• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 14 March 2007, 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.

 

Preliminaries

 

Prior to commencement of the formal business, the Chairman reported on success by the Planning and Development Service in receiving a commendation at the Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning 2006 for production of the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Guidelines.

 

1.           Apologies for Absence

 

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A I MacDonald and Mr A Gordon.

 

2.           Retirement Presentation to Mr M Greaves

 

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman presented a gift to Mr M Greaves, Head of Development and Strategy, to mark his retirement.  He thanked Mr Greaves for his dedication, professionalism and effectiveness over the past 33 years, particularly with regard to taking forward long-term planning initiatives, including the development of Nairn and the A96 corridor strategy and the Renewable Energy Strategy.  The Committee joined the Chairman in expressing appreciation for Mr Greaves’ hard work and wished him a long and happy retirement.

 

3.           Revenue Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-14-07 dated 6 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out the Revenue Monitoring position for the period to 31 January 2007 and the projected year-end position. 

 

Members were advised that (i) whilst fee income appeared healthy, half of the fee income for the Badenoch and Strathspey Area would be forwarded to the Cairngorms National Park Authority in respect of their activities in determining planning applications within the Park boundary; (ii) the costs for the Beauly-Denny Public Inquiry were being met from Council balances and not from the Planning and Development budget; and (iii) the year-end position was expected to be in accordance with the budget.

 

The Committee NOTED the report and the information given.

 

4.           Capital Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-15-07  dated 6 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the gross capital expenditure and income to 31 January 2007 and the projected out-turn for the Year 2006/07 Capital Programme.  A verbal update was given on the current position, Members being advised that 85% of expected income had been received to date and that current expenditure levels of £1.2m were expected to rise to £1.4m by the end of the financial year.  Delays in expenditure were attributed to failure of contractors to meet project deadlines and to the requirement for the Council to own an asset before commencing work, the legal processes for land acquisition having proved lengthy. 

 

The Committee NOTED the report and the information given.

 

5.           Planning Application (Amended) for Development of Class 1 (Retail) Store, Petrol Filling Station, Creation of a Vehicular Access, Car Parking, Landscaping and Ancillary Works at Knockbreck Road, Tain, for Asda Ltd (06/00665/FUL/RC)

 

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Member had applied for and been refused a local member vote: Mr A Rhind, whose ward covered much of the town of Tain but not the application site itself.  The Committee AGREED that a local member vote be granted to Mr Rhind.

 

After the conclusion of the Hearing Process, and in the course of debate, reference having been made to the Highland Housing Alliance, Mr A R McFarlane Slack, as Chairman of the Alliance, declared a non-financial interest and elected to leave the room for the remainder of the item.

 

The application was subject to a formal Hearing Procedure.  In attendance in relation to the application were:

 

Representing the Applicants:

Mr B Harle, Development Surveyor for Asda

 

In support of the application:

Mr M Herd, Chairman, Tain Community Council

Ms J Dundas, Resident of Tain

Ms S Stoten, Resident of Tain and Ex-Manager of Sue Ryder Care

 

Objectors:

Mrs S Stone

Mrs B Cohen, Honorary Secretary, Tain and District Tourist Association

Mr I Bannerman

Ms H Chambers, speaking for Mr T M Sutherland, Sutherland Arms Garage

Ms L Jones of G L Hearn Ltd, on behalf of the Co-operative Group Property Division

Mr J Carney of Bidwells, on behalf of Macdonald and Muir Ltd

 

Some 25 Members of the public were in attendance.

 

Prior to the commencement of the hearings process, the Chairman drew attention to the Hearings Procedure.  He sought and was given an assurance by all parties that they had received a copy of the Procedure and understood the process.

 

At its meeting on 31 January 2007, the Committee had agreed that this application be deferred to allow full consideration of additional information provided by the applicant at short notice.  In this regard there had been circulated Report No. PDET-16-07 dated 5 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development informing Members as to developments undertaken since the 31 January meeting.  In this context, the Committee NOTED:

 

i.             the extent of further consultations undertaken following the submission of additional information by Asda Stores Ltd;

ii.           the approval given for a Lidl store in Tain; and

iii.         the Council’s proposed policy on energy gain and grey water systems within large developments including superstores (item 8 below refers)

 

There had also been circulated Report No PDET-17-07  dated 6 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development addressing the amended application from Asda Ltd for the development of a 2,973m2 Class 1 Retail Unit (Supermarket) and Petrol Filling station on a 6.5ha site at Knockbreck Road, Tain.  The recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons as set out in the report.

 

Hearings Procedure

 

Introduction

 

The Principal Planner summarised the application, and, with reference to a PowerPoint presentation, drew attention to the key features of the proposals, including location, roundabouts, car parking, new footpaths, bus turning area, lorry access arrangements, building design, the applicants’ Retail Impact Assessment and sequential site assessment, representations made by the public (largely in support of the application), the objections raised and the grounds thereof, and the outcome of consultations with statutory and community bodies (whose concerns could be met by condition).  He stated that no details had been submitted for the proposed petrol station, and that the requirements of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in this regard would be dealt with at such time as a detailed application came forward.

 

The main Policy considerations as contained in the Structure Plan, the Local Plan and those set at a National level were explained to Members.  In particular Members were asked to bear in mind:

 

·        that the Local Plan identified the land as an expansion area for housing (including affordable housing) and amenity land at the Gateway to Tain

·        the retail impact assessment

·        the sequential approach to site selection

·        the recent SPP8 which encouraged retailing in Town Centres

·        SPP17, which sought to discourage the use of cars through promoting public transport, cycling and walking. 

