Minute of the special meeting of the Ross, Skye and Lochaber Planning Applications Committee held on site at Land at Ness Gap, Ness Road, Fortrose and Fortrose Community Theatre on Tuesday, 16th February 2010 at 10.30 am.

 

Committee Members Present

 

Mr Billy Barclay
Mrs Isabelle Campbell
Mr David Chisholm 
Mr Bill Clark
Mr Eddie Hunter
Mrs Isobel McCallum
Mr Ian Renwick
Mrs Audrey Sinclair

 

Officials in attendance:

 

Mr Alaisdair Mackenzie, Area Solicitor
Ms Susan Blease, Solicitor
Mr Dafydd Jones, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mrs Dorothy Stott, Principal Planner
Mr David Baldwin, Planner
Mr John Danby, Principal Engineer, TECS
Mr Bryan Stout, Principal Engineer, TECS
Mr Steven Grant, Principal Technician, TECS

 

Mr David Chisholm in the Chair

 

Business

 

1. Apologies for Absence

 

Apologies were received from Mr Peter Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Hamish Fraser.

 

2. Hearing

 

2.1  Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd (09/00471/OUTRC and (09/00472/FULRC)  (PLR-016-10.part 1.pdf (8444kb pdf) | PLR-016-10.part 2.pdf (8444kb pdf)) Supplementary Report No PLR-017-10 (38kb pdf)
Location: Land at Ness Gap, Ness Road, Fortrose
Nature of Development: Erection of House (Principle) (09/00471/OUTRC) and Erection of Sixteen Houses and 16 Flats (Full) (09/00472/FULRC)

 

There had been circulated (1) Report No PLR/016/10 and (2) Supplementary Report No PLR/017/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending

 

1. the grant of the application 09/00471/OUTRC subject to the conditions detailed therein and the prior conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement to secure the following:

 

i A developer contribution of £75,000 towards an improved bus service to be paid prior to development commencing on site;

 

ii A developer contribution of £10,000 towards signage improvements on the A9 at Artafallie to be paid prior to development commencing on site;

 

iii A developer contribution of £1,000  (per house/flat), to be increased in line with an inflationary factor and/or the levels of contribution required by Council policy at the point at which payment is due, towards wider road network improvements to be paid prior to the commencement of development on each proposed phase;

 

iv A developer contribution of £1,039 (per house only), to be increased in line with an inflationary factor and/or the levels of contribution required by Council policy at the point at which payment is due, towards the provision of an additional classroom at Fortrose Academy to be paid prior to the commencement of development on each proposed phase;

 

v The provision of a single affordable housing unit in Area B of 09/00471/OUTRC;

 

2. The grant of 09/00472/FULRC subject to the conditions detailed therein:

 

The meeting convened on site near the proposed entrance to the development at Ness Road, Fortrose and then drove back to Fortrose Community Theatre via Wester Greengates. The site was viewed from the entrance to theTheatre. The Planner, representatives of the Applicant and objectors pointed out physical features at these locations relating to the development.

 

The meeting reconvened at 11.30 am in Fortrose Community Theatre when the Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed and adjourned the meeting to allow the Objectors the opportunity to appoint a number of spokespersons to present their views.

 

The Principal Planner introduced the applications, giving a brief description of the proposed developments and their sites, identified the planning policies against which the applications required to be assessed and drew attention to other material considerations.

 

Bill Hepburn, Planning Associate with Bracewell Stirling Consulting, presented the case for approval on behalf of the Applicant as follows:

 

The Local Plan

 

  • The Applicant’s proposals were in line with the requirements of the Local Plan;

 

Traffic Impact

 

  • A Transport Assessment (TA) had been prepared by SIAS at the request of the Council;
  • The Applicant was aware of occasional obstruction problems in the High Street which arose principally from vehicles parked on the road;
  • Other off site issues had been identified and discussed at length with both Planning and Roads Officials;
  • The TA was prepared on the basis of a very conservative over assumption of 176 housing units and is considered acceptable at that level. The proposals before the Committee for 120-132 units would have a lesser impact;
  • If the main issue was the High Street then regardless of whether the development proceeds there is a need to control traffic movement and avoid obstructions. The applicant will make a contribution to these solutions;

 

Affordable Housing

 

  • The 32 units proposed would be built on behalf of Albyn Housing Society and are well designed meeting all requirements for high levels of insulation, energy and carbon reduction;
  • Fortrose is a priority area for affordable housing and if permission was granted there would be a good chance that tender bids could be made for financial year 2010/11 and contracts and land sale be drawn up to allow early development;

