• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday 16 August at 10.30 a.m.

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 

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mrs K G Matheson, Mr A MacDonald and Mr A Gordon.

2.  Preliminaries

The Chairman welcomed Mr D Henderson, the newly elected Member for Lochardil and Mr R Hartland, the new Head of Planning and Building Standards, to their first meeting of the Committee.  He also advised the Committee that the Mr G MacDonald, technician with the Planning and Development Service was leaving to join Northern Constabulary.

3.  Recess Powers 

The Committee NOTED that the recess powers granted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2006 had been exercised in respect of this Committee in relation to the submission of responses by the Director of Planning and Development to the following consultations:

i.  Department of Trade and Industry consultation on the latest stage of its Review of UK Assisted Areas, (closing date of 7 August 2006); and
ii.  Scottish Executive consultation on the detail of BIDS (Business Improvement Districts) policy, (closing date of 4 August 2006).

4.  Future Hearings

a)  Notice of Special Meeting – Edinbane Wind Farm, Friday, 27 October 2006

Members NOTED that a Special Meeting of the Committee would be held in Skye on Friday, 27 October 2006 to consider a planning application for a wind farm at Edinbane and that the application would be considered under the Hearings Procedure, with a site inspection taking place at 9.15 a.m.

b)  Postponement of Hearing – Glensanda Quarry Extension

The Committee NOTED that the Hearing on the proposed Glensanda Quarry Extension application would not now take place later in the day as part of that meeting, as had previously been intimated, and that Members would be informed of the revised date in due course.

c)  Notice of Special Meeting - Wind Farm Proposals in Sutherland

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-51-06  dated 8 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on proposed administrative arrangements for the processing of three current onshore wind farm applications in Sutherland.

The Committee AGREED that the determination of the Achany (05/398/FULSU), Invercassley (05/0400/FULLSU) and Rosehall (05/429/FULSU) wind farms be dealt with as set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report, at a single sitting of this Committee in Sutherland on Friday, 29 September 2006, following a site inspection of each of the sites and the surrounding areas on the previous afternoon.

d)  Postponement of Special Meeting – Residential and Leisure Development at Whiteness, Ardersier

The Committee NOTED that the Special Meeting of the Committee scheduled for 1 September 2006 to consider a planning application for a Residential and Leisure Development at Whiteness, Ardersier, had been postponed, pending the resolution of outstanding concerns raised by Scottish Natural Heritage and the Trunk Roads Authority, and that Members would be informed of the revised date in due course.

5.  Revenue Budget 2005/06 – Out-turn 

There had been circulated and NOTED Report No. PDET-52-06 dated 10 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out the year-end position for the Planning and Development Service’s 2005/06 revenue budget.  The budget had been brought in on target, sums allocated within the budget having been redistributed in response to unforeseen changes in income and expenditure. 

6.  Revenue Expenditure 2006/07 – Monitoring Statement

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-53-06 dated 9 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on Revenue Expenditure on the Planning and Development Service for the period to 30 June 2006 and the projected year-end position.

The Committee NOTED the financial position.

7.  Capital Expenditure 2005/06 – Out-turn 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-54-06 dated 8 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the Out-turn/Variance for the Year 2005/06 Capital Programme.  Only 60% of the budget had been spent in 2005/06, the reason for this being largely due to protracted negotiations with land owners causing lengthy delays.  Projects so delayed would continue into the current financial year.

Arising from discussion, the Head of Environment explained that, whilst the preparation of a Core Paths Plan was mandatory, its implementation was not, and, indeed, no funding had been provided by the Scottish Executive for this.  However, he undertook to look into specific concerns raised, including those relating to a footpath in Tain.

The Committee NOTED the report and AGREED that the maintenance etc. of new footpaths be raised at the next Portfolio Holders’ meeting.

8.  Capital Expenditure 2006/07 – Monitoring Statement

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-55-06 dated 7 July 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the gross Capital Expenditure and Income for the Planning and Development Service for the period to 30 June 2006.

