Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Orkney Local Development Plan Proposed Plan (2016)
Appendix C.5 Assessment of the West Mainland Land Allocations
Legend
| Symbol | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ++ | Significantly positive |
| + | Positive |
| 0 | Minor or neutral |
| ? | Uncertain |
| - | Adverse |
| -- | Significantly adverse |
Burnside, Harray
Source of site suggestion: Site 1 submitted in response to the call for sites. Remaining sites carried forward from the Orkney LDP 2014.
Summary Description: Burnside evolved as a service centre for the surrounding townships in the nineteenth century. Various public buildings and businesses were built alongside the main road to provide convenient access from the surrounding farms, including a school, smithy, post office and churches. As the importance of the road increased during the twentieth century these were gradually joined by and converted to dwellings and the Harray Community Centre.
Option 1: Re-align the SW boundary to remove the previous Site 6 as well as an area currently classified as open space. Add Site 1 adjacent to the northern boundary of the settlement.
Option 2: Retain site 6 but de-classify the area of open space. Add a much larger Site 1 adjacent to the northern boundary of the settlement.
Post MIR option: Extend the settlement boundary on both sides of the Netherbrough Road in the SW of Burnside.
Proposed Plan: Option 1 was selected, along with the Post-MIR option.
| OLDP 2014 | MIR 2015 | OLDP 2017 | Site size (ha) | Current use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | 1 | BH-1 | Option 1 = 0.80 Option 2 = 2.11 | Agriculture |
| B-D | 2 | BH-2 | 0.30 | Agriculture |
| B-A | 3 | — | 0.38 | Agriculture |
| B-B | 4 | BH-4 | 0.16 | Agriculture |
| B-E | 5 | BH-3 | 0.93 | Agriculture |
| B-C | 6 | — | 1.88 | Agriculture |
| N/A | Boundary change | — | 0.87 | Agriculture |
Site assessment
| Site assessment question | Related SEA topic | Comment and information available – GIS/site visit? | Scoring pre-mitigation | Mitigation | Scoring post-mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climate change | |||||
| Is the proposal close to a range of facilities? Can these be accessed by public transport? | Population and Human health | The Harray Community Centre is located at Burnside and there is a shop approximately 1 km to the north. Burnside is on the route of the No 7 scheduled bus service which links this area to Kirkwall, Dounby and Birsay. | + | N/A | + |
| Is the proposal protected from prevailing winds? | Higher land to the north of the settlement offers a degree of shelter. | + | Policy 2 Design requires new development to demonstrate how it will minimise use of energy and maximise opportunities for shelter. | + | |
| Site aspect – does the proposal make best use of solar gain? | The land slopes gently toward the S and benefits from solar gain throughout most of the day. | + | + | ||
| Is the proposal thought to be at risk of flooding or could its development result in additional flood risk elsewhere? | Water and Human Health | The proposals are not considered to be at risk of flooding. Effects on flood risk elsewhere are uncertain as areas close to the Netherbrough Burn are susceptible to fluvial or drainage flooding. However, flood associated problems have arisen following development of current sites on Church Road. Further development of this area, in particular of the scale proposed by Option 2, would introduce more hard surfaces, reducing the capacity of the area to absorb rainwater. | - | Recommend selection of Option 1 which includes a reduced Site 1 and no longer includes Site 6. Any further development should seek to improve the surface water drainage and associated outfalls. | 0 |
| Could the development of the proposal help alleviate any existing flooding problems in the area? | Water | Unlikely. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna | |||||
| To what extent will the proposal affect any international or national biodiversity designation, e.g. SAC/SPA/Ramsar/SSSI? | Burnside is remote from any of Orkney’s international designations. Its development is therefore unlikely to have any effect on their qualifying interests or their integrity. The Netherbrough Burn is an important trout spawning burn, flowing into the Loch of Harray, which in turn forms part of the Lochs of Harray and Stenness SSSI. The Loch of Harray is classed as a eutrophic loch and is vulnerable to additional nutrient enrichment. Inadequate waste water treatment in this area could impact upon the water quality of the burn and add to the cumulative nutrient enrichment of the loch. | - | The settlement statement highlights the presence of the Netherbrough Burn. Private foul water drainage systems will be deemed acceptable for small scale developments, provided that they comply with the current LDP policy on waste water drainage. | 0 | |
| To what extent will the proposal affect any locally important designations such as LNRs or LNCSs? | The proposal is remote from any of Orkney’s locally important designations and its development is unlikely to have any effect on their integrity. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| To what extent will the proposal affect non-designated features – e.g. trees, TPOs, hedges, woodland, species rich grasslands? | The Netherbrough Burn is an important trout spawning burn, flowing into the Loch of Harray. High density development in this area could impact on the burn, e.g. in terms of nutrient enrichment from waste water drainage. | - | The settlement statement highlights the presence of the Netherbrough Burn. | 0 | |
