Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday 15 November at 10.30 a.m.
Present:
Mr A S Park, Mr A I MacDonald, Mr R Saxon, Mr J H Green, Mr G M Smith, Mr F R M Keith, Mrs A Magee, Mr D Allan, Mr A Torrance, Mr R W Durham, Mr R MacIntyre, Mrs V MacIver, Mr E C Mackinnon, Mr M 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, Mrs K G Matheson, Mr R Wynd, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr A Gordon, Mr B M S Dunlop, Dr M E M Foxley (ex officio)
Non-Members also present:
Mr D MacKay, Mrs R Finlayson, Mr A Rhind, Mr J Connell, Mr D W Briggs, Mrs I McCallum, Mr A M Millar, Mr H Fraser, Mrs I Campbell, Mr J Ford, Mr R A C Balfour, Mr D Henderson, Mr B Murphy
Officials in attendance:
Mr J D Rennilson, Director of Planning and Development
Mr M Greaves, Head of Development and Strategy
Mr R Hartland, Head of Planning and Building Standards
Mr G Robson, Head of Environment
Mr G Hamilton, Natural Resources Manager
Mr A McCann, Economy and Europe Manager
Mr G Summers, Principal European Officer
Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator, Corporate Services
Mrs L Lee, Committee Administrator, Corporate Services
Also in attendance:
Mr M Cooper, Chief Inspector for Historic Scotland (Item 2)
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.
Preliminaries
Prior to commencement of the formal business, the Chair reported on success by the Scottish Highlands and Islands Film Commission in being selected as winners of the large business category of the Scottish Disability and Business Awards 2006. The Committee welcomed the news and noted that the Film Commission was to go forward to the Awards finals being held at the Scottish Council for Development and Industry’s Annual Gala Dinner on Friday, 17 November 2006.
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr I MacDonald, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J Gray, Mr B Clark, Mrs O J MacDonald and Mr A R McFarlane Slack (OCB).
2. Presentation by Historic Scotland
A presentation was given by Mr Malcolm Cooper, Chief Inspector for Historic Scotland, on the role and work of Historic Scotland.
Mr Cooper explained that Historic Scotland (HS) was an agency of the Scottish Executive and that its role was to protect and promote the historic environment of Scotland. The remit of the Inspectorate section of HS covered the protection of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments and the provision of advice to Local Authorities, owners and others. HS was seeking to promote stronger links with Local Authorities and aimed to be transparent and consistent and to provide timeous responses.
Mr Cooper responded to Members questions as follows:
Buildings Preservation Trusts: These were an important part of the protection and management of Scotland’s historic environment; grants were available to assist the Trusts bring buildings back into use; no answer had as yet been given to concerns expressed by the Highland Buildings Preservation Trust about the policy of clawback of funds after the completion of projects, but HS was taking the matter seriously and would respond.
Crannog, Loch Achaidh na h-Inich – impact on Plockton water supply: HS’s practice was to liaise with developers at an early stage to find solutions to potential adverse impact on historic or archaeological features, prior to works commencing; Mr Cooper could not comment on matters within the remit of Scottish Water, but would investigate further and report back.
Viewhill House, Inverness: It was unfortunate that alternative adaptive re-use plans had not been actively taken forward following HS’s objection to the original proposals, and that the building had further deteriorated; however, it was understood that the property now had a new owner; HS would be meeting with Planning Officers on site in the near future to discuss a way forward.
Skelbo Castle: Following concerns raised regarding the apparent deterioration of Skelbo Castle, Mr Cooper undertook to liaise with the appropriate Council officials to inspect the building; if it were found that remedial action was required, HS’s preferred approach would be to work with the owner; however if this were not possible, and the building was a scheduled ancient monument, HS was able to take direct action.
Ballachulish Slates – Telford Churches: HS was working to train traditional craftsmen; also, the possibility of re-opening the old quarry could be investigated in view of the foreseeable requirement to re-roof the listed Telford Churches in the Lochaber area using the original materials.