In speaking to the report, the Head of Environment advised that slippage was expected on the Nairn Town Centre project and that the Storr Woodlands project was likely to be delayed following the closure of the Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme earlier than expected.  Other projects would be taken forward meantime.  He gave an assurance that maintenance costs were built into the project planning for all new schemes.  Members having thanked the Head of Environment for his work in bringing projects forward, the Committee NOTED the terms of the report and AGREED the inclusion within the budget of the additional match-funding outlined in its section 3.

9.  Erection of Class 1 Retail Foodstore, Petrol Filling Station, Associated Car Parking, Landscaping, Access Road and Roundabout; Servicing; Playing Field Provision and Associated Community Facilities and Car Parking in Outline at Pennyland Farm, Thurso, Caithness (06/00038/OUTCA)

At its special meeting on 26 June 2006 the Caithness Planning, Europe, Development and Tourism Committee had refused Planning Permission for the above development, against the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Development.

The following Notice of Review had been received:

“We wish to rescind the decision of the Caithness Area Planning Committee of 26th June to refuse Outline Planning Permission for the erection of a Class 1 foodstore, petrol filling station, associated car parking, landscaping, access road and roundabout, servicing, playing field provision and associated community facilities at Pennyland Farm, Thurso, Caithness and substitute the recommendation for approval with conditions proposed by the Area Planning Officer.

Signed:
Mr A I MacDonald, Mr W N Fernie, Mr D Flear, Mr R Durham, Mr J H Green, Mr W Fulton, Mr R W Barclay, Mr D Allan.”

There had been circulated Report No C-P-154-06 dated 30 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development, previously submitted to the special meeting of the Caithness Planning, Europe, Development and Tourism Committee on 26 June 2006, together with a draft extract from the minutes of that meeting.

There had also been circulated Report No PDET-56-06 dated 8 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development recommending that consideration of this item be deferred until the meeting of the Committee to be held on 27 September 2006. 

The Committee AGREED the recommendation to defer consideration until 27 September 2006 for the reasons set out in the report.

10.  Updated Service Plan 2006-2010 

There had been circulated the draft Planning and Development Service Plan for 2006/7 - 2007/8 (Booklet B). The Director of Planning and Development summarised the content of the report, drawing attention to instances where actions by the Service were meeting corporate themes, to improvements anticipated following the implementation of e-planning and to ongoing developments such as the A96 corridor research and coastal zone management at the Two Brooms in Wester Ross.  He also referred to ongoing work that was little publicised but which made a significant contribution to the Highland economy, including support of the film industry, work in bringing cruise liners to East Coast ports and the Working For Families project.  He stressed the importance of valuing staff.

The Director of Planning and Development responded to concerns raised by Members regarding staffing and work levels in the Skye Planning Office and gave an assurance that these were being addressed. 

Following further discussion, the Committee AGREED (i) that ways to enable Euros to be accepted in local retail outlets be investigated, to help support tourism, and (ii) that the potential for e-planning to provide a search tool for precedent in planning applications be investigated; and APPROVED the reviewed and updated Service Plan subject to the addition of the following to Table 3.2 of the Plan (Theme Three: Improving Quality of Life - Service Improvement Priorities and Objectives):

i.  Energy Management: Maintain network of Energy Champions at all Planning and Development offices to support the delivery of the Council’s Energy Management Performance Plan by communicating and encouraging energy efficiency measures.
ii.  Carbon Management: Staff Travel – Set targets and have systems in place to monitor quarterly performance against carbon reduction targets for staff travel (linked to recent budget cuts on staff travel); set targets and have systems in place to monitor cost savings (based on actual prices) from reductions in staff travel; Street Lighting – Set higher standards of energy efficiency for all new street lighting provided by developers; Fleet Transport – Take part in the development of the Council’s Green Fleet Action Plan to reduce cost and CO2 emissions across the Service fleet.

