Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on 31 May 2006 at 10.30 a.m.
Present
Mr A S Park, Mr A MacDonald, Mr R Saxon, Mr J H Green, Mr G M Smith, Mrs A Magee (ex officio), Mr D Allan, Mr F R M Keith, Mr A Torrance, Mr E C Mackinnon, Mrs V MacIver, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr M Macmillan, Mr B Barclay, Mr J Laing, Mr W Fulton, Mr S J Shiels, Mr J MacDonald, Mr R Lyon, Mr A Milne, Mr N Donald, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J Gray, Mr R Wynd, Mr B M S Dunlop, Mr A Gordon, Dr M E M Foxley (ex officio), Mr B Clark, Mr A R McFarlane Slack
Non-Members also present:
Mr D MacKay, Mr W Mowat, Mr W J Ross, Mr A Anderson, Mr D W Briggs, Mrs I Campbell, Mr R Balfour, Mrs M C Davidson
Officials in attendance:
Mr J D Rennilson, Director of Planning and Development
Mr M Greaves, Head of Development and Strategy
Mr G Robson, Head of Environment
Mr A McCann, Economy and Europe Manager
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Planning and Building Standards
Mr G Hamilton, Natural Resources Manager
Mrs D Maxwell, Projects Asset & Archaeology Manager
Mr D Polson, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, Inverness
Mrs N Drummond, Team Leader, Inverness Area Planning
Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator, Corporate Services
Mrs L Lee, Committee Administrator, Corporate Services
Mr A S Park in the Chair
Business
An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to Council. All decisions with no asterisk in the margin are delegated to the Committee.
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr R W Durham, Mrs K G Matheson (OCB), Mrs L MacDonald and Mrs O J Macdonald (OCB).
2. Planning Applications for Whiteness, Ardersier and Glensanda Quarry Extension, Lochaber: Arrangements for Hearings
The Committee NOTED the following dates for Hearings for planning applications for Whiteness, Ardersier and for Glensanda Quarry Extension, Lochaber:
Whiteness, Ardersier - Friday 23 June 2006
This meeting was subject to final confirmation; Members would be notified of any change as soon as possible.
Glensanda Quarry Extension, Lochaber - Wednesday 16 August 2006
A meeting of this Committee was scheduled for this day and would take place as normal. The Glensanda hearing would be an item on the agenda and the Committee meeting was therefore likely to take the full day.
3. Capital and Revenue Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07
Members were reminded that the Council’s Financial Information system was being upgraded to a new version of Oracle (11i). As part of that, development work was being undertaken to provide detailed transaction reporting (DTR). Whilst Oracle 11i had been introduced on 3 April 2006, other priorities had meant that the development work on DTR had been delayed. The new system was now nearing completion but had not been available for the April round of monitoring required to meet this Committee deadline. A corporate monitoring report for the period to 30 May 2006 would, instead, be provided at the Council meeting on 29 June 2006. A Near Final report for the financial year 2005/06 would be provided to the Resources Committee on 14 June 2006.
The Committee NOTED the position.
4. Terms of Section 75 Legal Agreement for Hotel and Golf Course Development at Castle Stuart, Dalcross
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-34-06 dated 22 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development recalling that, at the Special Meeting of the Committee on 17 March 2006, Members had considered an application for planning permission to develop the existing Lonnie and Balnaglack farm holdings at Castle Stuart, Dalcross to provide a quality golf development, phased over a period of some 8 years, comprising two 18 hole courses together with associated golf facilities, including club house, driving range and pitch and putt area. In addition the proposal included a 57 bedroom hotel, 28 apartment block, 120 timeshare units and spa/leisure complex, together with associated infrastructure and facilities. Members had approved the application subject to the prior conclusion of a satisfactory Section 75 legal agreement.
