• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee held in Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 at 10.30a.m.

 

Present:
Mr D Hendry, Mr G Farlow, Mr D MacKay, Mr G Smith, Mr W MacKay, Mr I Ross, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance, Mr B Barclay, Mr B Clark, Mrs H Carmichael, Ms P Munro, Mr D Henderson, Mr I Brown, Mr J Gray, Mr S Park, Mr J Crawford, Mr J Holden, Mr T Prag, Mr B Gormley.

 

Non Members also present:
Mr R Rowantree, Mr R Coghill, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs M Smith, Mrs M Paterson, Dr D Alston, Mr J Laing, Miss J Campbell, Provost R Wynd

Officials in attendance:

Mr R Hartland, Acting Director of Planning and Development
Mr G Robson, Head of Environment and Development
Mr M MacLeod, Development Plans Manager
Mr A McCann, Economy and Regeneration Manager
Mr G Hamilton, Countryside, Heritage and Natural Resources Manager
Mr D Mudie, Principal Planner
Mr D Cowie, Principal Planner
Mr J Willet, Highland Biodiversity Officer
Mr G Campbell, Building Standards Co-ordinator
Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator
Mrs L Lee, Committee Administrator
 
Also in attendance:

Mr D Green, Convener, Cairngorms National Park Authority (for item 4)
Mr M Monahan, pupil at Dornoch Academy
Mr L Munro, pupil at Plockton High School

 

Mr D Hendry in the Chair

 

Business

 

An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to the Council.  All decisions with not marking in the margin are delegated to the Committee.

 

1. Apologies for Absence

 

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mrs I McCallum, Mr D Chisholm and Mrs G Sinclair (OCB).

 

2. Change in Committee Membership – Appointment to Working Group

 

The Committee NOTED that the Council at its meeting on 14 February 2008 had agreed changes to Committee membership as submitted by the SNP Group, including that Mr A Torrance take the place of Provost R Wynd on the Planning, Environment and Development Committee.

 

The Committee AGREED that Mr Torrance take the place of Provost Wynd on the Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy Working Group.

 

3. Directorship of Highland Birchwoods - Appointment

 

As a partner in Highland Birchwoods, the Highland Council had supplied one of the three directors on the Highland Birchwoods Board since its inception in 1992.  The position had most recently been held by the previous Director of Planning and Development.  Following his retirement, the position was now vacant.  Highland Birchwoods had written to the Council inviting the filling of this vacancy, potentially by the appointment of an elected Member.

 

The Chairman, seconded by Mr I Brown, MOVED that Mr G Farlow be appointed to the position.  As an AMENDMENT, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr D Henderson, moved that Mr I Ross be appointed.

 

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 8 votes and the AMENDMENT received 7 votes, and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED.

 

The Committee AGREED to appoint Mr G Farlow as a director on the Board of Highland Birchwoods.

 

4. Presentation – The Cairngorms National Park After Five Years

 

A presentation was given by Mr D Green, Convener of the Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) on “The National Park After Five Years”.

 

Mr Green gave a brief explanation of the governance arrangements of the Park, and drew attention to the recent decision to expand the Park’s boundaries to include the Blair Atholl area, following which the Park would comprise 6% of the land mass of Scotland.  He then summarised the Park Authority’s activities, which included:

• aiming to conserve and enhance the Park’s natural and cultural heritage, including the built environment
• planning – (a) the publication of a Local Plan for the Park and (b) the Authority’s call-in powers to examine planning applications which were considered likely to have a significant impact on the Park
• the sustainable economic and social development of communities
• access – CNPA was the access authority for the Park area
• advising Scottish Government Ministers on matters of relevance for the Park
• taking forward the Scottish Government’s national outcomes as set out in the Single Outcome Agreement: the Park Authority intended to focus on 6 of the outcomes, and on a further 3 to a lesser extent.

Mr Green stated that the CNPA budget amounted to £4.6m for 2008/09.  In order to derive maximum benefit from the funding, the Authority aimed to work with partners and to act as an enabler.  The Highland Council was an important partner for the Authority, particularly in relation to transport infrastructure, sustainable development and natural heritage.  The two bodies had worked closely in opposing the Beauly-Denny pylon proposals.   The CNPA also aimed to act as an exemplar, piloting new ways of doing things, which, if successful, could be copied by others.  In this regard the Park Authority was, for example, establishing a single service point for advice, and working with VisitScotland to build on the existing Destination Management Organisation in the Aviemore area to stimulate tourism to other parts of the Cairngorms. 