 

In this latter regard, should the Committee grant planning permission, the application would require to be submitted to the Scottish Executive, as the number of parking spaces required by the Council’s parking standards exceeded the limits set by the Executive.  

 

Applicants

 

Mr B Harle introduced the speakers in support of the application. 

 

Mr M Herd referred to the points he had made at the Hearing on 31 January relating to the significant community support for the proposals, but stated that, rather than reiterating those views, he had decided to give more personal reasons to illustrate why the development was required, this being that his children, in common with many from the Easter Ross area, had had to move away to find work.  Tain was losing its young people; the primary school had a falling role and the number of teachers there was under threat.  The impact of the arrival of large retailers on Inverness was clear: a town had become a city.  The application under consideration was in his view a golden opportunity to start development in Tain and to reverse the current demographic and economic decline.  Local people were in support of the application.

 

Mrs J Dundas stated that people on benefit and the elderly would benefit greatly from the development.  Whilst elderly people had bus passes and many could therefore take advantage of the lower prices in Alness, it was physically difficult for them to return with their shopping on the bus.  Younger people on benefit did not qualify for a bus pass and had no choice but to shop locally.  There was a lack of variety of foodstuffs available in Tain, and local people were overwhelmingly in support of the proposals.

 

Mrs S Stoten drew attention to the progressive economic decline of Tain.  She referred to the recent closure of a local business which was only marginally uneconomic, and was of the view that the development would attract sufficient additional trade into the Town Centre to reverse this trend.  Local employment opportunities would be welcomed, as would cheaper food.

 

Mr Harle then spoke for the applicants.  On the basis of consultations carried out with the community, he was confident that the proposals met the needs of the community.  He accepted that the chosen area was designated for housing but pointed out that the Local Plan called for a foodstore in Tain.  Of the 16 acre site, only 6 acres would be taken up by the development, leaving room for 100 housing units and amenity developments, as set out in the Local Plan.  Sequential tests had been carried out and the choice of site was justified.  The building design would include the use of natural light from the roof to reduce energy, and incorporate a grey water system for the toilets.  The people of Tain had given a very clear message that they wished an Asda store to provide local competition and so that they would not have to travel to Dingwall or Inverness to shop.  The store would satisfy the general everyday needs of the everyday family and would reduce leakage to other locations. 

 

Questions raised by Members were responded to as follows:

 

Site Selection:

Mr Harle stated that site selection had been based on which sites were available.  Asda had inquired as to the availability of the Shore Road site but the response had been that the site would not be available for sale or development by them.  Site 5 as marked on the circulated plan, which lay across the road from the application site, was also not available; the suggestion that the current application site had been chosen in preference to site 5 on the grounds that it was more visible was unfounded.  Mr Herd pointed out that, whilst Tain Community Council had accepted the designation of the land as expansion land for housing and amenity in the newly adopted Easter Ross Local Plan, the original consultations for the Local Plan had been carried out five years earlier.  Moreover, the Community Council had consistently promoted the idea that a sensitively designed and screened building in this location would be acceptable.

 

Gateway:

Whilst accepting that the site was sensitive, Mr Harle was of the view that this could be overcome by careful design and choice of materials.  A supermarket could be considered a utility, and Asda was of the view that the population was likely to increase in coming years.

He gave no view as to whether the proposals comprised the “ideal” development for the site.

 

Retail Impact:

Mr Harle suggested that the proposed store was not of a scale that was likely to draw in significant displaced business from further afield as it was designed to meet the needs of the local community.

 

Petrol sales:

Mr Harle advised that Asda charged a standard price for petrol across the country.  He did not comment on concerns raised regarding the potential negative impact of the proposed petrol station on rural filling stations, which could have serious implications for the already fragile communities to the North of Tain.

 

Energy Gain:

Mr Harle advised that Asda was developing a number of carbon reducing options, such as timber framed stores.  However, Asda was of the view that the best option was to conserve energy, and research was ongoing in this regard.  He did not give an undertaking, as requested informally by Members, to “enthusiastically embrace” the installation of energy gain systems.

 

Third Party Objectors

 

Mrs B Cohen explained that the Tain Tourist Association did not object to the principle of an Asda store in Tain, but were opposed to the site chosen on the grounds that it was designated in the Local Plan as land for expansion and amenity, and as an attractive gateway.  Image and first impressions mattered and a standard supermarket was not acceptable.  People visited Tain because it was an unspoilt Highland town; Tain depended on tourism income.  A supermarket at the proposed site would spoil the gateway and destroy the character of the entry to the town.  The benefits of an Asda store in Tain were accepted, but a site at the North side of Tain would be better for both Asda and the people of Tain, and would safeguard tourism.

 

Mrs S Stone drew attention to the traffic hazards arising from the store’s proposed location.  The development would mean large lorries would be in close proximity to the children’s tennis courts, the primary school and the forthcoming nursery school and would present a hazard for elderly people also.  The proposals as they stood were beyond sense from a road safety perspective.

 

Ms L Jones of G L Hearn endorsed the recommendation in the report.  She stated that the Co-operative Group accepted that competition was a fact of life, but wished to see the Council’s policies on retailing applied consistently for all retailers in the area.  This was required to provide retailers with the certainty necessary for making investment decisions.  The land was identified for housing in the Local Plan.  Policy also required that a sequential approach be followed.

