Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Councillors asked to reconsider ‘100% affordable’ north-east neighbourhood scheme

Post Thumbnail

Councillors who delayed a proposal for a new 231-home neighbourhood in the north-east have been asked to restart the project after fears over traffic and safety were proved unfounded.

Last month, the Formartine area committee raised concerns about granting planning permission to developer Springfield Properties to build 231 affordable homes in Turriff.

The proposed Meadowbank Road development on the north-east boundary of the town will transform the 30-acre site into a new community.

Under the scheme, all the homes – a mix of semi-detached and terraced houses as well as bungalows and flats – would be deemed “affordable”.

Planners called on councillors to back the venture, but committee members raised concerns about the impact such a large development would have, and whether there was enough demand for cheap homes in Turriff.

Councillors also called for an explanation of why the site – originally earmarked for 150 homes – was set for 231 properties.

But now, authority planners have drawn up a fresh report to councillors with assurances that the town can accommodate an influx of hundreds of families.

Infrastructure director Stephen Archer said: “The increase in the housing numbers are the result of the applicant proposing to replace the 150 larger houses originally sought by another house builder with smaller houses that would be delivered as affordable.”

In a supporting statement, a Springfield spokesman argued the difference in the number of bedrooms was from the original submission of 442 to the 489 now proposed.

Mr Archer said the increase in potential occupants was “not considered to be significant”.

He added: “It is concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the operation of the road network. We are satisfied with the proposed application in terms of roads and road safety.”

The final concern raised by the Formartine committee – which will meet again on Tuesday to reconsider the scheme – was the viability of a “100% affordable” neighbourhood.

In his report, Mr Archer responded the council could support at least 25% and the remainder would be the responsibility of Springfield.

For the scheme to go ahead, the committee will first have to agree a fresh masterplan for the land before granting the firm full planning permission.