 

In response to questions raised, Mr Green commented that the provision of affordable housing was a major concern in the Park area.  Whilst the Park Authority was not a housing provider, it was able to promote affordable housing through its planning policies, and was working with the Highland Council and the Highland Small Communities Housing Trust to improve and retain the supply of affordable housing.  Consideration was being given to increasing the proportion of affordable housing to be provided in some developments from 25% to 50%.

 

In response to concerns raised regarding the difficulty of attracting funding to areas and projects outwith the Park boundary, he suggested that a successful approach might include making representations to the Scottish Government stressing any special features, showing how the Government’s outcomes were met by a project and demonstrating community support.  Courses of action taken by the Park, such as working with the private and public sectors and communities, could be copied by other groups.

 

In conclusion, whilst it was still early days for the Park, Mr Green commented that its major achievements in his view included the establishment of the Park without upset to others; overcoming early fears that the Park would stultify
business; gaining Parliamentary cross party support and piloting new approaches.  The CNPA would be undertaking a strategic review in the near future.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Green for his presentation and the Committee NOTED the information given.

 

5. Minutes of Tourism Project Group – 6 February 2008

 

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Tourism Project Group held on 6 February 2008. 

 

A number of points were raised in discussion, including that:

• information on insurance cover should be made available to voluntary groups across Highland
• where the Council provided funding, recipients should follow Council policy, for example with regard to Gaelic signposting
• an inventory of out-dated Council signposting (eg. referring to District Councils or Highland Regional Council) should be compiled and this should be used to target replacement of signs
• provision of information to tourists in the winter season should be investigated, in particular through Council Service Points
• grading of tourist accommodation should be kept as simple as possible.

Having heard the Chairman comment that all Members were welcome to suggest items they would wish to see discussed by the Tourism Project Group, the Committee APPROVED the Minutes and AGREED (a) that the comments raised in discussion above be brought to the attention of the Tourism Project Group; and (b) the Project Group’s recommendations with regard to:

 

i.     information on events insurance available through the Council to be circulated to all Council Members and at future Tourism Seminars;
ii.    a report to be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee providing an update on the negotiations with VisitScotland for the 2008/09 Partnership Agreement, advising of the delay in the completion of the Agreement due to the recent restructuring of VisitScotland and recommending that the Director of Planning and Development agree the final terms of the Agreement, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, these terms to include particular emphasis on matters as detailed in the Minutes; and:
iii.    the revised guidelines for the use of the Council’s Tourism Development budget to be approved, subject to an amendment relating to multiple applications to the effect that, so long as any one application did not exceed £10,000, an applicant could receive up to 15% of the total budget.

 

6. Minutes of Natural Resources Working Group – 29 February 2008

 

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Natural Resources Working Group held on 29 February 2008.

 

In discussion, Members commented that there was a need to monitor the Forestry Commission’s “repositioning exercise” and to make representations if necessary – there were concerns that the exercise might lead to forests being sold in Highland to finance purchase of woodland nearer large centres of population.  Whilst this would present a theoretical opportunity for community acquisition of such woodlands in Highland, in practical terms community groups would face funding difficulties, and it was uncertain whether the National Lottery would support such ventures.

 

The Committee APPROVED the Minutes and AGREED (a) that the above concern be taken forward, and (b) the Working Group’s recommendations with regard to:

 

i.    homologation of the responses to: the proposals for Renewing the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture; the response to the Scottish Government’s Committee of Inquiry on Crofting; and the response to the Scottish Government consultation on Designation of New Areas for Crofting;
ii.    approval of the Biodiversity Duty Delivery Plan 2008-2011;
iii.    inclusion of the draft response to the Scottish Government Discussion Paper “Choosing the Right Ingredients – The Future of Food in Scotland” in the Council’s corporate response to the Scottish Government; and Council support for and hosting of a Highland Local Food Seminar in the Autumn of 2008;
iv.   co-ordination by the Council of responses to the forthcoming EU Maritime Policy consultations and investigation with partner organisations of the proposed joint maritime conference policy ; and
v. approval of the draft Highland Council Policies relating to Natural Resources in the Highlands and the publication of a promotional leaflet outlining the agreed policies and providing guidance for those proposing strategic projects which would support the policies and could be eligible for financial support by the Council.