11.  Performance Indicators – First Quarter 2006/07

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-57-06 dated 9 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising Members on the delivery of the Development Control and Building Standards services for the first quarter of 2006/07, with comparative figures for previous years along with details of internal performance indicators. 

The Head of Planning and Building Standards summarised the report and drew attention to a number of recent improvements in performance.  He thanked staff for their efforts and stated that he would be looking closely at areas where improvements in performance were still required, seeking ways of working more efficiently and effectively.

Members having also expressed thanks to staff, the Committee NOTED the report.

12.  Planning Etc. (Scotland) Bill – Update

The Director of Planning and Development briefed the Committee on the current consideration by the Scottish Parliament Communities Committee at Stage 2 of the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Bill.  Stage 3 of the debate was expected to take place in November 2006, with Royal Assent anticipated before Christmas.  The Communities Committee was currently considering the proposed amendments to the Bill.  Changes made to the Bill to date included: (i) “Sustainable Development” had now been incorporated into the Bill, although the definition would be introduced under secondary legislation; and (ii) references to “consultation” had been replaced by use of the more proactive term, “participation”.  The Director confirmed that officers would continue to work with Members of the Scottish Parliament to table amendments considered appropriate, and that reports on the Bill’s progress would continue to be brought to Committee.

The Committee NOTED the information given.

13.  A96 Corridor – Update

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-58-06 dated 7 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on the A96 Corridor studies, particularly the preparation of schematic options for the long term expansion of East Inverness/South Nairn and a complementary green framework for the intervening rural setting.  The schematic options and green framework for the A96 Corridor had also been considered at the Nairnshire Committee and the City of Inverness Area Planning (Policy) Development, Europe and Tourism Committee on 8 and 14 August 2006 respectively.  Authority was sought to publicise those options and to invite the community’s views as to the preferred scale, composition and configuration of long term development.

The Head of Development and Strategy outlined the constraints which had been considered by the consultants, Halcrow, in compiling the options, such as flooding data, and summarised key features of the different proposals, including population growth of between 5,000 and 7,000 for Inverness and between 3,000 and 10,000 for Nairn, depending on which option was taken forward.  Reference was also made to plans to extend villages, and to the proposed developments at Whiteness, Ardersier and at Tornagrain.  The importance of retaining the most productive farmland and forestry was stressed and Members were advised that an initial Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) had been submitted for public consultation via the Scottish Executive’s Gateway website.  Decisions would be taken in February 2007.

During discussion, Members raised a number of issues, including the need for:

•  a recreational park to the East of Inverness
•  a Park and Ride facility associated with the airport rail halt
•  a designated lorry park
•  a rail freight terminal
•  the inclusion in any infrastructure improvements strategy for the eastern accesses to Inverness of the stretch of the A9 to the north of the A96 link, in particular the Kessock Bridge Roundabout.

After discussion, the Committee NOTED the consultants’ Interim Report on Development Framework options for the South Nairn/East Inverness, together with the “green” proposals for the wider A96 corridor, and that the suggestions raised in discussion would be forwarded to Halcrow, and AGREED that:

i.  suitable local publicity and community consultation arrangements be made in September 2006;
ii.  a further report regarding selection off the preferred Development Framework be brought to the Committee’s meeting on 27 September 2006;
iii.  that an exhibition of the proposals be held in the City as well as at Culloden; and
iv.  lobbying for the required infrastructure improvements on the A9 be vigorously pursued, particularly in view of potential forthcoming industrial developments at Nigg and Delny.