The Committee was advised that, following the above decision, the applicants had requested that consideration be given to an amendment of the previously approved terms of the Section 75, in order to vary the timing of when the necessary bond would be lodged, to a later phase of the development. Members having sought and been given clarification as to the implications of the requested change, the Committee AGREED:
i. the request to vary the terms of the Section 75 legal agreement in respect of the timing of the lodging of the bond, as set out in Section 3 of the report; and
ii.that, on completion of the signing of the Section 75 agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the terms agreed at the 17 March 2006 Committee meeting, but incorporating changes to the approved conditions consequent upon these phasing changes.
5. Planning Application - Erection of Garage at Spean Bridge Community Centre Altour Road, Spean Bridge for the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service
There had been circulated Report No. PL-40-06 dated 2 May 2006 by the Lochaber Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, advising that the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service (HIFRS) was seeking consent to erect a single garage within the grounds of Spean Bridge Community Centre at Altour Road for its Community Response Unit.
This item had been included on the agenda for the meeting of the Lochaber Area Planning Committee held on 15 May 2006, but, given potential public perception that conflicts of interest might apply, the Area Planning Committee had agreed to refer the matter to this Committee.
Having heard the Team Leader, Planning and Building Standards explain, with reference to a PowerPoint presentation, the issues for Members’ consideration in their determination, the Committee APPROVED the application as recommended in the report, subject to (i) clearance from Scottish Ministers, given the Council’s interest as owner of the site in question, and (ii) conditions as set out in the report.
6. Refurbishment of Listed Building to form Office Accommodation, former Sutherland Technical School, Drummuie, Golspie (05/00315/NIDSU and 05/00316/LBCSU)
In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Member had applied for and been granted a local Member vote: Mr W J Ross.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-50-06 dated 26 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on proposals to change the use and refurbish the former Golspie High School Technical Annex to form modern office accommodation for Highland Council Services within Sutherland. The application had been submitted on behalf of the Highland Council under the Notice of Intention to Develop (NID) procedure.
The Team Leader, Planning and Building Standards, with reference to a PowerPoint presentation, drew attention to a number of points, including that (i) as the proposed development lay within the identified expansion area as indicated in the Local Plan and would result in the re-use of an existing under-used listed building, the change of use was supported in principle; (ii) the alterations proposed, although relatively significant, were viewed as appropriate; (iii) the plans had been amended to take into account concerns regarding access and road layout; and (iv) the amenity of neighbouring occupiers would not be unduly affected. He also stated that:
· alterations would be required to make the building comply with modern building standards and DDA requirements; in particular, a disabled access ramp would be constructed at the front of the building, which would have a visual impact
· whilst Historic Scotland were of the view that the required alterations were not ideal from a conservation perspective, on balance it was better that the building was used than it lie empty
· additional traffic would only be generated in office hours
· bus stops and pedestrian and cycle routes would be provided.
During discussion, having heard the local Member speak in support of the application, it was stressed that the Council must to be seen to comply fully with listed building regulations, including provision of detailed information regarding windows, finishes etc, as would be expected of any other applicant. After discussion, the Committee AGREED:
i. to refer the application to Scottish Ministers advising that the Council RAISED NO OBJECTION to the application, subject to the conditions requested by the Trunk Roads Network Management Directorate as set out in the report; and
ii. to refer the application for listed building consent to the Scottish Ministers, with the conditions as detailed in the report.
7. Beauly-Denny Gridline: Proposed Public Inquiry
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-35-06 dated 22 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development and the Director of Corporate Services referring to the Committee’s decision on 12 April 2006 to lodge an objection to the application by Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) for the construction of a 400kV steel tower double circuit overhead electricity transmission line with associated works and dismantling. As a consequence of this decision, and the objections by the Perth and Kinross, Stirling, Clackmannanshire and Falkirk Planning Authorities and also objections by the Cairngorms National Park Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage, it was now certain that the Scottish Executive would require a Public Local Inquiry to be held prior to its determination of the application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. This would have financial and personnel implications for the Council.