Castle Tioram: HS accepted that Castle Tioram was important to the community, to the Highlands and to Scotland – it told a unique story. It was therefore important that any adaptive re-use preserved the historic features of the Castle as far as possible – this would be challenging. The building was a scheduled ancient monument and, as such, HS was required to do “the minimum necessary consistent with its preservation.” However, in some instances, adaptive re-use rather than preservation was acceptable, if this was in the best interests of protecting and promoting the history of Scotland. Grants had been offered to the owners of Castle Tioram for repair and interpretation. HS also wished to see public access to the Castle restored. The offer of grant had disappointingly not been taken up, although the owners had indicated that they would meet their statutory duties and that they would let HS know their plans in due course. Mr Cooper noted Members’ requests that every effort be made to find a solution to the issues identified in the recent Statement of Cultural Significance for Castle Tioram, relating to outstanding conservation works, reinstating public access, provision of interpretation and finding a compromise solution for adaptive re-use.
Dilapidated Buildings: If a building was listed, an urgent works notice could be served on the owner, rather than have the building be demolished. However, if a building had clearly come to the end of its life, or, where an alternative development would provide great benefit to a community, HS would not necessarily oppose demolition – each case would be judged on its own merits.
After discussion, Mr Cooper was thanked for his presentation and the Committee NOTED the information given.
3. Revenue Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07
There had been circulated and NOTED Report No. PDET-88-06 dated 7 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on revenue expenditure within the Planning and Development Service for the period to 30 September 2006 and the projected year-end position, indicating that the budget was on target.
4. Capital Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-89-06 dated 2 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the gross capital expenditure and income to 30 September 2006 and the projected out-turn for the Year 2006/07 Capital Programme. The Head of Environment gave a verbal update on the position for October and early November 2006, which showed an increase in income. Delays with the Nairn Streetscape project continued to impact on the spending programme; however, talks were due to take place in December and it was anticipated that outstanding difficulties would be resolved.
The Committee NOTED the position, and in particular that:
i. income had increased during October and early November and the position was healthy; and
ii. an additional £50,000 had been received from the Scottish Executive for the A9 crossing between Invergordon and Dingwall.
5. Composite Five Year Capital Programme – 2006/07 – 2010/11
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-90-06 dated 2 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining for Members’ consideration a provisional five year Composite Capital Plan for the period 2006/07 to 2010/11. Additionally, Members were given the opportunity to review project prioritisation across the programme within the agreed “floor allocation” limits, but were reminded that any new projects could only be incorporated into the five-year programme by replacing or delaying existing projects. Whilst requests for additional funding could be put to the Budget Working Group, there was expected to be little scope for increased expenditure in 2007/08 and 2008/09. It was anticipated that the allocated funding would attract additional funding from external sources. In response to concerns made regarding provision of facilities within new housing developments, the Head of Environment advised that improved quality of development was best achieved through planning gain.
During discussion, the suggestion was made that, after May 2007, under the new Council, consideration be given to establishing a small projects fund for each Multi-Member Ward, which potentially could be used for partnership working. It was recognised that such a proposal would require a bid to the Budget Working Group.
After discussion, the Committee AGREED the roll-forward Capital Programme for the period 2006/07 – 2010/11, as detailed in Annex 1 of the report, corrected as at (i) below, and NOTED:
i. an error in Annex 1 to the report whereby income of £150,000 had been omitted from Business Improvement Districts in (a) Inverness for 2008/09 and (b) Fort William for 2009/10, estimated Council expenditure on these projects therefore amounting to £50,000 each rather than £200,000;
ii. the annual “floor allocations” for the PDET Committee and additional specific project allocations approved by the Budget Working Group for capital programming purposes for the period 2006/07 to 2010/11;
iii. that the total potential capital resource available to the Committee for the five year composite capital programme could amount to £4.2m;
iv. the revenue consequences of the roll-forward programme as detailed in Annex 2; and
v. that figures for 2010/11 represented bids to be made to the Budget Working Group at this stage, the expenditure having not yet been approved.
* 6. Proposed Scheme of Delegation
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-91-06 dated 8 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development inviting Members to consider a revised Scheme of Delegation to be implemented from April 2007 to deal with the determination of planning applications and related matters. Members were advised that the revisions were necessary for the Council to operate the delivery of a planning system in accordance with the provisions contained in the Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill, which would be the subject of Stage 3 consideration in the Scottish Parliament on 15 and 16 November 2006. The Committee was reminded that, following its consideration of the proposals, a final decision on the Scheme of Delegation would be taken by the Council at its full meeting on 14 December 2006.