 

Mr J Carney, representative of Macdonald and Muir Ltd, landowners for the Blarliath site to the North of Tain (site 3 on the circulated plan), stated that this site had not been taken fully into account in the sequential assessment, and that Asda’s assessment of this site was flawed.  There was a large number of other retailers nearby and the position of the West side of Tain as a retailing area would be strengthened if a supermarket were located there.  It was disingenuous to suggest that the site was “remote” and the Director of Planning and Development agreed with this view.  Requests for Members to take a “realistic” approach in view of Asda owning the Knockbreck Road site, should be disregarded as this was not a material planning consideration. 

 

Mrs H Chambers urged the Committee to look at the bigger picture.  The impact of an Asda filling station would lead to closure of the remaining petrol filling stations which operated also as convenience stores between Tain and Wick/Thurso.  The retail impact assessment did not include figures for estimated losses to these businesses, perhaps deliberately.  Rural communities to the North of Tain would be deprived of these vital facilities. 

 

Mr I Bannerman reaffirmed the views made in his letter of 7 August 2006.  He stated that the application failed to comply with the Local Plan, and failed to recognise the 3 acre site in his ownership, access and potential ransom strip issues, and the decrease in value of his site.  His previous informal inquiries regarding the potential development of a petrol station on his 3 acre site had met with a negative response.  The proposed new footpath would be difficult to police and afforded the opportunity for anti-social behaviour.  This would detract from the value of his land.  TEC Services had identified that there was a need for a footpath to the south of Knockbreck Road, on land owned by Mr Bannerman, but Asda had not spoken to him in this regard.  The footpath and any additional pedestrian crossing over Knockbreck Road would be hazardous – Bannerman lorries entered and left Tain by this route.  He fully supported the recommendations contained in the report.

 

Questions raised by Members were responded to as follows:

 

Impact on tourism:

Mrs Cohen accepted that a mix of old and new buildings was acceptable to tourists, but stated that, whilst the most recent VisitScotland figures were for 2004/05, these showed that tourists liked to visit country towns, and liked the variety of local shops.  The Tain Tourist Association was not objecting to the application because its members feared a negative impact on local business, and was not opposed to a supermarket, which it was recognised was very much needed and had the potential to kick-start the economy.  However, to site the supermarket at the gateway to Tain, on a rise, detracted from the image of Tain.

 

Petrol Station:

Mrs Chambers accepted that lower fuel prices would be welcomed by all.  However, Asda sold petrol at a lower price than rural filling stations could purchase it, and the latter would therefore be unable to compete. 

 

In accordance with procedure, the Chairman sought and was given confirmation from the objectors and applicants that there were no further parties wishing to speak.

 

Applicants’ Response to Points Made

 

Mr Harle stated that the filling station proposal offered the people of Tain what they had intimated they wanted.  However, he was willing, if required, to withdraw the filling station from the proposals under consideration, and return with it at a later stage.  He clarified that the station would be for cars only, as the height of the canopy would prevent its use by large vehicles.

 

In accordance with procedure, the Chairman sought and was given confirmation from the objectors and applicants that they were satisfied with the way the hearing had been conducted.

 

Summing up and Discussion

 

The Principal Planner reiterated the reasons why the application challenged the Local Plan.  He suggested that to approve the proposals could undermine confidence in the development of Local Plans.  He also advised that the cumulative impact of supermarket development in Tain should include both the recently approved Lidl development and a recently received application for a third supermarket.  He accepted that the site identified in the Local Plan at Shore Road for a supermarket had proved unsuitable and could therefore be discounted, but commented that four other sites had been put forward.  From a planning perspective, two out of town developments should be avoided and a site nearer to the recently approved Lidl Supermarket and the Co-operative Store was therefore preferable.  There were additional infrastructure requirements in terms of a new footpath and pedestrian crossing which would not be required if proper master planning had been undertaken.  There was no particular merit in the proposed design, although it did take on board a small number of sustainable principles.  The future use of the remainder of the field was of concern. 

 

He accepted that there was strong community support for the application; however, the recommendation was to refuse the application as it was contrary to the Local Plan, it took up land allocated for housing, the proposals for amenity space were inadequate, the views of the Tourist Industry should be respected, there were other possible sites, the proposals challenged SPP8, and there were concerns regarding diversion of trade away from communities further to the North.

 

Members were advised that Shore Road had been retained in the Local Plan as a site for a supermarket as, at the time of compiling the Plan, there had been a live planning application for this use.  Discussion then took place with a range of comments made, including that:

 

·        there was strong public support for the Asda application

·        the store could help bring local tourists into Tain and the surrounding countryside – even a 10% run-off would bring benefits

·        the site was “primarily reserved” for housing, not “exclusively”; if the site were exclusively designated for housing it would not have been zoned as “expansion”

·        Asda would only use 6 acres of the site; there would be room for housing on the remainder

·        planning approval had recently been given to 86 houses at Scotsburn/Jubilee Road, Tain, these houses were at a location that Members suggested was not identified in the Local Plan and together with a number of smaller approved housing applications would compensate for any loss of housing on the Asda site should the supermarket be developed

·        the sequential tests carried by Asda were acceptable

·        only one objection had been received from a Tain town centre business – the business community in general were of the view that Asda would be beneficial