The Director of Planning and Development advised that talks were ongoing between the other planning authorities and the statutory consultees objecting to the application, to explore the sharing of advocate and witness costs where possible. He stressed that the figure of £550,000 given in the report was an overall estimate and that the Highland Council would pay only its share of the costs incurred by the advocate and witnesses dealing with those issues the Council was pursuing, such as technical issues of undergrounding or landscaping. Charges for time spent on, for example, health issues or in arguing the basic need for the line upgrade would not fall on the Council, since they did not form part of its objection.
In discussion, comments were raised that, as the Council was of the view that 95% of the proposed route was satisfactory, to incur expenditure of perhaps up to £500,000 through the Public Inquiry was unjustified, particularly when there was no guarantee at the end of the day that a positive outcome would be achieved. However, not all Members subscribed to this view. Having heard the Director of Planning and Development state that the fee income to the Highland Council from the application would amount to around £10-12,000 only, Members advocated that the Council press for all planning applications to be self-financing, the sum available in this instance being inadequate. In answer to questions raised, the Director of Planning and Development advised that SSE would not receive funding to underground the line without Ofgem approval, and were therefore unable to pursue undergrounding options unless or until so directed. He undertook to pursue discussions with SSE in order that as many difficulties as possible could be resolved ahead of the Public Inquiry, which would hopefully reduce the time and costs involved. He also gave an undertaking that opportunities to reduce costs by sharing of witnesses etc. would be taken up wherever possible.
After discussion, the Committee AGREED:
i. that officers be authorised to pursue the possibilities of joint representation with the other planning authorities/statutory consultees; and
ii. that the cost of external legal representation and the cost of external professional witnesses would be the subject of a request for exceptional funding to the Budget Working Group.
8. Audit Commission and Internal Performance Indicators
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-36-06 dated 23 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising Members of the delivery of the Development Control and Building Standards services for the financial year 2005/06, with comparative figures for previous years and with reference to the Audit Commission and internal performance targets.
The Director of Planning and Development drew attention to recent improvements in the figures, which had followed increases in the staffing establishment. Having heard the Director stress that the improvement trend needed to continue, the Committee NOTED the current position.
9. Planning Etc (Scotland) Bill – Update
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-37-06 dated 24 May 206 by the Director of Planning and Development advising Members on the Parliamentary progress of the Planning Etc (Scotland) Bill. The Director spoke to the report and advised Members that the terms of the Bill would largely be implemented via secondary legislation, which, given the timing of the Parliamentary and Local Government elections in May 2007, would mean most of the changes would not come into effect until perhaps Autumn/Winter 2007.
The formal Stage 1 debate had been completed and it was understood that the Communities Committee had supported the Council’s suggestions with regard to (i) the need for adequate resources, both financial and in terms of personnel; (ii) the significant culture change involved in what was proposed in the Bill; and (iii) the questionable necessity for Scottish Executive approval for the Council’s Scheme of Delegation and Supplementary Planning Guidance. However, the Communities Committee had not taken forward the Council’s suggestions relating to the proposed transfer of responsibility for Neighbour Notification to Councils, which could ultimately result in an increased cost burden to this Council, as additional fees to be introduced to meet the costs of this change were likely to be assessed on Central Belt costs and were unlikely to be sufficient for the Highlands. The Communities Committee had also not responded to the Council’s comments on Planning Gain Supplement. Third Party Rights of Appeal had been rejected by the Communities Committee by 6 votes to 3, but amendments at a later stage could not be ruled out.
New proposals to introduce fixed penalties for planning breaches were welcomed by Members, but the view was expressed that there was a need to structure these to ensure that penalties for both large and small developers were set at appropriate levels, to deter breaches. Members also raised concerns that current staffing levels were not sufficient to allow enforcement action to be taken. In discussion, Members expressed disquiet at the increase in unauthorised advertising, in particular that using trailers/vehicles parked alongside trunk roads, and urged that enforcement action be taken.
In response to points raised, the Director affirmed that, while the Bill proposed a single tier of development plan in areas such as Highland, its provisions did not prevent the Council putting in place an informal Highland-wide overview document, although without the legal status of a Structure Plan; this would enable Local Development Plans to refer to the same information regarding population, housing, minerals, waste, renewable energy etc.