 

7. Revenue Expenditure Monitoring 2007/08

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped17-08  dated 7 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development setting out the revenue monitoring position for the period to 31 January 2008 and showing a projected year end position of an underspend of £477,000.  Members were advised that when expenditure incurred since 31 January was taken into account, the projected year end figure was around £470,000, net of the £104,000 Beauly-Denny Public Inquiry costs.  The underspend was mainly attributable to staffing vacancies.  Percentage expenditure for the year to date had reached 74%, compared with 82% at this point in the previous year; percentage budgeted income received was at 91% compared with 114%.

 

The Committee NOTED the report and the information given and AGREED that the quarterly reports to Committee on Performance Indicators be extended to include figures for vacancies over the past 4 years, and that this information also be included in the year-end Performance Indicator report.

 

8. Capital Expenditure Monitoring 2007/08

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped18-08  dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development outlining expenditure and income to 31 January for the year 2007/08 Capital Programme and showing a projected year end position of a net underspend of around £400,000.  Members were advised that (a) expenditure to date had increased from £1.1m in January 2008 to £1.2m; (b) match funding income stood at £614,000, considerably higher than anticipated, (c) there had been slippage of £400,000 in this year’s capital programme but measures were in hand to address this, and (d) the Budget Working Group would be considering the Service’s capital programme in the coming two months.

 

The Committee NOTED the report and the information given and APPROVED the variations to the 2008/09 work programme as outlined at paragraph 1.7 of the report, to allow preliminary work to proceed to enable the undernoted projects to be implemented in 2008/09:

• a reduction in the carry forward underspend for the Caithness Heritage Project from £94,000 to £44,000 to reflect the over allocation of budget to this project
• the use of this underspend to enable new projects – Brora Village Centre Streetscape, Thurso High Street Streetscape, Nairn Tradespark Wood car parking and Nethybridge and Watten Gateways – to proceed.

9. Consultation – National Planning Framework for Scotland 2

 

Mr J Gray, as Chairman of Cromarty Firth Port Authority, and Mr A Torrance, as a member of Cromarty Firth Port Authority, both declared financial interests in this item, but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, remained to participate in the discussion.

 

As a director of Port Services (Invergordon) Ltd, Mr M Rattray declared a financial interest in this item and left the room for the duration of the item.

 

As a Member of Inverness Harbour Trust, Mr T Prag declared a financial interest in this item, but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, remained to participate in the discussion. 

 

As a Governor of the University of the Highlands and Islands, Mr T Prag also declared a non financial interest in this item, but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraph 5.18 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped19-08  dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development providing a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 – Discussion Draft (NPF2) on which comments were sought by 15 April 2008, welcoming many aspects of the Framework but recommending that the A96 corridor development and the fabrication yard at Nigg should be considered National Developments within NPF2, as set out in Appendix 2 to the circulated report.

 

Points raised in discussion included:

• the attention of the Scottish Government should be drawn to the absence of the A82 from their Strategy Map 19 (Appendix 1 to the report) - there being no rail link between Inverness and Fort William it was imperative that the A82 be included in the National Planning Framework and brought up to standard
• roads in North, Central and West Sutherland should be upgraded from single track, in particular the coast road from Kinlochbervie northwards round to the travel to work area for Dounreay, and also roads from Lairg – which should be done as soon as possible, with a start date given as a minimum
• clarity was required as to what the Scottish Government meant by “energy from waste” schemes, in particular as to what scale was intended
• the urgent need to provide effective broadband in rural areas
• emphasis should be placed on including the Inverness Trunk Link road and the University of the Highlands and Islands Campus in the NPF2 Action Plan
• it was critical that transport infrastructure (A82, A9, A96) linked together
• the Inner Moray Firth linked both northwards and southwards particularly via energy infrastructure and energy issues could be used to support the arguments for improved transport infrastructure
• concern that the any upgrading of the A9 between Inverness and Perth might be limited to “2 and 1” rather than dualling
• greater emphasis should be placed on Short Sea Shipping as Highland had a number of harbours which could accommodate this and so help reduce road traffic
• the A9 between Tore and Tain should be improved, ideally to dual carriageway standard, or as a minimum to “2 and 1” as this would support developments at Nigg and the Cromarty Firth
• the Framework should promote development widely and equitably across the whole of Scotland, not just in “pockets”
• the response should draw attention to the relatively high cost of housing compared with income in the Highlands and the need to address the core issues of land availability and land cost in the Highlands
• greater emphasis should be placed on alternative energy transmission systems such as the sub-sea ring.