·        local shopping was preferable in terms of sustainability

·        250 jobs would be created

·        there had been a lack of private investment in Tain for the past 20 years – the development could kick start investment

·        it was important that there was a choice of places for people to shop

·        the Shore Road site was accepted as being unsuitable, while the Blarliath site was designated in the Local Plan as an area where “any development should not be intended to be a commercial or retail destination in its own right”

·        the principle of a supermarket on this site was acceptable, as long as stringent conditions were attached

·        the proposed building was large – the Council would wish to see real initiative in terms of design, appearance and use of sustainable technologies

·        other sites should be looked at if they were available

·        the viability of rural communities depended on there being petrol available – if rural filling stations closed, residents would be faced with a 40-50 mile journey to get petrol

·        design and roads and footpath issues had yet to be resolved

·        the planning application for an Asda supermarket in Thurso was the subject of a Public Local Inquiry because the sequential approach taken by Asda was open to question – the same thing could happen here

·        there was no guarantee the land not required by Asda would be used for housing

·        the principle of a supermarket in Tain was acceptable, the proposed site was not

·        much of the foregoing discussion centred on non-planning considerations and was not relevant.

 

In response to a claim that both Tarbat and Inver Community Councils had written in support of the application, the Principal Planner stated that this correspondence had not been received.

 

The Director of Planning and Development advised that the filling station element of the proposals could not be removed from the application at this stage. 

 

Mr R Durham, seconded by Mr A Torrance, MOVED that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions being delegated to the Director of Planning, in consultation with the local Members concerned, together with both the Chairman of the Headquarters Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee and the Chairman of the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee, on the basis that there were material considerations which outweighed the reasons for refusal as set out in the report, including that:

i.                     an application for some 86 houses, which were at a location that Members suggested was not identified in the Local Plan, had been approved by the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee at its meeting held on 13 March 2007, which, taken together with other recent approvals, meant that 100 additional houses were to be built in the area, more than compensating for housing land lost to the Asda proposals;

ii.                   the application accorded with Structure Plan Policies G1, G2, R1, R2 and R4;

iii.                  the application accorded with the Local Plan in terms of sustainable development and settlement hierarchy; and

iv.                 the development of a food retail store on the proposed site would assist resurgence of the commercial role of Tain.

 

The Director of Planning and Development advised that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, it would require to be submitted to the Scottish Executive as the number of parking spaces required by the Council’s parking standards exceeded the limits set by the Executive.   His suggestion that Asda be asked for a commuted sum to offset the loss of affordable housing on the land, as was the Council’s normal practice where housing land was used for other purposes by a developer, was not taken up by the Committee.

 

As an AMENDMENT, Mr A S Park seconded by Mr R Saxon, moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

 

On a vote being then taken, the MOTION received 20 votes and the AMENDMENT received 8 and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes being cast as follows:

 

For the Motion:

 

 

For the Amendment:

 

 

Decision

 

The Committee AGREED, subject to reference of the application to the Scottish Executive, to grant planning permission subject to conditions to be agreed by the Director of Planning and Development following consultation with the Chairman, the Chairman of the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee and the Local Members, on the basis that, in the opinion of Members, there were material considerations which outweighed the reasons for refusal as set out in the report, including that:

 

i.             an application for some 86 houses, which were at a location that Members suggested was not identified in the Local Plan, had been approved by the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee at its meeting held on 13 March 2007, which, taken together with other recent approvals meant that 100 additional houses were to be built in the area, more than compensating for housing land lost to the Asda proposals;

ii.           the application accorded with Policies G1, G2, R1, R2 and R4;

iii.         the application accorded with the Local Plan in terms of sustainable development and settlement hierarchy; and

iv.         the development of a food retail store on the proposed site would assist resurgence of the commercial role of Tain.

 

6.           Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act 2006

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-18-07 dated 5 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development advising Members of a number of the provisions of the Act which were to be implemented with early effect.

 

The Committee was asked to approve in principle the preparation of a Highland wide Strategic Plan, which would allow the Council to seek to influence the National Planning Framework II.  The Strategic Plan would set out Policies which would apply across the Highlands, identify areas of high activity etc.  More local detail would be included in the three Local Development Plans.

 

The Committee NOTED the early changes associated with the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and APPROVED the advertising of the Notice of Intention to Prepare a Highland wide development document and the formal commencement of the work to deliver it.

 

7.           A96 Corridor - Masterplan

 

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Member had applied for and been granted a local member vote: Mr R Balfour.

 

At its meeting on 31 January 2007 the Committee had approved the principles of the proposed implementation framework for the A96 Corridor and also arrangements for another round of consultations during February 2007, for reporting back to this meeting.

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-19-07 dated 7 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development summarising the statutory background and Corridor master-planning work since its inception in 2004, including consultations undertaken at each stage.  The report also outlined the representations received following the consultations undertaken in February. 