The Committee NOTED the progress on the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Bill and AGREED to confirm the authority already given to the Director of Planning and Development, following consultation with the Chairman, to seek an MSP(s) to table amendments to reflect changes which the Council considered would improve the Bill.
10. Scottish Water – Update On Discussions
The Head of Development and Strategy provided a verbal update on matters relating to Scottish Water (SW). He reported that the emerging Quality and Standards 3 Programme (QS3) was still not finalised, but that discussions between the Council and SW at officer level continued. Progress was being made towards finding solutions to issues raised previously in Committee and this had been aided by SW’s agreeing to work with the Council’s Housing Land Audit process. SW had also appointed a dedicated member of staff to act as the contact for queries from the Highland area.
The Convener then reported that she had written on behalf of the Highlands and Islands Conveners Group (H&ICG) to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development (ERD), Mr Ross Finnie MSP, to take forward a number of concerns relating to SW. A reply had been received from the Deputy Minister for ERD, Ms Rhona Brankin MSP, who had indicated that there would be no purpose in a meeting at this time. H&ICG had considered that this reply was unacceptable and had agreed that the Convener write again. H&ICG were also to invite the Chair of SW to their next meeting.
Following discussion, the Head of Development and Strategy undertook to collate issues raised by Members and take them forward via the Convener, including:
· clarification of the basis on which decisions were taken by SW as to who was given a supply connection and who not (particular reference having been made to Skye)
· why recent works carried out by SW so often required to be re-done.
Specific points raised by Members relating to their wards would also be taken forward and feedback provided.
The Committee NOTED the position and that any further issues should be brought to the attention of the Head of Development and Strategy so that these could be taken forward in a co-ordinated and focused way by the Convener, this approach being deemed more likely to be effective than individual or Area approaches to Scottish Water.
11. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management – Draft Recommendations; UK Policy for Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste – Consultation
The Committee AGREED to consider items 11 and 12 on the circulated agenda together.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-38-06 dated 19 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on current progress by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) on their identification of the best technical option(s) for nuclear waste disposal.
There had also been circulated Report No. PDET-39-06 dated 12 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that the UK Government and devolved administrations were inviting responses to a consultation on a proposed Policy for the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Waste (LLW). The report briefed Members on current Government Policy, introduced the key aspects of the proposed Policy and conclusions, and recommended a response to the questions raised within the consultation document.
Various points were raised in discussion, including:
· the need for adherence to international standards should be stressed – vehicles transporting waste must be fit for purpose
· Emergency Planning Officers should be informed of movements of waste, in the interests of public safety and reassurance
· the transport of waste must be made as safe as possible
· the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) should be allowed to continue after November 2006, as its job was not finished yet; the report was interim
· more thought needed to be given to transport of, e.g., hospital LLW, including how many storage sites there should be and where these should be located
· a definition of “willing communities” was required
· community benefit should not just be for the place where the waste was to be stored, as all places along the transport route were at risk.
The Committee NOTED (i) progress by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management on their identification of the best technical option(s) for nuclear waste disposal; and (ii) the key aspects of the current policy statement on the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Waste and its implications in Highland; and AGREED that the comments and answers as set out in Appendix A to Report No. PDET39/06, strengthened to take account of the comments made during discussion, be submitted as Highland Council’s response to the consultation on the proposed policy.
13. Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-40-06 dated 23 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development asking Members to approve the finalised version of the Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy document. The document had been considered by the City of Inverness and Area Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee on 2 May 2006 and by the Ross and Cromarty and Nairnshire Area Committees on 23 May 2006, and the Committee was advised that each of the Area Committees had approved the Strategy for their interest.
The Committee APPROVED the amended Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy as supplementary planning policy in support of the Development Plan.