| To what extent will the proposal affect Protected Species – e.g. bats, otters, etc.? | Otters are likely to use the Netherbrough Burn. | ? | The potential for otters to be present in areas close to waterbodies and drainage ditches is highlighted in the introduction to the settlement statements. | 0 | |
| How will habitat connectivity or wildlife corridors be affected by the proposal – will it result in habitat fragmentation or greater connectivity? | The Netherbrough Burn is an important trout spawning burn. Vegetation cover on the proposals is predominantly improved grassland with limited ecological value. | ? | The settlement statement notes that the burn is a trout spawning burn. | 0 | |
| Water | |||||
| Could the option result in a change of status of a water body or significantly affect a designated water body as identified in the Scotland River Basin Management Plan? Can the proposal connect to the public foul sewer? | Water | Although the overall status of the Netherbrough Burn is classed as moderate, its water quality is classed as high. The reduced overall status is largely due to morphological issues as stretches of the burn have historically been straightened. There is currently no option to connect to a public sewer. Option 2 includes large proposals which, if fully developed, could lead to nutrient enrichment of the burn. | - | Private foul water drainage systems will be deemed acceptable for small scale developments, provided that they comply with the current LDP policy on waste water drainage. | 0 |
| Could the proposal have a direct impact on the water environment, for example result in the need for watercourse crossings or allow the de-culverting of a watercourse? | Water | Unlikely. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Does the proposal avoid impact on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs), i.e. are there any wetlands and boggy areas on the site? | Water and Biodiversity, Fauna and Flora | There are no wetlands or boggy areas within the proposals. Towards the south of the settlement an area which is underlain by peat has standing water during the winter. Any development proposal in this area should fulfil the requirements of the LDP policy on flooding. During winter there is an area of standing water in the field on the northern side of the Netherbrough Road, however this area is outside the settlement boundary. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| For large scale developments are there any private or public water supplies within 250m of the proposal which may be affected? | Water and Human Health | There is a private water supply in the north of the settlement at HY31690 17731. | - | Large scale development is not proposed for this settlement. | 0 |
| Soils | |||||
| Is the proposal on greenfield or brownfield land? Does it result in the loss of high quality agricultural land? | Material Assets and Soils | The proposal is on greenfield land. The land is identified as categories 51 and 52, Land capable of use as improved grassland. | - | The allocations are within or adjacent to the existing settlement boundary; therefore their development is considered a sustainable option. | 0 |
| Are there any contaminated soil issues on the proposal and if so, will the option reduce contamination? | Material Assets and Soils | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is the proposal on peatland and could the development of the site lead to a loss of peat? | Climatic Factors and Soils | The proposals are not on peatland. However an area in the south of the settlement is underlain by peat. | ? | Any development proposal in this area should fulfil the requirements of Policy 9 Natural Environment & Landscape. | 0 |
| Geology | |||||
| Are there any national geodiversity sites that could be affected by the proposal? | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| Are there any local geodiversity sites or wider geodiversity interests that could be affected by the proposal? | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| Landscape | |||||
| To what extent will any designated sites be affected – including NSAs and local landscape designations? | Landscape | Burnside is remote from the Hoy and West Mainland NSA. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Does the proposal ensure that development does not exceed the capacity of the landscape to accommodate it? Such as current settlement boundaries, existing townscape and character of surrounding area? | Landscape | Site 1 is outside the existing settlement boundary. The existing development pattern is of low density housing. Under Option 2, Sites 1 and 6 are extensive, relative to the other sites in the Burnside settlement. Under this option an area currently identified as open space would remain within the settlement boundary and would be available for development. Development at this scale would be likely to change the character of the area. | - | New development should comply with Policy 9 Natural Environment and Landscape. Policy 2 Design includes a set of fundamental principles with which all development should comply. The settlement statement provides design guidance which development should adhere to in order to ensure the settlement retains its rural character. | 0 |