 

The Head of Development and Strategy summarised progress to date with the development of the Masterplan, referring to population targets for the next 30 years, growth areas, economic drivers, infrastructure requirements and how these would be provided.  With regard to the recent public consultation exercise, he advised that over 150 responses had been received, and that some suggestions, such as the reconfiguration plans for the West of Nairn, with housing being relocated nearer the town centre, the proposed golf course nearer to the edge of Nairn, and the re-siting of the proposed school at Nairn away from the flood plain, had already been taken on board.   He also drew attention to discussions with landowners to the East of Nairn regarding Area “C” as illustrated in his presentation, which might be considered as offering potential in the long term for additional development in Nairn.  Late objections had also been taken into consideration.  The percentage developer contribution protocol had also been revised from 75% to 66% following the Consultants having revisited their calculations following representations from the industry.  Public response with regard to the proposals for Tornagrain had been heavy and critical, with concerns focussing on whether a settlement for 10,000 people was required; the suitability of the site in view of the probable noise from the airport business park; the effect on Norbord; and the effect on badgers.  However, the Head of Development and Strategy pointed out that significant infrastructure investment was required in the centre of the corridor for the airport business park development and Tornagrain would ensure both that the infrastructure was provided and that it was located where local people and businesses wished, rather than this being determined by the Scottish Executive.

 

Members raised a number of points in discussion, including:

 

The strategic approach:

·        this was commended by Members; it would help avoid proliferation of housing estates without planned infrastructure as had happened in Inverness

·        the growth of the A96 corridor affected the communities of Inverness and Nairn as much as the villages along the corridor

·        strategic planning would ensure the provision of infrastructure and facilities

·        the development of the A96 was essential to the growth of Inverness and Nairn, and also the towns to the North and South of Inverness

 

Developer contributions:

·        a 66% contribution from developers to infrastructure costs appeared high

·        if the developer contributions were not made, the decision as to the route of the A96 and the Nairn by-pass would fall solely to the Scottish Executive

·        the developer contribution would act as an encouragement to the Scottish Executive to provide funding to support the infrastructure developments

 

Tornagrain:

·        development of the Tornagrain proposals could jeopardise development at Nairn and Inverness, in particular the Nairn by-pass

·        the majority of local residents were opposed to the proposals

·        if Tornagrain went ahead, it was likely that the Norbord factory would relocate to Stirling

·        centres of population were best grown organically; where a settlement had not grown (such as at Tornagrain), the site was by implication not suitable

·        the plans for Tornagrain should be timetabled to come on stream in later years, and only if there was proven demand for the new town

·        Tornagrain would develop if it was required, and not if it wasn’t; polar growth in Inverness and Nairn was expected to take place first

 

Consultation:

·        PA81 stated that “nothing should be done for the community without the community” – community involvement was crucial

·        safeguards needed to be put in place to protect local people in the mid-corridor area

·        the “charette” held for Tornagrain had not been a consultation – local people who had attended and were opposed to the town had considered the tone of the presentation to be demeaning; other people had stayed away in protest

·        the consultation period was too short; groups such as Community Councils did not necessarily meet in such a short timescale

·        there was confusion as to how the Masterplan and the Local Plan would relate to each other and which document would take precedence

·        there was a statutory obligation for all responses to the Strategic Environmental Assessment to be made public, the inference being that all the responses should be considered at the same time; however, the public’s responses were being considered today, whilst the responses from statutory consultees (SEPA, Scottish Water and Historic Scotland) would not be available until early April and would be considered by the new Council; this could have implications for the weight given to the public’s comments

·        the Masterplan was being taken forward too hastily – it was a long term project

 

University of the Highlands and Islands:

·        the urgency of taking this development forward was questionable – it was understood that  UHI had yet to complete a business case which showed that they were able to undertake these proposals

·        priority should be given to addressing the housing shortage in the area – 2950 people were on housing association/Council waiting lists – rather than building a campus

·        the existing college buildings were unsuitable due to age and unable to accommodate the expanding role

·        the campus would meet requirements for the next 10-40 years – most people were delighted with the proposals

 

Airport Business Park:

·        this would drive forward development in the corridor

 

Nairn By-pass:

·        this was not on the Executive’s schedule of developments at present; it was hoped that the Executive would be quick to take advantage of the current proposals with the developer contribution; the alternative would be for the Executive to fund the project wholly themselves at a later date

Other:

·        pressure on the minor roads that linked smaller communities and fed into the A96 continued to increase, particularly in the Balloch area; there would also be increased tourist traffic arising from the developments at Culloden Battlefield and the anticipated application for World Heritage Site listing

·        there was an urgent need for sports and recreational facilities to the East of Inverness

 

A suggestion that the project would benefit from the formation of a formal strategic partnership, without executive powers, to facilitate liaison between the major bodies involved in the proposals was welcomed.

 

In particular, Mrs L MacDonald and Mr R A C Balfour, local Members for Narin Ninian and Ardersier, Croy and Petty respectively, spoke strongly against the proposals for Tornagrain, which were not supported by the local communities.  Mr Balfour also expressed concerns regarding the re-positioning of the A96 to the North of the proposed Tornagrain settlement.  In his view, the road re-positioning proposals had no independent merit and were only relevant in relation to the Tornagrain proposals.  To include the new road route in the A96 Masterplan was to pre-empt the Council’s decision with regard to Tornagrain, and could be considered a corruption of planning processes.  He also expressed concern that the illustrations used in the Council’s exhibitions were provided by developers, which, he suggested, could be interpreted by the public as collusion between officers and the developers.  In response, the Head of Development and Strategy advised that it would be negligent not to specify the possible new route for the A96 in the plan at this stage, and that the use of illustrations prepared by developers for large scale proposals was common practice; potential developers of other sites within the Masterplan had also supplied illustrative material.  He gave an assurance that there had been no collusion between the Council and the developers.