14. A96 Corridor – Progress Report
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-41-06 dated 17 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on the A96 Corridor studies, particularly in relation to the appointment of consultants, timetabling for the work and the financial situation. The report had been considered by the Nairnshire Area and the City of Inverness and Area Planning Applications Committees on 23 and 29 May 2006 respectively and the Committee was advised that both Area Committees had approved the Strategy for their interest.
The Head of Development and Strategy summarised the steps taken to date to take the proposals forward. Contracts to investigate planning, transport and electricity issues had already been let, and an indication of the costs of carrying out a feasibility study for water and sewerage infrastructure had been received from Scottish Water (SW). This estimate was around £100,000 in excess of the original estimate and would require to be met by the Council. Both Area Committees had, for their interest, approved the increased expenditure. To delay the investigation would have serious implications for the other parts of the feasibility study.
During discussion, the view was expressed that it was unreasonable for local authorities to be expected to cover the costs of the water and sewerage forward planning work involved in the A96 and similar plans, given in particular that these services had been removed from local government responsibility in 1996, and that representations should be made to the Scottish Executive on the need to address this.
After discussion, the Committee NOTED the progress made with the ongoing A96 Corridor investigations, including the consultancy appointments made; and APPROVED additional expenditure not exceeding £100,000 towards the consultancy costs for the A96 Corridor Stage II studies, to be met by virement from other service budgets and staff vacancy savings during 2006/07.
15. Renewable Energy – Local Content of Schemes
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-42-06 dated 24 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising of recent clarifications of the legal position regarding the amount of local content that could be sought for electricity generating projects in the Highland area. The Head of Development and Strategy explained that UK electricity producers were now exempt from the procurement restrictions imposed by the EU Utilities Directive and that this opened the door for renewable energy companies to award contracts locally. It would therefore be possible for the Authority to seek to include stipulations within planning consents as to the percentage of contracts for works associated with renewable energy developments to be awarded locally.
Whilst generally supporting the proposed percentages for local and Scottish content of contracts, Members cautioned that these levels might prove to be impractical if local industry was unable to respond to demand in the timescales required by developers. There was a need to encourage more industry to establish in the Highlands. The Head of Development and Strategy responded that, whilst the percentages could be set out in a Section 75 Agreement attached to a planning consent, these agreements were entered into on an entirely voluntary basis.
The Committee NOTED the recent EU announcement exempting UK Electricity producers from the Utilities Directive; and APPROVED the new local content guidelines as detailed at section 4 of the circulated report.
16. The Highland Access Strategy – Presentation of Consultation Results
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-43-06 dated 22 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development summarising the results of the public consultation on the draft Highland Access Strategy and seeking approval of the final document prior to publication, together with a copy of the Revised Access Strategy. The Strategy was not a statutory document, but it was a statutory requirement for the Council to have a Core Paths Plan. 1800 copies of the draft Strategy had been issued for consultation, but only 41 responses had been received.
Various points were raised in discussion, including:
· the vision statement was too aspirational, given the limited resources available, and should be reworded more realistically; there was a danger of raising communities’ expectations unrealistically
· the Strategy should give greater emphasis to the importance of responsibility in the exercise of access rights and in particular of respect for the interests of the rural working environment, given concerns that, while the numbers of complaints had so far been low, these would increase
· there were concerns that structures such as styles, kissing gates, etc. would need to be replaced to allow fuller access along paths
· references to the importance of public transport should include buses as well as trains
· the last paragraph under section 5, Negotiation with Land Owners, required clarification/re-wording
· the Strategy should enable communities to develop local paths; working with communities should be emphasised, alongside working with other bodies
· maximum use should be made of the Internet in publicising path maps and information
· leaflets should be kept simple and a small charge made for leaflets showing routes
· clarification was needed as to what was meant by “comprehensive” and “everyone” in the contexts of phrases such as “developing a comprehensive path network” and “everyone has access”
· not every path was suitable for every kind of usage
· there was uncertainty as to how the upkeep of paths would be funded
· the distribution formula for the £8.1m funding provided for Scotland should be revisited: only 4.5% of this was allocated to the Highlands, reflecting a population rather than land area criterion, and this was insufficient.