14.  Housing Land Audit

As Chairman and a member of the Highland Housing Alliance respectively, Mr A R McFarlane Slack and Mrs S Slimon both declared a non-financial interest in this item and having applied the test outlined in Paragraph 5.18 of the Councillors Code of Conduct, each concluded that their interest did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

Mr A Torrance also declared a non-financial interest in this item, and having applied the above test, likewise concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-59-06 dated 2 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out the preparation of The Highland Council’s Housing Land Audit.  Based on the responses received during the consultation period, the Audit provided an updated position on housing land within Highland.  It outlined the number of housing units programmed for completion between 2006 and 2010, described the key constraints affecting development and looked at past housing completions. 

The Policy and Information Officer stated that the audit had shown that there was an effective land supply in Highland for the next 4-5 years.  Where the Audit had identified land designated in Local Plans for housing but which, due to various constraints, would not be used for this purpose, Local Plans would be amended.  In particular, the Audit would form an effective tool for lobbying Scottish Water to improve water supply and waste water capacity where these issues were constraining development.

The Committee NOTED the important factual information contained in the Housing Land Audit, reflecting the current status of all identified housing land within Highland, and that the Housing Land Audit, together with a briefing note, would be placed on the Council’s website the following day; and AGREED the continued preparation of a Housing Land Audit on an annual basis.

15.  Preferred Strategic Direction for Affordable Housing:
Cairngorms National Park Response

As Members of the Board of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, Mrs S Slimon, Mr B M S Dunlop and Mr A S Park each declared a financial interest in this item but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, remained to participate in the discussion. 

As Chairman of the Highland Housing Alliance, Mr A R McFarlane Slack declared a non-financial interest in this item, and, having applied the test outlined in Paragraph 5.18 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, left the room.

As a member of the Highland Housing Alliance and of Albyn Housing Association respectively, Mrs S Slimon and Mr D Allan both declared a non-financial interest in this item, but, having applied the above test, concluded that their interest did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

Mr A Torrance also declared a non-financial interest in this item, and, having applied the above test, likewise concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-60-06 dated 8 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that, further to its representations on the Draft Cairngorms National Park Plan, the Council had reserved its position in relation to matters affecting affordable housing for subsequent consideration at this Committee.  The Cairngorms National Park Authority was now consulting on a supplementary paper entitled “Preferred Strategic Direction for Affordable Housing”.  A paper entitled “Proposals for Residency in the Cairngorms National Park”, setting out the Park Authority’s current views on the proposed housing strategy, was also tabled on behalf of Mrs S Slimon.

The principal proposal in the consultation paper was founded on greater intervention by the Park Authority in the housing market and, in particular, a qualification which would restrict future access to new housing within the National Park to occupants living or working within the Park, in the belief that this would encourage more sustainable communities.  The circulated report, prepared in discussion with the Council’s Housing Service and the Highland Housing Alliance for their strategic interest, invited the Committee to oppose the strategic direction proposed by the Park Authority and encouraged the Park Board to take the Council’s arguments into account in respect of both the National Park Plan and National Park Local Plan at their next stages.

The Head of Development and Strategy spoke to the report in some detail and drew Members’ attention to the concerns set out therein, including that:  

•  there was a lack of verifiable demographic and other data to support the Park’s proposals
•  the Park was not an economically self-contained area as was suggested in the Strategy
•  development, growth and housing did not necessarily conflict with preservation of natural heritage
•  the proposals would penalise households where the breadwinner(s) commuted to work
•  the proposals would damage the economy and hinder recruitment
•  older people were able to contribute to the economy but were not included in the Strategy
•  both the Park and the Highland Council agreed that 114 new houses needed to be built per annum; however, in contrast to the Park, the Council was not of the view that all of these should be affordable homes; most housing developments in the Park were provided by the private sector and there was a danger that a requirement for all new housing being affordable could lead to a decrease in the number of houses built
•  the Highland Housing Alliance and the Highland Council had been following a strategy for the past 4 years aimed at providing more affordable homes – this approach should not be changed unless there was reasonable certainty that a new approach would be more effective
•  it was questionable as to whether the proposed Strategy was consistent with National and Regional Policy with regard to migration policy – there was a need to attract workers to the area
•  the proposals were questionable in terms of discrimination legislation

The Head of Development and Strategy also drew attention to positive aspects of the proposed Strategy including the suggestions relating to crofting and local Development Trusts.  He advised Members that it was understood that the Park had moved forward in its thinking since the Strategy was first put forward.  This was confirmed by the Head of Housing Development, who informed Members that there had been detailed discussion with the Council’s Housing Service and indicated that the Park Authority officials were seeking a more flexible approach.  However, the Council had been asked to comment on the document as originally submitted.