Concerns were expressed with regard to the proposals for the A96 development as to whether comments raised by communities during consultation had been accurately reflected in the published A96 Development Framework.  In response, the Development Plans Manager acknowledged that the wording of the acknowledgements page of the A96 Development Framework had been unintentionally ambiguous, but stated that this had been clarified through a press release in November 2007 and the Council’s website had been amended.  Communities would have further opportunities to make representations on the A96 corridor proposals during the consultation stages of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

 

The Development Plans Manager also commented that NPF2 took a long term (to 2030) view of development priorities; short term economic changes, such as the present difficulties in the mortgage sector, were likely to be temporary and should not be allowed to unduly influence house building targets.

 

The Committee APPROVED the content of the report, including Appendices 2 and 3, and AGREED that:

 

i.    the proposed response be forwarded to the Scottish Government as the response of the Council to the Discussion Draft, subject to (a) the delivery partners for Nigg being amended to comprise the Highland Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Government only; and (b) the inclusion of the points raised in discussion - the Development Plans Manager to prepare a response to the consultation taking account of the above bullet-points, and to consult with the Chairman prior to submission to the Scottish Government; and
ii.    a report on the provision of broadband in Highland be brought to a future meeting.

 

The Committee also NOTED that the Acting Director of Planning and Development would bring issues relating to Community Benefit or contributions resulting from development associated with the nuclear industry to the attention of the Chief Executive, to take forward via the Council’s Corporate Managers.
   
10. Consultation – Draft Regulations on the Planning Hierarchy

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped20-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development dealing with the draft Regulations on the Planning Hierarchy which were fundamental to the future delivery of the Planning Act.  The report related to the intention as set out in the Act to identify a hierarchy which comprised three categories to which all developments requiring planning permission would be allocated – national development, major development and local development.

 

While the Regulations did not set out what national developments would be, as these were covered in the National Planning Framework, thresholds had been set for Major Developments, with all other planning proposals being classified as local developments.  The hierarchy was important, as major developments were those which could be subject to Processing Agreements with developers to ensure that they were dealt with within an appropriate timescale (4 months being the aim).  It was also important in identifying what would be left and what would therefore largely fall to be considered under the Council’s revised Scheme of Delegation and Review procedures.

 

The Development Plans Manager drew attention to the main points of the report, including (a) that there would be more pre-application discussions, including with communities, and (b) the anomalies that might arise in the Highlands should the proposed definitions relating to the geographic size of a major housing development be adopted, there being a tendency for substantially larger plots in rural areas, which could lead to developments being inappropriately included in the “major” category. 

 

The Committee APPROVED the content of the report and AGREED that it be forwarded to the Scottish Government as the response of the Council to the consultation exercise.

 

11. Modernising the Planning System – Consultation on Development Management

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped21-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development advising that the Scottish Government had consulted Scottish Local Authorities on proposals for changes to the development management (formerly development control) system.

The consultation document identified difficulties with the existing system and suggested how these would be overcome by the new Regulations.  It asked that local authorities respond to 49 questions in respect of the proposals and their aims. 

 

The Acting Director of Planning and Development drew Members’ attention to the main points contained in the report, including (a) that in future, major applications requiring Environmental Assessments would require to be approved by full Council rather than this Committee, (b) the introduction of processing agreements with developers, whereby, should the Council fail to determine an application within an agreed timescale, part of the fee would be returned to the applicant, although clarification was needed as to whether, if the applicant caused the delay, this would still pertain, (c) that neighbour notification would be carried out by the Council, and the ability for the Council to recover costs of advertising where this was required, and (d) a shortened period for decisions and appeals.

 

A number of points were raised in discussion, including:

• concerns that workloads for staff were already high, and the changes could cause additional stress
• that the reduction of the period within which an appeal could be lodged from 6 months to 3 months could result in an increased number of appeals
• concerns that the Council was not the most suitable body to issue neighbour notifications – the developer was more likely to hold information on who should be notified.