| To what extent will the proposal affect features of landscape interest, including the distinctive character of the landscape and the qualities of wild land? | Landscape | The Orkney Landscape Character Assessment (1998) classifies this area as Rolling Hill Fringe and advises that new buildings should be sited with respect to the contours and orientation of the land to ensure a more natural ‘fit’ into the landscape. There is no wild land in this area. | ? | 0 | |
| Cultural Heritage | |||||
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any scheduled monuments or their setting? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any locally important archaeological site? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | St Michael’s Kirk, burial ground and war memorial, to the north of Burnside, is identified as a locally important site. Large-scale or high density development, especially on site 1, could impact upon the setting of the Kirk. | - | Option 1 was taken forward in the Proposed Plan. It promotes a scale of development that is broadly similar to the existing pattern of low density housing and includes a smaller Site BH1. | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any listed buildings and/or their setting? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | St Michael’s Kirk is category B-listed. High density development on site 1 could impact upon the setting of the Kirk. | - | ||
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any Conservation Areas? (e.g. will it result in the demolition of any buildings) | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | The south end of the settlement lies within the Heart of Neolithic Orkney. | 0 | This is noted in the settlement statement. | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to result in the opportunity to enhance or improve access to the historic environment? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Service Infrastructure | |||||
| Are there educational or health facilities nearby? | Population | Dounby Community School is approximately 3 km to the north of Burnside. | + | N/A | + |
| To what extent will the proposal affect the quality and quantity of open space and connectivity and accessibility to open space, or result in a loss of open space? | Population, human health or material assets | An area adjacent to the NE boundary of site 6, which was previously classified as open space, has been de-classified as it was not publicly accessible. This is unlikely to affect connectivity or accessibility to open space. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| To what extent will development of the proposal affect core path links or other key access networks such as cycle paths, coastal paths and rights of way? | Population, human health, material assets or climatic factors | Part of site 7 borders Core path Wm18. This section of the path is also listed in the Catalogue of Rights of Way. A number of other rights of way are located in and around the northern end of the settlement; however these do not cross any of the proposed land allocations. | + | Policy 10 Green Infrastructure promotes improvements to public access and permeability. | + |
| Is there any opportunity to enhance the green network through, for example, green infrastructure on site? | Population, human health or material assets | Uncertain. | ? | Guidance is available in the Orkney Open Space Strategy. | ? |
| Material assets | |||||
| Will development of the proposal minimise demand on primary resources, e.g. does it re-use an existing structure or recycle or recover existing on-site materials/resources? | New development will link into existing road/path infrastructure and services. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| Is the proposal in the vicinity of a waste management site and could its development therefore compromise the waste handling operation? | Human health | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Deliverability/sustainability constraints | |||||
| Will the proposal be delivered within the LDP timeframe? Are there any site servicing constraints, e.g. waste water treatment capacity? | Material assets | There is no public waste water treatment facility in Burnside. Service pipes cross site 2 between the Old Schoolhouse and the public water main. Service pipes cross site 5 between Dunsyre and the public water main. | - | Private foul water drainage systems will be deemed acceptable for small scale developments, provided that they comply with the current LDP policy on waste water drainage. | 0 |
| Are there any vehicular access constraints or opportunities – is the road network capable of accommodating traffic generated? | Material assets and climatic factors | This area is served by the A986, the C12 Netherbrough Road and the unclassified Church Road. These are now covered by a 40 mph speed limit. Further development on the Church Road would require road improvements. If development was to be permitted on all of the identified sites, consideration should be given to the provision of footways and particularly a link to the Harray Community Hall. | - | The settlement statement requires the provision of opportunities for pedestrian access to local footpaths, public transport and services. | 0 |
Dounby
Source of site suggestion: Site DY-5, DY-6, 11 and 12 submitted in response to Call for Sites. Remaining sites carried forward from the Orkney LDP 2014.