In discussion, Members commented that the housing problems experienced in the Park were found across the Highlands and that there was no easy solution.  However, the Park Authority’s move to open the debate on the rural housing issue was welcomed.  Mrs S Slimon, speaking with the consent of the Chairman, drew attention to the widespread consultation carried out within the local communities and updated the Committee on the Park Authority’s current position, which had moved on since the circulated paper had been written.  She explained that the Park Board had agreed in principle only to the introduction of a Residency Criterion, subject to more detailed analysis at the Park Authority’s Board meeting to be held on 6 October 2006, where the following issues would be considered:

•  whether or not a residency criterion should be introduced
•  to which groups of people the residency criterion would apply
•  whether or not the criterion would apply to all new market housing, or to a proportion
•  whether or not a different approach was needed in different parts of the Park

In coming to a decision on the foregoing, the Park Board would take into account the Local Plan, the Park Plan, responses from consultees, practices elsewhere and the legal implications of the proposals.

Mrs Slimon explained that the residency criterion proposals had been put forward as a practical way to address (i) the shortage of housing for young people, single adults and childless couples; (ii) the perception that housing seemed to be available for everyone except local people and the view of the community and tenants that some sort of local lettings initiative was required; (iii) recruitment difficulties, arising from workers, including key workers, being unable to find housing in the Park area; and (iv) the unacceptable situation where housing was taken up as second or holiday homes, when the local demand for housing could not be met.  She stated that many Scandinavian and European neighbours had some kind of residency criterion and pointed out that, if a solution to the rural housing problem in the Park could be found, this might be successfully applied in other parts of Highland with similar problems.

The following points were raised by Members in further discussion:

•  whilst the shortage of housing for local people was accepted, the residency criterion proposals did not  provide the best way to address this, as they were discriminatory and could lead to a decrease in house building
•  the housing problem arose from there being insufficient housing available; changes to the 2003 Homelessness Act and the Right to Buy legislation were required to improve the availability of existing housing for local people and the Council should lobby for these changes
•  no effective penalty was imposed on those who made false claims as to their connection with the area under the current Council housing allocation system
•  practices elsewhere, such as in the Scilly Isles and the Lake District should be looked at and a debate on small communities held
•  large housing schemes should be avoided as they were out of character with the Park and had an adverse impact on the environment, pollution and water supplies
•  commuting did not support the sustainable agenda
•  the view that developers would build affordable housing only as a required percentage of an otherwise market-led development was erroneous; developers would build affordable housing as long as they received full payment for so doing
•  communities were made richer by incomers
•  as a residency criterion was used in Council housing allocation policy, it was therefore not improper to consider such a criterion as grounds for ownership of a house
•  if a residency criterion was contrary to Human Rights, then so was the concept of Pressured Area Status
•  a high number of retired people appeared to be relocating to the Highlands and this could have an adverse socio-economic impact.

After discussion, the Committee AGREED:

(i)  the terms of the report as the Council’s response to the consultation document as issued and that it be forwarded for the Park Authority’s consideration as a supplementary representation in respect of the Cairngorms National Park Plan and the Consultative Draft National Park Local Plan; and
(ii)  that, however, there be an ongoing dialogue with the Park Authority to find a way forward that delivered affordable housing, without causing disruption to the overall delivery of housing and to the socio-economic health of Badenoch and Strathspey.