The Director summarised the report and reminded Members that the Scottish Executive was taking powers to intervene if they believed that a Council’s Scheme of Delegation did not delegate sufficient powers to officers. He explained that, in order to comply with the Bill, powers to refuse applications required to be delegated to officers. The Scheme of Delegation therefore needed to be amended to accommodate this change; however, clearly there remained a range of applications which should continue to be considered by Members. The report suggested that these circumstances should include instances where applications:
· had been recommended for approval despite having been advertised as potentially contrary to the development plan
· had been recommended for approval in accordance with the development plan, but there had been more than 12 objections on planning grounds or an unresolved objection from a statutory technical consultee
· had been recommended for refusal on technical or design grounds despite being consistent with the development plan
· were of a significant scale and where there was not sufficient clear development plan policy, or, alternatively, where various elements of the application pointed in different directions when judged against policy.
The Director also recommended that a further circumstance be added, to include applications where objections had been received from Community Councils.
It was anticipated that allowing officers to determine a wider range of applications would reduce the number of cases to be determined by Committee from around 1000 to perhaps 170. However, this would still present a significant Committee workload, estimated at around 26 meetings per year, or perhaps more if site inspections were required. The proposed Scheme would be reviewed in the light of experience and in response to any further advice received from the Scottish Executive. The shape of the new Committee(s) would be decided at the Council meeting to be held on 14 December 2006 and could comprise more than one Planning Review Committee. The new structure would, however, require to be in place by April 2007 in order that applications could continue to be determined during the election period and beyond.
The Director of Planning and Development advised that, in order for the new system to work, it was crucial that development plans were kept up to date, and reminded Members that the Bill provided for greater and more active public involvement in the development of Local Plans. Consideration was being given to reducing the number of Local Plans from 8 to 3, as this had the potential to cut down on bureaucracy without compromising detail. There would be Action Plans and greater monitoring of compliance with Plan policies.
In response to questions raised, the Director drew attention to the provisions in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct stating that Members must not make public statements about pending applications prior to the proposals being brought to Committee. He also advised that, until replaced, the Local Plans for Lochalsh and Wester Ross would continue to apply to the residents of those areas currently covered by these Plans, regardless of which Planning Office might administer a given area in the future. He confirmed that objectors, as they would have no third party right of appeal, would be given a full explanation of decisions made, and advised that a Planning Officer could always decline to exercise delegation and thus refer the item to Committee for determination.
In discussion, Members commented that applications should not be accepted until the Planning Officer was content that they contained all the required information, in order that the time taken to process applications by Officers could be more fairly assessed. Members also drew attention to the problems arising from the absence of volume developers for small towns, which was leading to a shortage of affordable housing and also made planning for the provision of facilities more difficult. It was recognised that whilst, these problems could be mitigated by providing planning permission for, say, 100 houses, such an application would be likely to be opposed locally. Members also commented that a requirement for 12 objections to be received in order for an application in accordance with the development plan to be referred to Members was too onerous, particularly in small rural communities, and would undermine democratic accountability.
After discussion, he Committee AGREED the proposed Scheme of Delegation, for its interest, as set out in section 3 of the report, subject to an amendment whereby the triggers which would cause an application to fall to be considered by the new Planning Committee(s) be amended to (a) include Community Councils; and (b) apply where four households had lodged an objection (rather than 12 objectors as suggested in the report); and NOTED that issues in relation to a possible Code of Conduct for Community Councils would be part of the review currently being undertaken by the Scottish Executive.
7. Planning and Development Service Structure Beyond 2007
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-92-06 dated 8 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development seeking approval for a first round of changes in service delivery and staffing in the Planning and Development Service. The report also advised that a further report would be necessary once the result of the current Housing Stock Transfer ballot was known, since it was already a decision of the Council that a “yes” vote would result in the transfer to the Planning and Development Service of the strategy, grants and development functions of the Housing Service and also a transfer of some Property and Architectural Service functions, whilst at the same time reviewing the management and staffing requirements for delivery of an effective property service, whether delivered in-house or with a partner organisation.