 

Officers also provided information in response to the points made in discussion including:

 

·        notwithstanding that responses to the Strategic Environmental Assessment had not been received from the statutory consultees, the report had been brought before Committee that day so that an indication could be given by Members as to whether they were minded to include the Masterplan in the development plan review

·        formal consultation, including a public local inquiry, would take place on the proposals in due course; there were many stages to go through before the proposals might be adopted

·        if the Tornagrain element of the Strategy were delayed or suspended, this would weaken the package and jeopardise the provision of infrastructure, particularly for the airport business park

·        the timescales for the project were ambitious; the plans were already 6 weeks behind schedule

·        it was expected that Tornagrain would be developed over a 30 year period, as Culloden had been; if the timescale was restricted, the finished town was likely to be less satisfactory

·        there was an embargo on development not included in existing Local Plans until 2011

·        the consultation period had been 28 days, which was the usual length of time provided

 

Mr R A C Balfour, seconded by Mr A Milne, MOVED that, because of the social and economic impact of the development of Tornagrain on local communities and the failure to take cognisance of the weight of representations received from local communities, the proposals regarding Tornagrain be deferred within the context of the A96 Masterplan; and that procedures be set in train under the provisions of PAN81 and section 17(b) of the Environmental Assessment Act to examine their submissions and consult with local communities as to their views and concerns on the matter.

 

As an AMENDMENT, Mr J S Gray, seconded by Mr R Wynd, moved that the Committee agree the recommendations in the report.

 

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 7 votes and the AMENDMENT received 16 and the AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes being cast as follows:

 

For the Motion:

           

 

For the Amendment:

 

 

Decision

 

The Committee AGREED the recommendations as set out in the report, subject to the inclusion of point (vi) below:

 

i.             amendments to the draft A96 Corridor Masterplan as set out in the Annex to the report;

ii.           that a concise Strategy document, taking account of the amendments at (i) above, be issued as interim guidance, pending (iv) below;

iii.         that priority development status be accorded to the proposed Inverness College/UHI Campus and associated amenity/sports provisions at Beechwood, to enable implementation of this strategic project prior to 2011,  having regard to policies2.8(vii), 2.41(v) and 3.1 of the adopted Inverness Local Plan;

iv.         a revised developer contributions protocol for the A96 corridor, to be applied as the interim framework for negotiation of essential s.75 Infrastructure Agreements on qualifying sites within the Corridor, pending (iv) below;

v.           that the revised Masterplan be fed into preparation of the strategic Highland Local Development Plan scheduled for later in 2007, subject to consideration of outstanding Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) consultation responses from the statutory agencies by the incoming Council; this to facilitate the early completion of statutory plan-making procedures, including provision for any objections to be heard at an independent Public Local Inquiry; and

vi.         to recommend to the new Council that a formal strategic partnership, without executive powers, be formed to facilitate liaison between the major bodies involved in the proposals.

 

8.           Infrastructure for Sustainability in Large Scale Developments

(Council, 8 February 2007, item 5)

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-20-07  dated 5 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development responding to the resolution at the meeting of the Council on 8 February 2007 to require all large developments to install energy gain systems and grey water systems.  The report defined the planning policy context for these requirements and what they might be, and recommended conditions to be attached to planning permissions to secure their provision.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Standards spoke to the report and explained that there would be pre-application discussions with developers to ensure they were aware of the Council’s requirements for the incorporation of sustainable infrastructure in their designs.

 

A number of changes were proposed to paragraph 3.2, Part 2 of the draft policy:

 

Paragraph 3.2 – Part 2:

i.             bullet point 1 – the inclusion of woodfuel systems, and the clarification that any wind generation technologies be not for the generation of surplus electricity for financial return

ii.           bullet point 2 – the addition of the words “and similar, for use within the site”

iii.         bullet point 5 – the removal of reference to on-site composting

Additional points:

iv.         use of local suppliers and businesses

v.           incorporation of energy efficiency measures into the design of the building

 

Other points raised in discussion included that:

 

·        the draft policy should be more ambitious

·        the Council should assess each large development and quantify a level of carbon reduction; it should be left to developers to decide how to meet this target

·        more information on the technologies the Council would be asking developers to use was required

·        there was a need for enforcement officers

·        there was a risk that the imposition of such conditions could be challenged on appeal.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Standards was of the view that the Council should be positive in driving such changes forward.  It remained to be seen whether developers would appeal against the conditions, but in the longer term, the policy would be incorporated into Local Plans, which would give it public endorsement and make it more robust if challenged.   Lobbying of the Scottish Executive and Ministers with regard to improved energy efficiency measures in building standards should continue.

 

The Committee AGREED:

 

i.             to adopt the terms of the report as a draft policy guideline for the provision of infrastructure in large scale development, subject to “firming up” of the proposals to include quantifying how much energy gain the Council required from developments, this to be considered on a case by case basis; and

ii.           to review the policy guidelines following receipt of views from the development industry and 12 months experience in operating the draft guidelines.

 

The Committee also APPROVED the use of the conditions specified at paragraph 3.2 of the report in the issuing of outline and full planning permissions for large scale development, subject to the amendments raised during debate, as detailed above.