16.  Atlantic Coast (Wester Ross) Project – Coastal Plan for the “Two Brooms” Area  - Supplementary Planning Guidance

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-61-06 dated 8 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that a new Coastal Plan had been prepared for the “Two Brooms” area as part of an EU-funded initiative to develop improved systems for coastal zone management in the Atlantic Arc.  The Plan, which was advisory, aimed to complement the terrestrial coverage provided by the Wester Ross Local Plan and other relevant policy initiatives.  It was the first Plan of its type to be prepared in Scotland and had been put together with the help of the key agencies with responsibilities for the coast and inshore area, including the Crown Estate, Scottish Natural Heritage, Ross and Cromarty Enterprise (now HIE Skye and Wester Ross), the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and the Scottish Executive.  As such, it represented a pilot exercise with potential for development and application in other areas of Highland.  The draft Plan had gone out to public consultation in Autumn 2005 and the revised Plan was approved by the Ross and Cromarty Area Committee, for its interest, in June 2006.

In speaking to the report, the Principal Officer, Coastal, outlined the background to the Atlantic Coast (Wester Ross) Project, the Plan’s aims, structure and components, and the proposed format of the area policies. He also outlined the arrangements for monitoring and follow-up, and emphasised the Plan’s potential for wider relevance as a model.  He underlined the importance of effective monitoring of the Plan’s operation.

During discussion, Members generally welcomed the production of the Plan, while urging that it not lead to unreasonable restriction on development opportunities.  It was hoped that the Plan would prove to be a living document, helping to bring together a range of interests on an ongoing basis.  The view was expressed that Norway seemed to be prospering with a statutory system of coastal plans and that further technical liaison with professionals working in this field in Norway could be fruitful.

The Committee NOTED (a) the preparation of the Coastal Plan for the Two Brooms area as delivery of a key component of Highland Council’s contribution to the Interreg 3B Coastatlantic project, and (b) that officers would be liaising with counterparts in Norway to further best practice in marine coastal zone management in the Highlands; and APPROVED:

i.  the Coastal Plan for the Two Brooms area as supplementary planning guidance to the Development Plan; and
ii.  the preparation of a monitoring report within 3-5 years to ascertain the effectiveness of the Plan for the Two Brooms and to bring forward recommendations for revision where necessary.

17.  Draft SPP6 – Renewable Energy Consultation Draft

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-62-06 dated 4 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on the recommended terms of a Council response to a Scottish Executive consultation on a draft Scottish Planning Policy document on Renewable Energy which would  replace the existing National Planning Policy Guideline document of 2000.  Responses were required by 6 October 2006.

The report highlighted that much of the draft policy dealt with the development of spatial policy for the locational consideration of onshore wind farms and pointed out that the Council had fulfilled this within its Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines of May 2006.  The draft also raised issues with regard to the proximity of large scale wind farms to settlements and to the possible requirement for securing CO2 reductions from certain types of development through on-site renewable energy equipment.  The proposed Council response discussed the lack of guidance on technologies other than onshore wind, and on the upgrading of the electricity transmission network, and encouraged the Scottish Executive to prepare a Scottish Energy Strategy and Electricity Generation Plan as a matter of priority.

In speaking to the report, the Director expressed his disappointment that the draft policy was not more comprehensive in its scope.  He highlighted a number of provisions that diverged in some detail from the Council’s Strategy, drawing particular attention to the apparent definition of a “large scale wind farm” as one in excess of 20 MW, given that the Council was pressing for an increase from the current 50MW as the size of Electricity Act applications falling to be determined by local authorities.  He also expressed caution against classifying all micro-generation projects as permitted development, in particular those involving wind generation.

A number of Members echoed the Director’s disappointment at the draft policy’s limitations.  A new Member also expressed his disagreement with various aspects of the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines, including its provisions on cumulative impact and community benefit funds, in particular the latter’s geographically restricted application.