Summary Description: Dounby developed as a settlement from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, and so is distinctive amongst settlements of this size in Orkney in lacking a historic core (although the density of archaeological sites in the vicinity demonstrates that this area was used extensively prior to settlement). Development originated around the crossroads of what are now the A986 and the B9057 as a service centre and trading point. Key features of the early settlement were the Smithfield Inn and Market Stance on the north side of the crossroads, and a school (on a site now occupied by playing fields).
Since then the settlement has grown gradually, continuing to attract shops and services.
MIR Option 1: Extend the northern boundary to include three additional properties and the land in between. Include sites 1 and 8 at Quilco adjacent to the Hillside Road. Also extend the SW boundary to include site 6 on the south side of the Vetquoy Road.
MIR Option 2: As Option 1 above but also extend the NE boundary to include Site 1 to the NE of the Quilco development. Sites 12 and 13 also added to the SE alongside the A986. Site 2 extended.
Proposed Plan: Include Site DY-1, extend site DY-2 and include site DY-6.
A Masterplan for Dounby has been produced and was adopted in 2010; it will be reviewed and updated throughout the lifetime of this Plan.
| Orkney LDP 2014 | MIR 2015 | OLDP 2017 | Site size (ha) | Current use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | 1 | DY-5 | 0.50 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| D-A + open space | 2 | DY-2 | 1.20 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| D-F | 3 | DY-1 | 0.70 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| D-B | 4 | DY-4 | 0.30 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| D-C | 5 | — | 1.40 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| N/A | 6 | DY-6 | 1.00 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| D-D + open space | 7 | DY-7 | 1.80 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| Open space | 8 | Removed | 0.24 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| D-E | 9 | Developed | 0.70 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| D-G | 10 | DY-3 | 1.30 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| N/A | 11 | N/A | 1.65 | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
| N/A | 12 | N/A | — | Undeveloped sites in this settlement are currently used for agriculture. |
Site assessment
| Site assessment question | Related SEA topic | Comment and information available – GIS/site visit? | Scoring pre-mitigation | Mitigation | Scoring post-mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climate change | |||||
| Is the proposal close to a range of facilities? Can these be accessed by public transport? | Population and Human health | There are a wide range of facilities in Dounby; these include a Community School, church, hotel, hairdresser, medical practice, pharmacy and a number of shops. | + | N/A | + |
| Is the proposal protected from prevailing winds? | No. | - | Policy 2 Design requires new development to demonstrate how it will minimise use of energy and maximise opportunities for shelter. | - | |
| Site aspect – does the proposal make best use of solar gain? | Yes, Dounby is located within a flat open area of land. | + | Policy 2 Design requires new development to demonstrate how it will minimise use of energy and maximise opportunities for shelter. | + | |
| Is the proposal thought to be at risk of flooding or could its development result in additional flood risk elsewhere? | Water and Human Health | Area adjacent to site DY-2 is at risk of surface water flooding. A small part of site DY-7 is at risk of surface water flooding. A small part of site 10 (DY-3) is at risk of surface water flooding. Area to E of Knowe of Makerhouse is at risk of surface water flooding. However, under both Options 1 and 2 the boundary has been adjusted to remove this area from the settlement. | - | The settlement statement notes the presence of the burn adjacent to DY-2 and DY-3 and potential surface water drainage issues. A drainage ditch adjacent to site DY-5 should also be taken into account by any development. | 0 |
| Could the development of the proposal help alleviate any existing flooding problems in the area? | Water | Unlikely. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna | |||||
| To what extent will the proposal affect any international or national biodiversity designation, e.g. SAC/SPA/Ramsar/SSSI? | Dounby is remote from any of Orkney’s international designations. Further development of the village is therefore unlikely to have any effect on their qualifying interests or their integrity. The outflow from the public waste water treatment system enters the Burn of Hourston, a tributary of the Loch of Harray which forms part of the Lochs of Harray and Stenness SSSI. The Loch of Harray is classed as a eutrophic loch and is vulnerable to additional nutrient enrichment. | ? | The Dounby waste water has capacity to accommodate a further 51–60 housing units. | 0 | |
| To what extent will the proposal affect any locally important designations such as LNRs or LNCSs? | Vias Moss, an area of wetland with a small plantation of deciduous trees is located to the SW of the Quilco development, and is identified as a LNCS. The settlement boundary has been amended to ensure that Vias Moss is no longer included within the settlement. | 0 | The settlement statement highlights the presence of Vias Moss LNCS. | 0 | |