 

9.           Affordable Housing – Development Plan Policy Guideline

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-21-07  dated 2 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development commenting that the Affordable Housing Development Plan Policy Guideline had assisted in the delivery of a wide range of affordable housing schemes since it was first approved by the Council in 2002.  Following publication of the Planning Advice Note on Affordable Housing in 2005, there was a need to update the Guideline to reflect changes in definitions, the changes in thresholds already in place in Wester Ross and proposed for the new Local Plan areas, and to clarify the delivery mechanisms for affordable housing.

 

The Policy and Information Manager summarised the report.  In answer to points raised, the officers explained that (i) of the 2,500 affordable houses targeted for construction over the next five years, 600 were to be single storey and suitable for the elderly; (ii) the demand for affordable housing in rural areas was assessed through the Council carrying out local community Housing Needs Analysis on a rolling basis for all rural areas where there was evidence of demand or ambiguity in the data available; and (iii) the trigger for inclusion of affordable housing in a development (currently 10 houses in larger urban areas and 4 in small rural settlements in Wester Ross) would be reviewed in course of compiling the Pan-Highland development plan.  Other matters discussed included Deed Restricted Housing and patterns of distribution of affordable housing within larger developments.

 

The Committee AGREED the changes suggested to the Guidelines and NOTED that:

 

i.             these would be issued for public comment following the local government elections in May 2007;

ii.           all non-standard methods of low cost house purchase, including Deed Restricted Housing, would be included in the definition of low-cost social housing; and

iii.         the Council was encouraging “pepper-potting” of affordable houses throughout new housing developments rather than building them all in the same section of an estate.

 

10.       Scottish Water - Update

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-22-07 dated 2 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out progress that had been made in working with Scottish Water to deliver solutions to key water and wastewater constraints affecting the area.  Members were asked to welcome the progress being made in a number of constrained areas, whilst at the same time pressing Scottish Water and the Scottish Executive to deliver solutions for all constrained areas in Highland, particularly in the more rural areas which had existing problems and only more modest developer pressure.

 

The Policy and Information Manager summarised recent work with Scottish Water and other delivery agencies and drew attention to Appendix 2 of the report, which detailed progress to date.  A number of “quick fix solutions” had been found that had allowed some release of constraints in the short term, and action was being taken on leakage reduction, which should allow further release of constraints in the medium term.  In the longer term, the Council needed to press for strategic solutions and to work with Scottish Water to help achieve these, particularly for rural areas.  The position with regard to progress on waste water projects was not known, but Muir of Ord, Grantown-on-Spey and Fort Augustus were all included in the programme.  

 

Members welcomed recent progress in investment by Scottish Water and thanked officers for their efforts in taking these issues forward.  Comments raised in discussion included the need to stress the importance of increasing capacity in rural areas, particularly Skye and Lochalsh, and that pressure should be maintained on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to relax water constraints in rural areas in the short term, wherever possible. 

 

The Committee AGREED to continue to:

 

i.             press Scottish Water for delivery dates of the strategic solutions for water supply constraints and to work closely with them to help achieve them;

ii.           lobby the Scottish Executive and Scottish Water to recognise the critical importance that relatively low levels of development had on the sustainability of the most fragile communities and that the investment programme, particularly as it related to water supply, must recognise this; and

iii.         stress the fact that constrained areas, particularly in Skye and Lochalsh, that did not currently feature in Scottish Water’s Quality & Standards 3 (Q&S3) programme must be continually monitored in order that pragmatic solutions might be brought forward where appropriate.

 

The Committee further AGREED:

 

iv.         that the points made in paragraph 2.3 of the report, i.e., that “in locations where there had been early release of capacity which had been immediately taken up by those who already had planning permission, the development of an ongoing solution was desperately required”, be included in the Committee’s recommendations for this item; and

v.           to recommend that the Council, while accepting that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) was bound by European legislation,  press SEPA to be more understanding where possible regarding relaxation of water constraints in rural areas in the short term, rainfall being high and there being a lack of scientific evidence of problems attributable to water taken to supply additional housing in rural areas.

 

11.       European Union Developments – Structural Fund Update and Network Activity

 

At its meeting 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-23-07 dated 6 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on development of the European Union Structural Fund Programmes for the Highlands and Islands post 2006, and providing a briefing on the activities of the European networks in which the Council had been actively involved.

 

The Principal European Officer summarised the report, drawing attention to (i) Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) hopes that, following modulation, agreement would soon be reached on the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) budget, allowing monies to be released; (ii) the possibility that a call for initial bids under LEADER would be made by the Scottish Executive in June 2007, such bids to be ring-fenced to the Highlands and Islands; (iii) the absence of UK level agreement on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) – whilst this was a small programme, the late approval would put pressure on projects’ ability to meet spend targets, which could result in funding being lost.

 

He also drew attention to the successful networking by Mrs K G Matheson on the Atlantic Arc Commission, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions and the North Sea Commission, by Mr A R McFarlane Slack on the Board of Euromontana and by Mr W Fulton in a number of fora, in particular on maritime issues.  They had been successful and effective in taking forward issues of Highland concern in Europe, with the Council’s views now being proactively sought with regard to rural policy, remote areas and maritime safety, and newer peripheral regions looked to partners such as the Highlands to help them to influence Europe.  Whilst immediate financial benefits were limited, President Barroso’s Green Paper on mountainous areas had been brought forward largely in response to effective lobbying.  