After discussion, the Committee AGREED the comments in the report as forming the basis of the Council’s response to the draft Scottish Planning Policy on Renewable Energy.

18.  Scottish Water – Update on Discussions

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-63-06 dated 19 July 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out the outcomes of recent discussions with Scottish Water.  It also set out the updated position on the development constraints on water supply and wastewater treatment affecting the Council area and outlined an updated position on the priorities submitted to Scottish Water earlier this year.

In speaking to the report, the Policy and Information Manager underlined the need to ensure growth provision in Scottish Water’s plans.  Members expressed their concern abut the threat to progress on housing provision in constrained areas; emphasised the need for Scottish Water on progress with the delivery of solutions for a number of the key development constraints in Highland; and drew attention to the significant rise in demand in the tourist season.

The Committee AGREED:

i.  that the information on constraints, housing land audit programming and updated priorities be submitted to Scottish Water as an updated position to inform the growth priorities for Q&S 3;
ii.  to express strong concern to Scottish Water on the lack of clarity on the levels of investment likely to be available to remove the key development constraints in Highland within the first part of Q&S 3;
iii.  to stress to Scottish Water the critical importance that relatively low levels of development have on the sustainability of our most fragile communities and that the investment programme particularly as it related to water supply must recognise this;
iv.  to stress to Scottish Water the continued importance of pragmatic solutions such as leakage reduction where they offered value for money in advance of strategic solutions for the  upgrade of treatment works; and
v.  that a strategic meeting be held between the Convener, the Chairmen of this Committee and of the Housing and Social Work Committee, Scottish Water, SEPA and the Scottish Executive to outline specific solutions to the development constraints highlighted in this report.

19.  EU Policy – Post 2006 

At its meeting held on 24 March 2004 the Committee had 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.

Members were reminded that, as the delivery of the Structural Funds was a devolved matter, the focus of effort, as far as the Highlands and Islands were concerned, was Edinburgh and the actions of the Scottish Executive.  As had been previously reported to Committee, the Executive was in the process of drafting the Regional Development and Social Fund programmes for the region.  It was anticipated that the Executive would present the latest texts of the new programmes for discussion at the Programme Review Group during the week commencing 21 August 2006, with formal consultation taking place during October 2006.  The next round of Structural Funds programmes would be the subject of discussions at the next meeting of the Highlands and Islands Conveners on 24 August 2006.

The Committee NOTED that, in light of these developments, a more expansive update would be presented to its September meeting.

20.  Minutes of Tourism Working Group 21 June 2006 

There had been circulated and NOTED Minutes of the Tourism Working Group held on 21 June 2006.  

21.  Area Tourism Partnership Plan

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-64-06 dated 4 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development detailing progress towards the production of a new Tourism Strategy for Highland and seeking Members’ views on the draft consultative Strategy and Action Plan. 

The Committee AGREED that the Council’s response to the Draft Strategy and Action Plan be on the basis of the report and the comments as detailed in its Appendix 1.

22.  Employment Grants Scheme

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-65-06 dated 4 August 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development detailing uptake under the Employments Grant Scheme during the current calendar year and requesting Council funding to enable Highland Opportunity Limited to apply for match European Social Fund support to continue the operation of the Scheme during 2007.

The Committee NOTED the uptake and distribution of funds under the Employment Grants Scheme during 2006 to date; and AGREED to match fund the Employment Grants Scheme at a net level of £100,000 from the Employment Initiatives Budget by making appropriate budget provision for 2007/08 to enable Highland Opportunity Ltd. to apply for European Social Fund assistance.

23.  Civic Trust Awards

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-66-06 dated 4 July 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development asking Members to consider the Council’s participation in the administration of the Civic Trust Awards 2007.

The Committee AGREED:

i.  the Council’s participation in the Civic Trust Awards; and
ii.  to nominate the Council’s Conservation Architect to advise and liaise with the Civic Trust over the coming months.

The meeting ended at 1.25 p.m.