 

Elderly Provision

 

  • Discussions were ongoing towards the provision of day care and residential facilities. The Masterplan was flexible enough to accommodate a complex if it came forward;
  • The affordable housing mix includes unts which can be used as amenity housing so there will be a degree of provision for the elderly;

 

Phasing

 

  • Much of the public concern centred on the scale of the development and the likely pressure on schools, health centres etc; however the development was likely to take several years with a slow and measured rate of construction and completion leading to a fairly gradual increase in demand for services;
  • The school roles at both Fortrose academy and Avoch Primary School were falling;
  • If there was not development to bolster demand then in the current economic climate it is unlikely that facilities would be improved including the clear local aspiration for a primary school in Fortrose;

 

Developer Contributions

 

  • £75,000 for upgrading local bus services;
  • £1,000 per unit for road network improvements;
  • £10,000 for signage at A9/Munlochy Road junction;
  • £1,039/unit towards education;
  • improvements to the alignment of Wester Greengates;
  • £569,000 towards water network upgrading;

 

The Applicant agreed to allow part of their time to be taken by Mr Roy Sinclair, Chairman of the Black-Isle Swimming Pool Foundation, who made the following points:

 

  • he welcomed the reservation of the swimming pool site and car parking;
  • he welcomed the Applicant’s willingness to transfer the land for a nominal sum;
  • he welcomed the recognition given to the Swimming Pool in the Report and the proposal prohibiting housing on the proposed site;

 

Mr J Cornwall and Mr G Phillips addressed the Committee on behalf of Fortrose & Rosemarkie Community Council and made the following points:

 

Affordable Housing Site

 

  • they were supportive of the affordable housing and noted that the Applicant had taken account of some of their concerns;
  • they were not happy with the 2 storey flats in the affordable housing site which would be out of keeping in a rural location;
  • the recommended figure of 25% was not a minimum; 40 units should be provided;
  • it should be a condition that there be an element of sheltered housing;

 

Outline Site

 

  • they did not agree that in terms of GSP 9 of the Local Plan that the number of houses be increased to 132 because of the extended consultation on the Local Plan which reached a final decision on a limit of 100-120. The Planner’s Report at paragraph 8.26 referred to a “specific” allocation of housing enshrined in the Local plan. The proposed numbers were not in the best interests of the community;
  • they did not support the proposed condition 3 which did not comply with the views of the community. The massive public opposition was a material consideration. It was policy to maximise the number of properties on a site but only where appropriate. Both the Community Council and the Highland Council had a duty to safeguard local amenity;
  • the site had potential to expand and the dangers of this had been highlighted at the Local Plan Inquiry;
  • 132 houses were too many and a step too far;
  • the application had attracted an unprecedented level of objection;
  • they were generally in favour but only if the development proceeded within the Local Plan framework;
  • the traffic problems in Fortrose High Street and elsewhere which had been identified required to be addressed as soon as possible;

 

Mr A Morey addressed the Committee on behalf of Knockbain Community Council and made the following points:

 

  • they were concerned about the impact of the development on infrastructure;
  •  they were concerned about the level of traffic passing through Munlochy and urged that steps be taken to re-direct it via the Tore roundabout;
  • they hoped that the proposals would not have an impact on the proposed Swimming Pool;

 

The following persons then addressed the Committee on behalf of all the objectors:

 

James Grant

 

  • concerns about the loss of prime agricultural land and sustainable development;
  • the Scottish Government had a policy of promoting sustainable development;
  • the loss of prime agricultural land would also be a loss of an important habitat for wildlife;
  • the proposal would lead to Fortrose becoming nothing more than a suburb of Inverness;

 

Mr P Zentler-Munro

 

  • the Local plan required the Transport Assessment (TA) to be done before major development could be considered;
  • no plan of the TA had been presented to the public;
  • the survey for the TA was out of date, flawed and based on questionable assumptions;
  • pavements in Fortrose were very narrow which meant that pedestrians were often forced to step on to the road;
  • the High Street and adjoining areas were well used by children;
  • there was a very real risk that Academy Street would be used as a “rat run”;

 

Mr M Marshall

 

  • the Planner’s Report omitted to mention the seven references in the Local Plan about too many people and the need to monitor the rate of population growth;
  • in the period 1999 to 2001 Fortrose & Rosemarkie had experienced a 29% increase in households;
  • there was no reference in the Planner’s Report to consideration of the impact on individuals in the community;
  • no consideration had been given to the effects of the credit crunch with the figures based on the “boom years”.