Whilst accepting that staff workloads were high, the Acting Director of Planning and Development responded that the changes were intended to make the planning process easier, more certain and a more direct service, and that this should impact positively on workloads.  Action was being taken to improve efficiency, including improving staff time management skills, and, after allowing time for these changes to bed in, a report would be brought to Committee identifying any further proposed actions, including a request for additional staffing, if required.

 

Having NOTED the report and that a report would be brought to the Committee on 28 May 2008 on a further Scottish Government consultation on Modernising Planning Appeals, the Committee AGREED that the suggested response to the 49 questions be as set out in the Appendix to the report.

 

12. Scottish Government Consultation – Draft Regulations on Development Plan Examinations

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped22-08  dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development providing a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s consultation dealing with Draft Regulations on Development Plan Examinations.

 

The need for new Regulations was necessitated by changes to the planning system which were being introduced by the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and by the Scottish Government’s intention, as far as examinations were concerned, to set out some key aspects as legal requirements, rather than relying solely on guidance.  Whilst some basic requirements of the new system for examinations were already fixed as part of the Act, others were open for discussion, being part of the draft regulations.  Many aspects of the draft regulations could be welcomed in principle, although there were some aspects which required clarification or amendment or which would benefit from expansion in future guidance.  It was important to understand the procedural and legal requirements of the new system and to plan the Council’s use of resources appropriately to deliver commitments in its Development Plan Scheme in accordance with those requirements.

 

The Committee APPROVED the content of the report and AGREED that it be forwarded to the Scottish Government as the response of the Council to its consultation exercise.

13. Consultation – Review of Scottish Planning Policy 3 (SPP3): Planning for Housing

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped23-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development describing the key elements of the new draft Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing.  The document was welcomed, since it provided support for the new approaches to assessing need, delivering sites and monitoring progress and uptake.  The report set out responses to the detailed questions in the document. 

 

The Principal Planner drew attention to the main points of the report, including that the key objectives of SPP3 were to identify housing requirements and to determine how these could be delivered.   With regard to paragraph 2.3 of the report, he reported that the Strategic Housing Need and Market Assessment guidance had now been finalised and issued.

 

A number of comments were raised in discussion, including:

• the difficulties faced by businesses newly setting up in the Highlands with regard to providing accommodation for their incoming employees
• that “affordable housing” should be referred to as “affordable homes”; “holiday homes” should be referred to as “holiday housing” and their creation managed in a similar way to the creation of businesses; consideration should be given to a requirement for planning permission to be obtained for housing to be used as holiday housing, on the basis of “change of use”
• that a Council policy on Houses in Multiple Occupation should be developed in order to provide clarity regarding the respective planning and licensing responsibilities, given in particular the foreseeable impact of the proposed UHI campus on student numbers, leading to increased demand for shared rented accommodation.

Members were advised that the introduction of planning consent for use of a house as a holiday home had previously been proposed, unsuccessfully, by the Cairngorms National Park Authority, but that there might be scope in the future to take this forward again. 

 

The Committee NOTED the report and the information given and AGREED:

 

i.    the report be amended to take account of the comments made and that the Chairman be consulted on the finalised document prior to its submission to the Scottish Government as the Council’s response to the consultation; and
ii.    that a report be brought to the Committee’s meeting on 13 August 2008 on a Council Strategy for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

 

14. The Sutherland Local Plan and the West Highland & Islands Local Plan – Strategic Environmental Assessments

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped24-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development advising that both the Sutherland Local Plan and the West Highlands & Islands Local Plan had been the subject of Strategic Environmental Assessment during their preparation.  The requirements for such assessment were set out in The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004.  The recently published Deposit Draft Local Plans had been accompanied by the Draft Environmental Reports.  However, since their publication, the Scottish Government had expressed concern that, given the processes that the Council had been following and had intended to follow through to adoption, there was a significant risk that the Local Plans would be open to challenge if adopted.  In particular, the Scottish Government’s concern was that the requirement that there be “an early and effective opportunity” for the Consultation Authorities and other interested parties to express their opinion on the Environmental Reports and Draft Plans, might not be met.