Other changes which would have future implications for the staffing structure were (a) the Council’s decisions to be taken on 14 December 2006 regarding the new Committee Structure, (b) the outcome of the Planning Bill and (c) the introduction of e-planning. In response to questions raised, the Director gave an assurance that the staffing review was not synonymous with “cuts”, notwithstanding that the Council’s targets were to reduce management and staffing by 20% and 5% respectively by March 2009.
The Director enlarged on his proposal that no new Multi-Member Ward should be served by more than one planning office, and stated that no front offices would close. He also recommended that, as 20% of planning applications previously dealt with in Badenoch and Strathspey were now considered by the Cairngorms National Park Authority, and as the workload for Nairn now related more to the A96 corridor, the previous practice of combining Badenoch and Strathspey and Nairn planning offices should no longer continue. He confirmed that there would be flexibility in the arrangements, that cross-border working would be possible and that a similar structure would be put in place for delivery of the building standards function. He also drew attention to the report’s proposals for the Countryside Rangers service and the need to review Project Officer appointments as current contracts expired.
The Committee AGREED the operational changes as suggested in the report, subject to the addition of the words “or Senior Ranger” at the end of paragraph 3.3, and that further reports would be submitted to the Committee (a) once the outcomes of the Housing Stock Transfer ballot and the Planning Bill were known, and (b) after the Council had agreed the new committee structure.
8. E-Planning Progress Report and Request for Project Manager Post
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-93-06 dated 19 October 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development seeking agreement from Members as to the administrative arrangements for driving forward the e-planning programme, and to secure a new post of project manager for this programme.
The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported that the Council’s bid to the Scottish Executive for e-planning funding had been successful. The Scottish Executive would procure the systems and infrastructure, with the Council meeting staffing costs. He recommended that the proposed post of project officer be of 3 years duration and kept under review, as e-planning might in future be extended to encompass building standards activities. He summarised the potential benefits of e-planning, including improved public involvement in the local plan process, a decrease in bureaucracy, greater consistency, increased transparency and faster customer service. Savings were not anticipated until perhaps 3 to 5 years into the project. In answer to questions raised, he confirmed that it would still be possible to submit applications manually, as these could be scanned into the system. In response to concerns regarding a possible increase in workload for staff resulting from e-planning, the Director of Planning and Development advised that a bid had been made to the Service Improvement Fund for additional staff for both e-planning and the neighbour notification work that would result from the enactment of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill.
The Committee AGREED:
i. the administrative arrangements for driving forward e-planning; and
ii. the establishment of a new post of project manager for the e-planning programme, initially for a period of three years, the position to be kept under review.
9. Audit Commission and Internal Performance Indicators
a) Statutory Performance Indicators
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-94-06 dated 1 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising Members on the delivery of the Development Control and Building Standards services for the second quarter of 2006 with reference to the number of applications, fee income, the Audit Commission and internal performance targets. The figures for those indicators were also reported on the basis of the year to date.
The Committee NOTED the current position, welcomed the improvement in performance and acknowledged the efforts of staff in achieving this.
b) Internal Performance Indicators
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-95-06 dated 6 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on the latest performance indicators adopted by the Service for those areas of work not covered by statutory indicators.
The Committee NOTED the report and that future reports would include an indicator to reflect the qualitative input of Planning Officers.
10. A96 Corridor - Update
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-96-06, PDET-96-06 Fig1 , PDET-96-06 Fig2 and PDET-96-06 Annex A dated 8 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on the A96 Corridor studies, notably the consultation responses to the Development Framework options which had been published in September. The Council’s Consultants, Halcrow, had since refined a preferred set of proposals for the long term expansion of East Inverness and Nairn, together with a complementary green framework giving a wider setting for the wider Corridor. Authority was sought to proceed with further evaluation of transport and other infrastructure investment required to support current development proposals throughout the Corridor. Halcrow also needed to commence work on compiling the overall funding/developer contributions framework. A further report on these matters, and seeking authorisation for a final round of public and agency consultations, would be submitted to the Committee in January 2007.