| To what extent will the proposal affect non-designated features – e.g. trees, TPOs, hedges, woodland, species rich grasslands? | Grassland on parts of Site 8 appears to be relatively species-rich, and trees have been planted on other parts, in particular in the NW of the site. | - | Site 8 has been removed. | 0 | |
| To what extent will the proposal affect Protected Species – e.g. bats, otters, etc.? | The Burn of Makerhouse which flows through the village may be used by otters and the animals may also use other drainage ditches in the area. | - | The potential for otters to be present in areas close to waterbodies and drainage ditches is highlighted in the introduction to the settlement statements. | 0 | |
| How will habitat connectivity or wildlife corridors be affected by the proposal – will it result in habitat fragmentation or greater connectivity? | Vegetation on all of the sites is improved grassland and has limited ecological value. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| Water | |||||
| Could the option result in a change of status of a water body or significantly affect a designated water body as identified in the Scotland River Basin Management Plan? Can the proposal connect to the public foul sewer? | Water | The outflow from the Dounby public waste water treatment system enters the Burn of Hourston, a tributary of the Loch of Harray which forms part of the Lochs of Harray and Stenness SSSI. The water quality of the burn degraded between 2012 and 2013 and is currently classed as ‘Moderate’. Over the same timescale its overall status had improved from ‘Poor’ to ‘Moderate’. Current water quality and overall status of the Loch of Harray are both classed as “Good”. | ? | The Dounby waste water treatment works has capacity to accommodate a further 51–60 housing units. | 0 |
| Could the proposal have a direct impact on the water environment, for example result in the need for watercourse crossings or allow the de-culverting of a watercourse? | Water | Uncertain. A Burn known as the Grip of Grunkahowe flows through the village, passing site DY-3 and DY-2. | ? | The settlement statement notes the presence of the burn and requires it to be taken into account by any development, e.g. through the establishment of an appropriate buffer zone. | 0 |
| Does the proposal avoid impact on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs), i.e. are there any wetlands and boggy areas on the site? | Water and Biodiversity, Fauna and Flora | There are no wetlands or boggy areas on any of the proposals. Vias Moss which borders the village is an area of fen. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| For large scale developments are there any private or public water supplies within 250m of the proposal which may be affected? | Water and Human Health | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Soils | |||||
| Is the proposal on greenfield or brownfield land? Does it result in the loss of high quality agricultural land? | Material Assets and Soils | The proposals are on greenfield land. The land is identified as category 41 and 42, capable of producing a narrow range of crops, e.g. barley, oats. | - | The principle of development is considered to be a sustainable option as the proposals are located close to services and facilities. | 0 |
| Are there any contaminated soil issues on the proposal and if so, will the option reduce contamination? | Material Assets and Soils | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is the proposal on peatland and could the development of the site lead to a loss of peat? | Climatic Factors and Soils | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Geology | |||||
| Are there any national geodiversity sites that could be affected by the proposal? | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| Are there any local geodiversity sites or wider geodiversity interests that could be affected by the proposal? | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| Landscape | |||||
| To what extent will any designated sites be affected – including NSAs and local landscape designations? | Landscape | Dounby is remote from the Hoy and West Mainland NSA. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Does the proposal ensure that development does not exceed the capacity of the landscape to accommodate it? Such as current settlement boundaries, existing townscape and character of surrounding area? | Landscape | MIR sites 1, 6, 11, 12 and 13 are outside the existing settlement boundary. Under MIR Option 2 development of sites 8 and 11 would result in an area of dense development and development of sites 12 and 13 would lead to a pattern of ribbon development stretching southward from the school. MIR Option 1 would provide further development potential without significantly altering the shape of the village. | - | New development should comply with Policy 9 Natural Environment and Landscape. Policy 2 Design includes a set of fundamental principles with which all development should comply. The settlement statement provides guidance on siting, layout and design. It requires proposals for development of DY-4 to address the prominent location of its SE corner either through the provision of a well-designed landmark building or through the provision of publicly-accessible open space. A development brief will be required for DY04. | 0 |