 

In discussion, Members stressed the importance of the Council being represented in Europe through networks, in order to ensure that the Highlands’ voice was heard.  The Scottish and UK governments could not be relied on to prioritise Highland concerns.  The proposed Council-led Marine Conference in the Highlands in Autumn 2007 would also provide an effective platform from which to access those involved in European decision-making.  

 

The Committee NOTED the content of the report and AGREED that:

 

i.             the Council make representations to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) concerning the potential delays in implementing the European Fisheries Fund;

ii.           the new Council administration consider, at an early meeting, how best Council and Highland priorities should be promoted via European networks; in this regard the Committee strongly recommended that the vital importance of the Council’s being represented in Europe be emphasised to the new administration and that it be provided with information on the previous successes in bringing additional finance and expertise to the Highlands; and

iii.         the European Team report to a future Committee on the strategic alliance with Shetland and Sogn og Fjordane.

 

12.       Partnership Agreement with VisitScotland

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-24-07  dated 7 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development on progress towards the objectives of the Partnership Agreement between The Highland Council and VisitScotland for the financial year 2006-07 and outlining proposals for concluding a Partnership Agreement for the year 2007-08.

 

The proposals had been informally considered at the Portfolio-Holders meeting on 10 January 2007 and by the Tourism Working Group on 22 February 2007, and had been informally accepted by VisitScotland.  The Europe and Economy Manager summarised the report, drawing attention to the proposals to split the Council’s funding to VisitScotland into (a) core funding, to meet a proportion of the costs of VisitScotland’s network office, and (b) project funding, which would allow for closer working between the Council and VisitScotland on specific projects or activities.  He also drew attention to the proposals for minor amendments to the Council’s criteria for disbursement of its Tourism Development grants.

 

The Committee AGREED that the Director of Planning and Development, in consultation with the Chairman and Depute Chairman (Tourism), be authorised to conclude a Partnership Agreement with VisitScotland for 2007-08, incorporating the services detailed in Appendix 1 to the report; and APPROVED:

 

i.             payment to VisitScotland of £385,000 for the financial year 2007-08 in four equal quarterly instalments following receipt of the signed Partnership Agreement, the remaining £110,000 to be made available on a project by project basis; and

ii.           the revised guidelines for disbursement of funds from the Council’s Tourism Development budget.

 

13.       Working for Families

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-25-07 dated 5 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development summarising the development of the Scottish Executive’s Working for Families Initiative throughout the Highlands from its inception in 2004, and anticipating how in the future it would be delivered as part of the wider Workforce Plus: an Employability Framework for Scotland.

 

The Europe and Economy Manager advised that the scheme had been successful over the past three years and had exceeded expectations.  However, during this period changing circumstances, including lower unemployment levels, recognition of the numbers on benefit, and the number of migrant workers being chosen by employers in preference to indigenous workers had increasingly raised the issue of employability at the national and local level.  There was now a need to develop the Working for Families initiative to further improve its partnership working and deliver its service to clients more closely with other employability related initiatives.

 

The Committee NOTED the progress made during the first three years of Working for Families in engaging with and moving towards or into employment disadvantaged parents by breaking down childcare and other barriers; and AGREED to continue to prioritise staff time to manage the Working for Families Initiative and develop it in the context of the Workforce Plus framework to co-ordinate and improve employability services.

 

14.       World Mountain Biking Championship – Access Exemption

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-26-07  dated 1 March 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that an application had been made by the Nevis Range Development Company Limited for an Exemption Order under Section 11 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 for the Mountain Bike World Championships 2007, to restrict public access rights to the Witch’s Trail, Leanachan Forest, Torlundy.  The report advised that an Exemption order which extended for more than 6 days required confirmation by the Scottish Ministers.

 

The Lochaber Local Access Forum, which was a statutory consultee, had considered the request at its meeting on 22 February 2007 and was unanimously supportive of the Exemption Order proposal.

 

As required, the Council had duly placed public notice advertisements in local newspapers, inviting objections or representations by 30 March 2007.   Any such received would require to be copied to the Scottish Ministers.

 

The Committee AGREED:

 

i.             to remit consideration of objections or representations received in relation to the proposed World Mountain Bike Access Exemption Order to the Director of Planning and Development in consultation with the Chairman, the Chairman of the Lochaber Area Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee and the local Member; and

ii.           to forward any objections and representations received, together with the Council’s considered response, to Scottish Executive Ministers.

 

15.       Proposed Lease of Strathpeffer Pumproom

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-27-07  dated 26 February 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development and the Director of Property and Architectural Services drawing Members’ attention to the proposed lease of Strathpeffer Pumproom and seeking approval for the property to be leased on terms and conditions to be agreed by the Director of Property and Architectural Services.

 

Speaking with the consent of the Chairman, the local Member for Strathpeffer and Strathconon requested more detailed information on the interest expressed in the Pumproom and the nature of the various proposals put forward for it.  He emphasised that the people of Strathpeffer wished to see the Pumproom remain open all summer.  

 

The Committee AGREED to the leasing of Strathpeffer Pumproom on an annual basis to a private operator on terms and conditions to be agreed by the Director of Property and Architectural Services in consultation with the Director of Planning and Development and the local Member, with the proviso that, should the local Member, having received more detailed information, consider that the matter should be given wider consideration, a full report on the available options would be submitted to the Council.

 

 

The Director having thanked Members, and in particular Committee Office Bearers, for their efforts and contributions over the preceding four years, the meeting ended at 3.30 p.m.