The Head of Development and Strategy outlined the consultations which had taken place and which had allowed the Consultants to identify a preferred option for development, the principal features of which were as follows:
· a dual carriageway bypass route linking from an upgraded A9/TLR junction at Inshes north-eastwards across the railway to connect with the A96 in the vicinity of the Smithton interchange; direct access for adjoining business, retail, campus and residential developments
· a Park and Ride scheme with bus links adjoining the Smithton junction and provision for a transport interchange facility to serve the proposed Inverness College/University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) Campus, including a longer term rail halt option at Beechwood
· upgrading of the Culloden distributor road from the A96 as far as the new District Centre to be situated centrally by Smithton, including provision for a major supermarket outlet
· hotel developments at Stratton Lodge and at the A96/Bypass gateway site where there was scope for an iconic entrance building
· bulky goods outlets (regional retail) between the bypass and the existing West Seafield Retail Park
· a new Inverness College/UHI Campus comprising faculty, research/incubator and student/staff accommodation, with buildings held to the north-eastern flanks of the site in a high quality parkland setting, and segregated pedestrian links spanning west across A9 into the city and the railway into East Inverness
· an Innovation Park for spin-off businesses and high growth technology enterprises opposite the Campus at West Seafield
· a major Regional Sports complex situated at East Beechwood
· a formal Town Park and adjoining structural open space at Smithton/Resaurie, including informal landscaped areas, core footpaths and flood alleviation measures, connecting through to adjoining countryside green wedges and the projected coastal trail
· a reserved site for a secondary school close by the Park and District Centre
· a compact new residential quarter lying to the west of Culloden and offering a range of mainstream and affordable dwellings with a graduated density mix, with lower intensity housing towards the northern margins by Milton of Culloden.
The Head of Development and Strategy also drew attention to the need for (i) early solutions to the traffic problems at the Inshes and Raigmore Roundabouts; (ii) provision of improved town centre facilities for Culloden, given that its population was set to increase by around 7,000 to 20,000; and (iii) upgrading of Nairn Town Centre, economic growth and provision of a by-pass at Nairn. He gave an assurance that 90% of the A96 corridor would not be developed and that communities such as Croy and Tornagrain would be buffered. Walking areas, long and short distance paths and interpretation would be enhanced. The A96 Plan would connect with the plans for Whiteness and Tornagrain. Costs for the required infrastructure could not be estimated until a final plan was agreed, but, whilst expected to be significant, they would be proportionate to the size of the development. The Consultants were in the final stages of preparing a map illustrating the proposals and this would be made available to Members.
Members expressed strong support for the consultation and the work carried out to date, commending staff commitment and the large-scale thinking, which it was hoped would avoid the pitfalls which could arise when developments, such as the Trunk Link Road, were undertaken in a more fragmented, piece-meal way.
In answer to questions raised, the Head of Development and Strategy confirmed that, should further consultation or, for example, major problems with the infrastructure proposals identify that the plans needed to be altered, there was flexibility to do this. He also advised that the flood maps had been amended to consider a 1 in 200 year event rather than a 1 in 100 year event. The best engineering advice would be taken with regard to global warming, although no guarantees could be given. He stated that it was important to be able to guarantee to existing communities where development would or would not take place, in order that the Plan was not undermined by unplanned development.
Concerns were raised by the local Member for Ardersier, Croy & Petty regarding the proposed new town at Tornagrain, regarding (i) the inadvisability of siting a residential development downwind from the CSC Forest Products factory for health reasons and because there was a risk that such a residential development might therefore threaten jobs at CSC Forest Products; and (ii) questioning the economic justification for a new town in that location. In response, the Head of Development and Strategy stated that the vapour plume from CSC Forest Products was non-noxious, was closely monitored and would not affect the health of nearby residents; and that there was strong confidence that 5,000 jobs would be created at the airport business park, which would be within walking distance of Tornagrain. In response to the local Member for Nairn Ninian’s view that the existing infrastructure needed to be brought up to standard before any new infrastructure was considered, and that the Scottish Executive should fund the Nairn by-pass, the Chairman reported that talks had been held with the Scottish Executive regarding the A96 corridor development, and that he understood they were taking the proposals very seriously. He was optimistic that funding for the by-pass would be forthcoming from the Scottish Executive.
