard.
Though the development is included in the Local Development Plan (LDP) the new national spatial strategy for Scotland, National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) , supersedes the LDP.
There is still hope
What you can do
Object to the application on the Council Planning Portal
These objections must fit strict criteria or they will not be considered - please see below. Not everyone has the time to submit a lengthy objection - but every little helps!
Write to your Local Councillors
(they will have the final say)
Contact Banchory Community Council
(who represent the community in the complex planning process) .
Examples of objections and related policy
LOSS OF AMENITY/ACCESS TO NATURE
This is a very popular natural green space renowned for its bird song and as such its presence encourages people to be active in the area. The Core Path through the site is flat and level making it accessible for people with a range of mobility abilities (other natural green spaces in the locality are steeply sloped) thus it allows accessible access to a natural area.
The loss of this natural green space would therefore be in conflict with the new National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) namely Annex D where it lays out Six Qualities of Successful Places, Subsection 1.
‘Healthy’
“healthy and active lifestyles, through the creation of walkable neighbourhoods, food growing opportunities and access to nature and greenspace”
and
“accessibility and inclusion for everyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, ability and culture”
The site is heavily used by local walkers and joggers, and occasionally by cyclists. Various paths interweave through the site amongst the trees. Outcome 4 of the ‘Active Scotland Delivery Plan’ states that we need to “to ensure that our environments support outdoor play, walking, cycling and other forms of active travel, and provide inspiring and safe opportunities for people to participate in physical activity and sport.”
There is nothing more inspiring than being immersed in nature.
Banchory has already been identified as being deficient in publicly accessible green space and therefore development of this site would be contrary to NPF 4 Policy 20 which states that:
"a) Development proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing blue and green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained."
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
The woodland meets the criteria for Ancient Woodland - guidance from Nature Scot states that “Woods not shown on the AWI, but present on the historic maps, are likely to be ancient and should be treated as such unless evidence is available to the contrary.”
In addition, part of the development site contains newly identified veteran trees.
The National Planning Framework 4, Policy 6 states:
b) Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in:
i. Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition;
The area to the north of the Core Path was mapped and recorded as scrub (with some grassland) in the Ecology and Habitat Surveys undertaken in 2017 submitted by the developer to the Reporter for its inclusion in the LDP. In its Biodiversity Information for Developers, Important Habitats for Biodiversity in the North East of Scotland, the North East Biodiversity Partnership states that scrub areas are “important for a range of declining bird species” and two of the species it lists, Whitethroat and Dunnock, have now been recorded at the site. In total so far almost 40 bird species including nine Amber list species and one Red list species have been recorded across the development area. The site's importance for bird life was not identified in the original ecological surveys upon which the Reporter relied.
In addition the woodland area is a priority habitat - Wet Woodland - as listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List and one of the bird species recorded in the scrub area, Grasshopper Warbler, is also on the SBL. This whole woodland area should therefore be managed for conservation purposes and is not suitable for development.
TRAFFIC ISSUES
The submitted plan differs from the one approved by the Reporter in that it not only will Hillview Road become a through road but also Provost Black Drive. How Upper Arbeadie Road, which had been the earlier access route to the lower part of the development, will be managed is left unaddressed.
Upper Arbeadie Road is an unmetalled, single width track bounded by stone dykes which provides access to houses along its route (ending in a dead end). The track is also heavily used by pedestrians and is a Right of Way between Upper Arbeadie and Upper Lochton which has existed for at least 150 years.
It is inevitable that the top section of track will be used as a rat run as people cut through to avoid going the long way round if they are heading to the High Street or further west. This would be dangerous and unacceptable and it is hard to envisage mitigations that could be put in place to stop this happening that would not inconvenience current residents.
LOSS OF PUBLIC VIEW
This area is part of the Dee Valley Special Landscape Area and there are fine views from the Core Path across to moorland hills. Appendix 13 of the LDP states that "Proposals should not impact on the sense of place provided by the river and wooded banks, rising to moorland hills". This loss of public/community view cannot be practically mitigated.
CONTACT BANCHORY COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND YOUR LOCAL COUNCILLORS
cllr.e.durno@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
Councillor Yi-Pei Chou Turvey
cllr.y.chouturvey@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
Councillor Ann Ross
FULL LIST OF VALID OBJECTIONS
Below is a list examples of valid planning objections taken from various sources:
The proposed development will:
● be contrary to planning policy or other laws or policies;
● not be in keeping with the context or scale of the area;
● have a negative impact on a conservation area;
● have a negative impact on the amenity of another property, e.g. noise, odour, light pollution, loss of daylight, privacy, or late-night activities;
● be of a different land-use type for the area, e.g. industrial, residential;
● have a layout or density that is inappropriate for the area;
● cause traffic congestion, access or safety problems;
● reduce available or provide insufficient car parking;
● be similar to other rejected similar developments in the area;
● create a precedent making it difficult to object to similar proposals;
● be piecemeal, preventing proper future development of the area;
● have a negative economic impact;
● result in loss of vitality and viability of the local high street;
● adversely impact listed buildings or sites of cultural or architectural value such as monuments;
● impact environmental health, a conservation area or green belt, or the natural environment e.g. loss of biodiversity
● result in loss of amenities such as green spaces, recreational grounds or community buildings;
● not have sufficient landscaping;
● create visual clutter (advertising);
● result in the loss of important public views (loss of a personal view is not seen as a material consideration);
● not be able to be serviced by local infrastructure;
● have a cumulative impact alongside other developments;
● have inadequate access for people with disabilities.
● have a negative impact on visual amenity (but not loss of private view).
Important to know… “mitigations” are things developers tell planners they will do to reduce the negative impact of a development.
However, these promises are not policed in any way and often never happen.
In the case of the development at Upper Arbeadie there is no practical mitigation for the loss of the scrub/young tree habitat, for the loss of amenity value and for the impact on the Special Landscape Area.
THE FUTURE
With the backing of the local branch of the Scottish Wildlife Trust we will seek to get the whole area designated a Local Nature Reserve. A community buy out and Local Nature Reserve status, allowing the resident flora and fauna to flourish and providing an educational resource for the local community, would be a huge asset for Banchory -
but first we have to SAVE IT.
How did we get here?
In 2019 a development was rejected and part of the site protected with a Tree Protection Order but then the area was designated as a building opportunity in the 2023 Local Development Plan.
1. Aberdeenshire Council Planning Department told the Scottish Government Reporter (who is responsible for the final LDP) that the area was “a natural extension of the town” despite having already recorded overwhelming objections from the community.
2. The Planning & Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) have acknowledged that there was a lack of transparency in the information made public during the LDP deliberation process (citing lack of funding). That is why no one knew about the developer’s ultimately successful appeal to the Reporter until the LDP was published.
3. When members of the community contacted the Scottish Government prior to the adoption of the LDP with their concerns regarding the site’s inclusion they simply received no response. It turned out later that officials had decided that these individuals were a "campaign group" and only responded to the person they considered the leader of the group (as yet unidentified).
4. A complaint was made to the DPEA regarding the Reporter’s mistaken identification of the old field area as “flat, open grassland” thereby dismissing the biodiversity value of the scrubland. The DPEA missed their statutory response time by over 6 weeks – their response was received just after the opportunity for a legal challenge to the LDP had expired.
5. At the LDP adoption meeting the mere suggestion that the site's inclusion could be objected to was shut down by an officer of the Planning Department.
Currently the Council's position is that the community had their chance to object before the LDP was adopted and that all due process was followed in the drawing up of the LDP - which as you can see was not the case.
.