After discussion, the Committee NOTED (i) the outcomes of the consultation, and (ii) the possible delay should a Strategic Environmental Assessment be required; and APPROVED the Highland Access Strategy for publication, taking account of comments made during discussion.
17. Code of Conduct for Access Forum members
Members were advised that a Code of Conduct for Access Forum Members had recently been adopted by the Pan-Highland Access Forum. The Code would be used when recruiting future Local Access Forum Members.
The Committee NOTED the Pan Highland Access Forum decision to agree the Code of Conduct and AGREED the Code, for the Council’s interest.
18. Scottish Historic Environment Policy Consultations:
i. Scotland’s Historic Environment (SHEP1)
ii. Scheduling (SHEP2)
iii. Gardens and Designed Landscapes (SHEP3)
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-44-06 dated 18 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development inviting Members to comment upon the first three papers in the Scottish Executive’s new Scottish Historic Environment Policy series. Comments were sought by 23 June 2006.
The Committee APPROVED the consultation responses to be sent to the Scottish Executive, as set out in the Report.
19. Cairngorms National Park Plan – Consultation
As Board Members of the Cairngorm National Park Authority, Mr S Park, Mr B M S Dunlop and Mr A Gordon declared a financial interest in this item but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, remained to participate in the discussion.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-45-06 dated 23 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development introducing the Cairngorm National Park Authority: Draft National Park Plan and supporting documentation. Comments on the Plan were sought by 30 June 2006.
Explanations were given with regard to the National Park Housing Policy, in that (i) this was to be the subject of a separate consultation; and (ii) proposals to introduce a requirement to have lived in the Park area for three years before being allowed to build property there had been discussed by the Cairngorm National Park Authority (CNPA) but a decision had not been made in this regard.
Various points were raised in discussion, including:
· comment at p.112 of the draft response demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Park Authority’s intentions in relation to access to housing, in particular the use of the rural Housing Burden, as expressed at p.51 of the draft Plan
· the importance of protecting cultural heritage should be emphasised, such as preservation of the name “Strathspey” rather than “Spey Valley”
· in commenting on forestry, the response should recognise that economic returns from timber were at present poor and that a better return would come from promoting biodiversity
· references to community transport should be included in the Plan.
20. EU Regional Policy Post – 2006
At its meeting held on 24 March 2004, the Committee agreed that a report on the development of the EU Regional Policy post-2006, and in particular progress on the case for Objective 1b status for the Highlands and Islands, be brought to each future meeting of the Committee.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-46-06 dated 22 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on the evolution of the EU’s Regional Policy and accompanying Highlands and Islands Structural Fund programmes for the 2007-13 budgetary period.
The Economy and Europe Manager reported that the Convener had attended various meetings during the previous week, including the Programme Monitoring Committee, where there had been very full discussion on various developments within the existing and proposed Programme. There was a general feeling that engagement with the Scottish Executive had improved over recent weeks. A meeting had been arranged between the Highlands and Islands Conveners Group (H&ICG) and Mr Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Life Long Learning with responsibility for European Funding, to discuss a number of issues connected with the Programme, including co-financing, how agriculture and fisheries fitted within the Programme, and measurement of deprivation in rural areas. It was hoped that more formal consultation on these issues would take place and that the Council would be given an opportunity to comment.
In response to questions raised, the Economy and Europe Manager advised that the Highlands were likely to benefit from around £105m of EU funding. Although this figure was lower than in previous years, as had been anticipated following the expansion of the EU, successful lobbying had ensured that the sum was no smaller. Both national and regional priorities had to be met from the funds available to the UK and a balance had to be found.
In discussion, Members drew attention to the importance of Community Transport schemes to the Highlands. Such projects met many of the EU’s objectives, including social inclusion, employment and life long learning, and the issue should be considered when developing regional priorities for the new programme and determining when domestic as opposed to European funding should be used.