After discussion, the Committee NOTED (i) the proposed timetabling of remaining work to complete the A96 Corridor Strategy, including suggested provision for another round of public consultations to take place following the Committee meeting in January 2007, and (ii) that further reports would be submitted to the Committee’s meetings on 31 January and 14 March 2007; and APPROVED the preferred Framework Plans for Nairn and East Inverness, together with the finalised Green Framework, as the basis for the remaining feasibility and programming investigations by the consultants.
11. European Policy Post – 2006
At its meeting held on 24 March 2004, the Committee had agreed that a report on the development of 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-97-06 dated 7 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on developments concerning the ongoing evolution of European Union Regional Policy for the post-2006 period and, in particular, the draft European Union Structural Fund Programmes. The report drew attention to a Scottish Executive consultation on the content of the draft 2007-2013 Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF)) Operational Programmes for the Highlands and Islands, particularly on the proposed priorities, delivery arrangements and financial allocations. Comments were sought by 8 January 2007. The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) consultation was expected to be launched on 20 November 2006, but the date of the consultation for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) was not yet known.
The Principal European Officer summarised the report, emphasising that the response to the consultations would also be informed by ongoing discussions (a) internally within the Council and (b) with the Council’s partners and the Highlands and Islands Conveners’ Group. He gave a brief presentation on European funding, providing information on:
· the four Programmes (ERDF, ESF, EFF and EAFRD) through which funding for projects in the Highlands and Islands could be sought
· the monies identified for the programmes in the Highlands and Islands, these being £75m for ERDF and £30m for ESF (no values yet being attached to the EFF and EAFRD Programmes)
· the three priorities which would attract ERDF funding, namely: Sustainable Enterprise, Sustainable Communities (this would include Community Planning projects) and Sustainable Infrastructure; the Council’s priority projects under this scheme needed to be fed into the Scottish Executive
· the three priorities which would attract ESF funding, namely: Increasing the Workforce, Investing in the Workforce and Access to Lifelong Learning
· the way the Programmes would be delivered: this would be through a mix of challenge funding and direct commissioning of activity; specific activity would be commissioned by Intermediate Delivery Bodies (IDBs) such as the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) and local partnerships including community planning partnerships
· the way the Programmes would be administered: an Intermediate Administration Body (IAB) would be appointed (currently this was the Highlands and Islands Partnership Programme Executive)
· the way the Programmes would be implemented: there would be a suite of monitoring committees, one for each Programme, comprising regional and social partners.
The Principal European Officer also drew attention to a number of concerns relating to a lack of detail in the proposals, including: how monies would be allocated between challenge funding and commissioned activity; how the challenge funds would be accessed; and how eligible activity would be prioritised across the priorities. He stated that there were also issues of regional concern, including: the front-end loading of programme funding; infrastructure; additionality and match funding; programme integration and management; and the poor focus on regional development in the ESF Programme.
In response to a question as to whether funds intended for the Highlands and Islands were being drawn off by central government in London and Edinburgh, the Principal European Officer indicated that it was difficult to be certain and acknowledged that there were concerns that the additionality principle for use of these monies might not always be respected.
The Committee NOTED the content of the report and AGREED that the Director of Planning and Development, in consultation with the Chairman, the Convener and the Council’s European Spokesperson, draft the Council’s formal response to the Scottish Executive consultation on the European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund Operational Programmes.
12. Consultations on European Territorial Co-operations Programme
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-98-06 dated 24 October 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that the proposed Operational Programmes for European Co-operation for 2007-13 were currently being drafted and/or consulted upon.
The Committee HOMOLOGATED the response already submitted to the Scottish Executive on the draft Northern Periphery Programme; and AGREED that the Director of Planning and Development, in consultation with the Chairman of Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism together with the Council’s European spokesperson, comment on any forthcoming Co-operation Programme Consultation Exercises where the consultation deadlines did not allow for formal PDET Committee consideration.
13. Planning Etc. (Scotland) Bill – Inclusion of Aquaculture
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-99-06 dated 6 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising of recent Scottish Executive proposals for Stage 3 amendments to the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill intended to bring existing aquaculture developments into the planning system. The Scottish Executive had sought comments on the proposals but a very short timescale had been given for response.