 

Anne Marie Goldie

 

  • the site for the primary school must be safeguarded and not used for housing;
  • concern about development right up to the edge of the Salmon Fishers footpath;
  • the development should have plenty of landscaping;

 

Carol Diethe

 

  • concerns at the lack of amenity space;
  • concerns about the ability of the local Surgery to cope as it was already over capacity;
  • where was the market for the proposed houses as there were plenty of unsold houses on the market;

 

Mike Plested

 

  • concerns at the lack of shops and food supply, especially if travel is curtailed due to winter weather;

 

John Moore

 

  • concerns at the lack of public conveniences;

 

Colin Ferguson

 

  • concerns at the lack of potential for the expansion of Fortrose Academy;
  • he would challenge the suggestion that the school roll will fall;
  • the only place for expansion would be the Playing Fields;

 

A response to the issues raised was made on behalf of the Applicant as follows:

 

Bill Hepburn

 

  • General Policy GSP9 – Housing Site Capacities and national policy allowed for an increase in capacity of 10% which may or may not happen;
  • There may be a larger number of smaller affordable units;
  • The flats were 1½ and not 2 storey and were comparable to others in the area;
  • There was provision within the Affordable Housing site to house the elderly if the Housing Association wished this. The houses would be built in such a way that they could be used for elderly accommodation;
  • It was a judgement for Highland Council as to whether the Affordable Housing should be spread throughout the site but if they chose to make this a requirement then, given the phased nature of the build, it might be many years before they were all built;
  • With regard to the loss of agricultural land and sustainability, this land had been zoned in the Local Plan for many years and the houses would be built to sustainable standards;

 

Emma Gilmour, Transport Consultant SIAS

 

  • The Transport Assessment had been conducted following established guidelines and procedures;

 

Following a question from the Chairman, the following persons indicated their dissatisfaction with the way in which the Hearing had been conducted:

 

Margaret Wiley

 

The Hearing had been a whitewash, objectors had been road-rollered and the Chairman had been rude;

 

Mr P Zentler-Munro

 

Paragraph 7 of the Hearings Procedure was ambiguous as to whether objectors had 10 minutes each or ten minutes in total;

 

Mr John Moore

 

Queried why the Fire Service were not present;

 

Mrs Margaret Moore

 

No one was allowed to ask questions;

 

Anita Miller

 

The hearing had been too fast and people felt rail-roaded;

 

Angela Scott

 

As above;

 

Linda Spence

 

Not enough notice of the Hearing had been given - the letter advising of the Hearing only arrived at the end of the previous week;

 

Bob Massie

 

Lack of adequate notice;

 

Eric Mackenzie

 

Lack of adequate notice;

 

Carol Diethe

 

Lack of adequate notice;

 

Mike Marshall

 

There was a lack of clarity in the Hearings Procedure guidelines;

 

The Committee confirmed that all their requirements for information had been met and the Chairman indicated that the Hearings Process had been completed.

 

The Principal Planner presented the recommendations as contained in the Report and supplementary Report subject to the following amendments:

 

  • Condition 3 iii of 09/00472/FULRC to be amended by adding the following after the word “Landlord”: “OR the management of the affordable housing through an alternative mechanism in line with Council Policy.
  • Condition 8 of 09/00471/OUTRC to be amended to read as follows:
    For the avoidance of doubt, planning permission is not approved for any residential development within the area of the application site which lies within the area identified by the Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan (2007) for a swimming pool extension to the Black Isle Leisure Centre and for additional community/leisure facilities to meet local needs.

 

Reason – To ensure that the land allocated for the future swimming pool/leisure centre extension and for additional community/leisure facilities is safeguarded.

 

Mr Billy Barclay, seconded by Mrs Isobel McCallum moved:

 

1. the recommendations as amended and subject to condition 5 of 09/00471/OUTRC being amended to read as follows:

 

“Notwithstanding condition 2, no more than ten houses shall be constructed within the application site until a traffic management scheme for Fortrose, Avoch and Munlochy has been designed and enacted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the local members.”

 

2. that a Liaison Group comprising of: a representative from each of Fortrose, Avoch and Knockbain Community Councils; Councillors Isobel McCallum and Billy Barclay and a representative from each of Planning and TECS, be established to formulate a business plan to bid into the Council’s Capital Budget for traffic management schemes for Fortrose, Avoch and Munlochy.

 

There being no amendments, the motion became the finding of the meeting.

 

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 1350.