 

Officers had discussed these matters with Scottish Government representatives.  The report discussed the issues and set out options that were available to the Council and the associated risks.  It recommended an amendment to the next steps for the Local Plans, with the intention that they be progressed through to adoption without significant risk of legal challenge.  This would involve some additional consultation at the current stage and, in due course, a more formal revised version of the Plans than had been previously intended.

 

The Committee AGREED that:

 

i.     Supplements to the Environmental Reports be prepared, to include the assessment of options considered earlier in the Plan process but not included in the Draft Plans;
ii.     the Sutherland Local Plan and the West Highlands & Islands Local Plan and their associated Environmental Reports be the subject of a further consultation period, now to be for pre-deposit purposes, and that the Supplements referred to in (i) above be published as part of the consultation;
iii.    the further consultation period referred to in (ii) above be of six weeks duration, subject to consulting the SEA Consultation Authorities on the intended period and agreeing it with Scottish Ministers;
iv.    representations already received on the Draft Plans be carried forward and dealt with as comments received to the pre-deposit consultation exercise;
v.     all comments received to these consultation exercises be reported to and dealt with by the Planning, Environment and Development Committee, with reports on the comments being considered at its meeting on 13 August 2008;
vi.    full Deposit Draft versions of the two Local Plans and revised versions of the Environmental Reports, incorporating any changes agreed by the Committee, be subsequently  published for a six week period, with opportunity for formal representations to be submitted by interested parties; and
vii.    that, in addition to letters being sent to all parties who had already lodged responses to the Local Plans, explaining the action being taken and confirming there was no need to re-submit any comments, a press release be issued providing a similar explanation.

 

15. Audit of the Highland Council’s Building Standards Service by the Scottish Building Standards Agency: October 2007

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped25-08  dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development outlining the background to the revised Building Standards system in Scotland and the purpose of the Scottish Building Standards Agency’s (SBSA) audit process.  It reported on recent audit findings and raised concerns about the lack of context of the audit report and issues which were felt to have been omitted or overlooked.  Lastly, it referred to the submission of the Council’s Building Standards Services Action Plan in response to the audit and to the proposed minor restructuring of the Building Standards function to improve service delivery.

 

The Acting Director of Planning and Development summarised the main points of the report.  He acknowledged that the audit was critical of the Service and that improvement was required, but commented that the audit had not taken account of a number of measures recently put in place to address the situation, including, amongst other things, an increase to salaries and in the number of posts. An action plan had been produced in response to the Audit’s findings and this had been submitted to the Building Standards Agency, who had undertaken to assist with the required improvements.

 

A number of comments were raised in discussion, including that:

• the difficulties facing the Building Standards services were a serious problem
• the Council had a statutory obligation to provide a Building Standards service, but this function had been underfunded
• staff had faced increasing amounts of bureaucracy and had had to adapt to significant changes to Building Standards regulations
• the key to resolving the problems lay in staff recruitment; however, recruitment generally, throughout the Highlands, was acknowledged to be difficult
• the development and training of staff in-house was welcomed
• the measures proposed in response to the audit were sensible, but appeared to lack of a sense of urgency
• a clear message should come from the Committee that staff were supported.

In response, the Acting Director of Planning and Development gave an assurance there was commitment and resolve in addressing the problems. 

 

During discussion, while there was general agreement that the staff involved were not to blame for the poor performance figures, the possible introduction of a fee refund and compensation scheme for applicants experiencing significant delay in the processing of their Building Warrant application was canvassed.  However, the legal competence of such a scheme was questioned.  The Acting Director advised that the Council did not have powers to reimburse Building Warrant fees, but suggested that a letter of apology could be considered.

 

The Committee NOTED:

 

i.     the terms of the SBSA audit and the contents and submission of the Action Plan;
ii.     that work had been undertaken prior to and since the audit to improve the Building Standards service delivery; and
iii.    that the legal competence of the introduction of a fee refund and compensation scheme would require to be clarified.

 

Having AGREED that the quarterly report to Committee on Performance Indicators be extended to include staff vacancy and recruitment data, the Committee APPROVED:

 

i.    the content of the report; and
ii.    for its interest, the proposed management and staffing changes which would be reported to the Resources Committee in due course.

 

16. Nigg Fabrication Yard – Update

 

Mr J Gray, as Chairman of Cromarty Firth Port Authority, and Mr A Torrance, as a member of Cromarty Firth Port Authority, both declared financial interests in this item, but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, remained to participate in the discussion.