The Committee HOMOLOGATED the response submitted by the Director of Planning and Development, in consultation with the Chairman and the Portfolio-holders, as appended to the report, and AGREED that the following additional comment made at the meeting be forwarded to the Scottish Executive:
· that undeveloped aquaculture sites should not be granted deemed consents but should be relinquished, in order to permit alternative development such as shellfish/niche salmon production enterprises.
14. Scottish Executive Consultation: Renewable Energy – Proposed Scottish Marine Supply Obligation
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-100-06 dated 1 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that the Scottish Executive was consulting on a proposal to introduce after 2008 a Marine Supply Obligation as part of the Renewables Energy Obligation Scotland, in order to encourage and support the emerging technologies of wave and tidal power, with comments sought by 12 December 2006.
Members were advised that progress towards meeting the renewable energy targets for Scotland were largely being fulfilled through onshore wind and hydro electric projects. However, Scotland had enormous potential to harness the power of waves and tidal currents, which in turn could form the basis of a Scottish marine energy engineering manufacturing sector; but the technology was not yet developed to the economic stage. The Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy looked forward to the time after 2010 when tidal and wave power could make an increasingly important contribution to the Highland renewable energy output and target.
Whilst also recognising the importance of a reduction in consumption in addressing the future energy gap, the Committee AGREED:
i. to strongly support the proposal of the Scottish Executive to introduce a Renewable Energy Marine Supply Obligation after 2008, to encourage the development of wave and tidal power; and
ii. that the Council’s response be strengthened and expanded to seek higher targets and to highlight existing developments in this field and the potential for early progress.
15. Consultation on Possible Transfer of Cairngorm Estate to Forestry Commission Scotland
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-101-06 dated 7 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on a Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE)/Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) consultation document on proposals to transfer the Cairngorm Estate from HIE to FCS, with comments sought by 15 November 2006.
The Committee AGREED to respond to the proposed transfer in terms as appended to the report, subject to the comments relating to the proposed Environmental Improvements Programme being clarified to indicate that the Council would wish further discussion on those proposals.
16. Scottish Planning Policy 11: Physical Activity and Open Space
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-102-06 dated 6 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on a Scottish Executive consultation on the draft Scottish Planning Policy 11: Physical Activity and Open Space, which set out a national policy for sports and recreation in urban and rural settings, provision and protection of open space within and on the edges of settlements, and proposals to introduce national minimum standards for open space in new developments. Comments had been sought by 3 November 2006; however, the Executive had agreed to accept a later response from this Council to permit Committee consideration.
The Head of Development and Strategy spoke to the report, drawing attention to the aim of the proposed Policy, which was to ensure the public had access to open space. However, if the Policy as it stood was interpreted literally, this could place an onerous burden on small developments, where plot size was often larger than in urban areas, and where housing developments frequently bordered the countryside in any case. The Council’s response therefore sought application of the Policy only to settlements where the population was more than 5,000. The Head of Development and Strategy also pointed out that the new standards were, in fact, lower than the existing ones in terms of the amount of open space to be provided in various developments, and recommended that this should be challenged.
Having NOTED the importance attached to National Policies in the assessment of applications for external funding, the Committee AGREED to respond to the consultation in terms as set out in the report.
17. Consultation on Enjoyment of the Outdoors – Scottish Natural Heritage
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-103-06 dated 2 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on a pre-consultation exercise being carried out by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) into its forthcoming review of its 1994 policy statement on Enjoying the Outdoors.
The Head of Environment commended the five strategic themes proposed by SNH, but commented that funding for Countryside Rangers had not been increased for 6 years, which appeared contrary to the aims of the Policy.
The Committee AGREED:
i. to comment to SNH in terms as set out in the report; and
ii. to offer to COSLA the services of the Countryside Ranger and Long Distance Route Manager to sit as COSLA’s representative on SNH’s inter-agency Enjoyment of the Outdoors Review Group.
18. Financial Support for Biodiversity in the Cairngorms National Park Area
As members of the Cairngorm National Park Authority, Mr A S Park, Mr A Gordon, and Mr B M S Dunlop declared a financial interest in this item, but, relying on the Dispensation granted by the Standards Commission in respect of Council nominations to outside bodies, remained in the room and participated in the proceedings.