The Committee NOTED:
i. the recent developments in the evolution of the EU’s regional policy and the efforts underway to secure a more active role for the Council in the development of the new programmes for the Highlands and Islands; and
ii. the responses made by the Council in respect of the consultation on the national Strategic Reference Framework and to the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee on the Scottish Executive’s plans for Structural Funds programmes 2007-13.
21. European Territorial Co-operation
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-47-06 dated 24 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development providing Members with the latest information on the European Commission’s proposals for the new European Territorial Co-operation Objective 2007-2013. Members were asked to consider and agree an early Council position to help influence the new Programmes prior to their formal consultation in the autumn.
The Economy and Europe Manager advised that, following the reduction in Structural funding, Territorial Co-operation could be an important area for future funding for the Highlands. It would provide an opportunity to adopt best practice from other countries and the approach would also tie in with the Modernising Government agenda.
The Economy and Europe Manager recommended that the Council lobby the Scottish Executive and MEPs on the following issues:
a) formal inclusion of Lochaber and Skye and Lochalsh in the Cross Border Programme with Northern Ireland and Eire:
b) active regional involvement in the development of the Cross Border Co-operation Programme with Northern Ireland and Eire;
c) the Scottish Executive to retain the current geographic and thematic focus of the Northern Periphery Programme; and
d) a simplified administration structure for the Interregional Co-operation Programme.
Members enquired as to whether Wester Ross could also be included in the Cross Border Programme, but were advised that the initial focus would be to argue for inclusion of Skye and Lochalsh at this stage. In response to a question asked, it was noted that the forthcoming electoral boundary changes and any new operational structures adopted by the Council would have no impact on the boundaries ultimately chosen for the Cross Border Programme.
After discussion, the Committee NOTED the current situation with the development of the European Territorial co-operation Objective 2007-2013 and AGREED that a letter be sent to Mr Allan Wilson MSP setting out the actions sought by the Council as detailed above and that these points be raised with Mr Wilson at the forthcoming meeting of the Highlands and Islands Conveners Group, should the opportunity arise, and also at forthcoming planned meetings with MEPs.
22. Historic Environment Regeneration Fund
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-48-06 dated 23 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on the Council’s successful bid for Historic Environment Regeneration Fund support for the Wick Pulteneytown Conservation Area. The report sought forward commitment of funding as the Planning and Development Service contribution to the funding package.
Members having commended the staff on their success in attracting the funding, the Committee NOTED the successful award of £1.5m from the Historic Environment Regeneration Fund for the Wick Pulteneytown Conservation Area and AGREED in principle a forward commitment of approximately £30k in each of the financial years 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 as the Council’s contribution to the Project Manager post and overhead costs.
23. Highland Housing Fair
Mr A Torrance and Mr A R McFarlane Slack each declared a non-financial interest in this item, the former having a family member involved in the development of the Highland Housing Fair, the latter as Chairman of the Highland Housing Alliance; but, having applied the test in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, both concluded that their respective interests did not preclude their involvement in the discussion and both remained in the room.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-49-06 dated 23 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on progress with the Highland Housing Fair and seeking Committee approval of match funding towards further preparatory costs. The Head of Development and Strategy advised that this project had potential to bring many people to the Highlands, but that a site had yet to be found and securing contributions towards funding from outside bodies was proving difficult.
In discussion, Members commented that the project would be in jeopardy without financial support. The Committee NOTED progress to date; APPROVED a contribution towards the Highland Housing Fair of £15k per annum in 2006/07 and 22007/08 and in principle in 2008/09 and 2009/10; and AGREED:
i. that those bodies, including the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland, who had declined to help fund this event be asked again;
ii. that ways be found to involve young people in the event;
iii. that a way be found for individuals who had developed innovative housing to take part in the event; and
* iv. to recommend that Mr W J Ross, Chairman of the Sustainable Development Select Committee, be appointed Chair of the Highland Housing Fair/6 Cities Design Festival Steering Group.