 

As a director of Port Services (Invergordon) Ltd, Mr M Rattray declared a financial interest in this item and left the room for the duration of the item.

 

Officers had met with representatives from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Consultants on 14 March 2008 to discuss the awarding of the contract to prepare the Nigg Master Plan.  The Committee was advised that the contract was in the final stages of agreement and was shortly expected to be awarded to a consortium providing expertise in both engineering matters and in analysis of market potential.  A joint press release would then be issued by the Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. 

 

The Master Plan would be presented to the Committee at its meeting on 13 August 2008, and submitted to the full Council on 4 September 2008 for final approval.  Thereafter, the Plan would be issued for formal consultation.  It was anticipated that the process would be completed around the end of 2008.  The existing development plan would continue to apply meantime.

 

The Committee NOTED the information given.

 

17. Judicial Review Decisions: Windfarm at Edinbane, Skye, and Tesco Food Store in Wick, Caithness

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped26-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development advising that the Council had recently successfully defended two decisions to grant planning permission challenged by judicial review proceedings in the Court of Session.  No serious implications for the delivery of the development management function had resulted from the challenges.  However, their defence had had considerable implications not only in legal costs but also officer time.  The Planning and Development Service intended to seek to recover the legal costs in the interest of best value for the taxpayer and the interest of the public purse.

 

The Committee NOTED the judgements, and, notwithstanding concerns raised that a community should be able to challenge a Council decision without fear of incurring legal costs, AGREED that on this occasion recovery of legal expenses be sought in the interests of best value and the public purse.

 

18. Consultation – Scottish Natural Heritage Corporate Strategy 2008

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped27-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development introducing the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Draft Corporate Strategy.  Responses were sought by 24 March 2008.

 

The Committee NOTED the draft strategy and AGREED the response as set out in the report subject to the inclusion of the following points:

• the need to take action to control deer numbers where necessary
• the opportunity for SNH to support the Forestry Commission’s aspirations for 25% forest cover by 2015
• the opportunities open to SNH to liaise with field clubs and University research projects in promoting biodiversity.

19. Nevis Partnership – Establishment of Additional Ranger Post

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped28-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development advising that the Nevis Partnership had proposed that a new Countryside Ranger post be created in the Nevis Partnership area to supplement the Highland Council’s existing team in Glen Nevis and to deliver a number of the Nevis Partnership priorities for Visitor Management in the area.

 

The Committee APPROVED the establishment of an additional Countryside Ranger post in Glen Nevis, which would be fully funded by the Nevis Partnership for a period of three years and managed by the Lochaber Senior Ranger.

 

20. West Highland Way – Blackmount Partnership Ranger

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped29-08 dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development advising that, following a reassessment of priorities in the southern part of Lochaber, it was considered that the current West Highland Way/Blackmount Ranger post should be redeployed fully to the West Highland Way to provide a better level of service on this nationally important long distance route.

 

The Committee APPROVED the redeployment of the West Highland Way/Blackmount Ranger wholly to the West Highland Way team.

 

21. Draft Skye and Lochalsh Core Path Plan

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped30-08 dated 7 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development introducing Core Paths generally and the Core Path Plan for Skye and Lochalsh specifically.  It described the consultation processes adopted and the Core Paths’ fit with Council priorities for action.

 

Having NOTED a suggestion that, in some instances, funding for core paths might be available through the Safer Routes to Schools scheme, the Committee APPROVED the Core Path Plan for Skye and Lochalsh for submission to the Scottish Ministers.

 

22. Highland Fresh Mussels Ltd – Financial Report and Out-turn 2006/07

 

As Board Members of Highland Fresh Mussels Ltd. Mr R Durham and Mr A Torrance each declared a non financial interest in this item, but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraph 5.18 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that their interest did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

 

There had been circulated Report No. Ped31-08  dated 11 March 2008 by the Acting Director of Planning and Development presenting the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2007 for Highland Fresh Mussels Ltd.  The report also provided brief details of the activities of Highland Fresh Mussels Ltd. during the current financial year (2007/08).

The Committee NOTED (i) the content of the report, and (ii) on behalf of the Council, the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2007 for Highland Fresh Mussels Ltd.

The meeting ended at 1.40 p.m.