This item had previously been considered by the Sustainable Development Select Committee at its meeting on 1 November 2006. In light of concerns raised that further discussion with the Park Authority and other partners would be beneficial, the Select Committee had agreed that the item be referred to this meeting, to permit such further discussion to take place.
Accordingly, there had been circulated Report No. PDET-104-06 dated 2 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development reminding Members that, over the previous eight years, the Council had contributed £3,000 per annum to the post of the Cairngorms Biodiversity Officer and a further £3,000 during 2005/06 and 2006/07 towards the Cairngorms Biodiversity Grant Scheme, representing just over half the biodiversity projects budget for the whole Highland area. The Council had been asked to contribute similar amounts to both the Cairngorm Biodiversity Officer post and the Cairngorms Biodiversity Grants Scheme over the next three financial years to 2009/10.
The Natural Resources Manager explained that the report proposed an equalisation of expenditure on biodiversity across the Highland Council area, and that this would result in a decrease from £6,000 to £1,500 in the contribution to the Cairngorms National Park. He confirmed that consultation with the Park had taken place, and that the Park had stated that they would not be willing to fund their own officer for Biodiversity. The Local Member for Grantown on Spey expressed disappointment with the Director’s recommendation, as, if Highland Council reduced its funding in this way, the other partners who contributed to the post would either have to make up the shortfall, or, possibly, might follow the Council’s lead and reduce their funding also. The funding the Park received from other bodies was used to draw down significant additional funding, and the report’s recommendation could therefore cause the funding received by the Park to decrease by considerably more than the £4,500 proposed.
Thereafter, Mr R W Durham, seconded by Mrs V MacIver, MOVED that a contribution at a reduced level of £2,000 be made by the Council to the Cairngorms National Park Authority, to spend as that Authority might see fit within the Biodiversity sector during 2007/08.
As an AMENDMENT, Mr B M S Dunlop, seconded by Mr A Gordon, moved that a contribution at a reduced level of £3,000 be made by the Council to the Cairngorms National Park Authority, to spend as that Authority might see fit within the Biodiversity sector during 2007/08.
On a vote being taken the outcome was as follows:-
For the Motion:-
Mr A I MacDonald, Mr R Saxon, Mr G M Smith, Mr A Torrance, Mr R W Durham, Mrs V MacIver, Mr J Laing, Mr R J Lyon, Mrs K G Matheson, Mr R Wynd, Mr A S Park
For the Amendment:-
Mrs L MacDonald, Mr A Gordon, Mr B M S Dunlop
The Motion was CARRIED by 11 votes to 3.
The Committee accordingly AGREED a contribution at a reduced level of £2,000 to the Cairngorms National Park Authority, to spend as that Authority might see fit within the Biodiversity sector during 2007/08.
19. Small Town Development
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-105-06 dated 26 October 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on Small Town developments at a European, national and local level, including: the publication by COSLA of the Scottish Small Towns Task Group report; agreement by the Small Town Networks project, which covered a cluster of settlements situated around the Inner Moray Firth area, to incorporate as Small Towns Network Ltd, a Company Limited by Guarantee, to formalise the Network and enable it to apply for resources and employ project officers in its own right; and opportunities for future trans-national collaboration with Northern Periphery Programme partners.
In response to questions raised, Members were advised that there was potential to roll the proposals for Small Town Development out to other towns in the Highland area, but that it should be borne in mind that the projects were community-led and that there could be a resources issue in terms of additional support officers being required.
The Committee AGREED:
i. to endorse the recommendations contained within the Scottish Small Towns report; and
ii. “in principle” support to (a) an application by Small Towns Network Limited to the Big Lottery Fund for financial support; and (b) future collaboration with Northern Periphery Programme partners on networking projects in support of small towns.
20. European Business Game 2007 Final
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-106-06 dated 2 November 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development seeking Members’ approval to organise the European Final of the European Business Game at an estimated cost of £15,000, requiring an additional £10,000 to be met from the Planning and Development Economic Initiatives budget.
Having been advised that the reason this venture fell to the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee rather than to the Education Culture and Sport Committee was that it involved the promotion of links between schools and enterprise, the Committee AGREED to host the 2007 final of the European Business Game.
The meeting ended at 3.20 p.m