| To what extent will the proposal affect features of landscape interest, including the distinctive character of the landscape and the qualities of wild land? | Landscape | The Orkney Landscape Character Assessment (1998) classifies this area as the Loch Basins landscape character type. The landscape is relatively flat and long views from one sheet of water to another are an important feature of this landscape type. There is no wild land in the area. The high level of visibility from other areas within the loch basin landscape is an important consideration. Option 1 would retain a more compact structure to the village than would be the case under Option 2. This would be particularly noticeable during hours of darkness due to the effects of street lighting. | - | 0 | |
| Cultural Heritage | |||||
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any scheduled monuments or their setting? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | Esgar – two oval burnt mounds at HY295210 within site 8 – both mounds are clearly visible on the SE end of the site. Knowe of Makerhouse, a large burnt mound and surrounding remains at HY293211. Site DY-3 is adjacent to the Knowe. | -- | Site 8 has been removed from the settlement. The settlement statement requires development of DY-3 to avoid impact on the setting of the Knowe of Makerhouse and avoid significant disturbance of associated remains. | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any locally important archaeological site? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any listed buildings and/or their setting? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any Conservation Areas? (e.g. will it result in the demolition of any buildings) | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect any Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to affect the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Is development of the proposal likely to result in the opportunity to enhance or improve access to the historic environment? | Cultural heritage, & links with landscape | Unlikely. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Service Infrastructure | |||||
| Are there educational or health facilities nearby? | Population | Yes, there is a community school, a medical practice and a pharmacy. | + | N/A | + |
| To what extent will the proposal affect the quality and quantity of open space and connectivity and accessibility to open space, or result in a loss of open space? | Population, human health or material assets | Boundary changes mean that an area between Sites 8 and DY-3 which was previously identified as open space is no longer within the settlement. This is unlikely to affect connectivity or accessibility to open space as it was not publicly accessible. | 0 | The settlement requires the protection of publically-accessible open space, as well as improved connections between them. | 0 |
| To what extent will development of the proposal affect core path links or other key access networks such as cycle paths, coastal paths and rights of way? | Population, human health, material assets or climatic factors | Core path Wm21 passes through Dounby. | + | + | |
| Is there any opportunity to enhance the green network through, for example, green infrastructure on site? | Population, human health or material assets | Uncertain. | ? | Guidance is provided in SG Open Space. | ? |
| Material assets | |||||
| Will development of the proposal minimise demand on primary resources, e.g. does it re-use an existing structure or recycle or recover existing on-site materials/resources? | New development will link into existing road/path infrastructure and services. | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
| Is the proposal in the vicinity of a waste management site and could its development therefore compromise the waste handling operation? | Human health | No. | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Deliverability/sustainability constraints | |||||
| Will the proposal be delivered within the LDP timeframe? Are there any site servicing constraints, e.g. waste water treatment capacity? | Material assets | Cultural and natural heritage interests on site 8 mean that little, if any, of this site is unconstrained. A 250mm HEP30 water main crosses the corner to the west of site DY-4. | -- | Site 8 has been removed. Settlement statement advises early contact with Scottish Water to discuss any requirement for a mains diversion. | 0 |
| Are there any vehicular access constraints or opportunities – is the road network capable of accommodating traffic generated? | Material assets and climatic factors | Development of the sites indicated in the preferred option would require improvements to the existing roads, lighting and drainage infrastructure. This would include extension of footways on the A986, the B9057 Vetquoy Road and the C19 Swartland Road. Sites 11 and 12 raise some concerns regarding access. If these are to be considered, a single point of access should be provided. Further development of sites 2 to 7 will impact on the existing surface water drainage. | - | The Dounby masterplan requires streets to be well designed, creating high-quality places in keeping with their rural location. | 0 |