Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 at 10.30 a.m.
Present
Mrs I McCallum, Mr G Farlow, Mr D MacKay, Mr W MacKay, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance, Mr Barclay, Mr B Clark, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr D Hendry, Mr D Henderson, Mr I Brown, Mr J Gray, Mr T Prag, Mr D Fallows, Mr S Park, Dr M Foxley
In Attendance:
Mr D Flear, Mr M Finlayson, Ms M Smith, Mrs C Wilson, Mr D Chisholm, Mr J Laing, Mrs M Davidson, Mr H Wood, Dr D Alston
Officials in attendance:
Mr S Black, Director of Planning and Development
Mr R Hartland, Head of Planning and Building Standards
Mr A McCann, Economy and Regeneration Manager
Mr G Hamilton, Countryside, Heritage and Natural Resources Manager
Mr M MacLeod, Development Plans Manager
Ms S Turnbull, Coastal Planning Officer
Ms S Lunn, Business Support Manager
Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner
Ms M Peter, Business Gateway Officer
Mrs R Moir, Principal Committee Administrator
Mrs L Lee, Committee Administrator
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant
Also in attendance:
Mr D Owen, Chairman, Highland Opportunity Ltd
Mrs I McCallum in the Chair
1. Briefing on Protocol for the Webcasting of Meetings
The Chairman advised the Committee that the meeting was being filmed for webcast and subsequent archiving for broadcast via the Council’s internet site; however, the webcast would not be broadcast live.
She advised that, as Chair, she had the discretion to terminate or suspend filming if, in her opinion, continuing to do so would prejudice the proceedings of the meeting or if, on advice, she considered that continued filming might infringe the rights of any individual.
It was also explained that the cameras were activated by the microphones, so that Members were required to switch them on (when speaking) and switch them off thereafter.
2. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr I Ross, Mr E Hunter, Ms G Sinclair, Mr J Crawford, Mr J Holden and Mr G Rimell.
3. Recess Powers
It was NOTED that Recess Powers granted by the Council at its meeting on 25 June 2009 had not been exercised in relation to the business of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee.
4. Notice of Amendment (Planning)
Planning Application 09/0094/FULRC
Amendment to Planning Permission 08/00122/FULRC to include handling, Storage and Bulking up of Residual Municipal Waste at Unit 26, Cromarty Firth Industrial Park, Invergordon
In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Members had applied for and been granted a Local Member vote: Mr M Finlayson, Ms M Smith and Mrs C Wilson.
* Declaration of Interest - Mr M Finlayson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds of having worked in waste management in the past 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 (and voting).
(*Agreed by Highland Council 3 September 2009)
The Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee (CSER PARC) refused planning consent for the above application at its meeting on 19 May 2009. The following Notice of Amendment (Planning) was received on 22 May 2009:
“We the undersigned, being elected Members of The Highland Council, hereby declare our wish that the decision of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee at its meeting on 19 May 2009 on the above application be reviewed at a forthcoming meeting of the Planning, Environment and development Committee of the Council.
Signed: Mrs C A Wilson, Mr W Fernie, Mr J Laing, Mr J McGillivray, Mr G Smith, Mrs L Munro, Mrs K MacNab, Dr D Alston, Mr D MacKay, Mr R Coghill. “
Accordingly, there had been re-circulated Report pl-27-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards manager for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, together with the relevant extract from the Minutes of the PARC meeting.
Members were advised that, in view of concerns expressed by some Members at the PARC meeting over the adequacy of the A9 Trunk Road junction at Tomich, consultation with Transport Scotland Trunk Road Network Management had been undertaken. A response had been received on 8 June 2009 confirming that the Director, Trunk Roads Network Management, had no objections and did not propose to advise against the granting of permission.
The Chairman outlined the procedure for considering the application and reminded Members that discussion should be confined to the application before them – reference should not be made to issues relating to a separate, pending application to be considered by the PARC at its next meeting.
With reference to a PowerPoint presentation showing the location of the premises, the roads, proximity of residential properties, the appearance of the building and the layout of the site, the Planning Officer summarised the report, drawing attention to a number of points including:
• the premises had existing planning permission to handle recyclates; the ~
application was to extend this to allow the handling of 30,000 household waste
• the premises was situated in the Cromarty Firth Industrial Park
• the proposals were in accordance with the land use identified in the Local Plan
• there were no objections from (a) the Scottish Environment Protection
Agency (SEPA), (b) the Council’s Transport, Environmental and Community
Services (TECS) Service, or (c) Transport Scotland
• no individual third party objections had been received; the only objection
received had been from Invergordon Community Council, who were
concerned about increased traffic movements, particularly at the A9 junction
at Tomich
• at most, the extended use would result in an additional 13 lorries per day,
the actual figure was likely to be below this level, the facility providing a
contingency option rather than being a main handling site
• the Council was seeking to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and
increase recycling.
The application was therefore recommended for approval.
The Chairman then called on Ms M Smith, as the mover of the successful PARC motion, to speak. Ms Smith made a number of points, including that:
• local democracy should be respected and the decision of the CSER PARC
should not be called into question
• she had received 256 letters and a petition objecting to the application
• the CSER PARC had fully considered issues relating to the Tomich junction
and the image of Invergordon
• safety was the most important factor – the turning lane at Tomich could only
accommodate one lorry and one car; any further vehicles wishing to turn off
the A9 had to remain on the carriageway, forming a hazard to vehicles
heading north
• 26 additional lorries per day would exacerbate this situation
• there were conflicting professional opinions as to the safety of the junction
• the community was working hard to improve the image of Invergordon,
which had previously accommodated an Aluminium smelter and an MOD tank
farm and had suffered contamination from these
• tourism was important to Invergordon and the application would give a
negative impression, particularly to cruise liner passengers.
The Chairman invited the other Ward Members present who had supported the PARC decision to give their views. Members emphasised the importance of local democracy, the community efforts to uplift the town and the problems at Tomich junction. Clarity was sought as to the anticipated vehicle movements which were likely to arise from the development.
The Chairman then called Mr J Laing, a signatory to the Notice of Amendment and Chairman of the TECS Committee, to speak. He highlighted the relevant features of the Council’s waste policy and highlighted the successful and acceptable current operation of the facility.
The Chairman also called on local Ward Member, Mrs C Wilson, and CSER PARC Chairman, Mr D Mackay, who were both signatories to the Notice of Amendment, to speak. Mrs Wilson revealed that she had been subjected to abuse and threats because of signing the Notice of Amendment and expressed concern as to whether the current proposal was properly understood by the local community or was being associated in error with another application still to come before the CSER PARC. She also expressed concern that suggesting that the Tomich junction could not cope with an increase in commercial traffic would blight further development in Invergordon and so was not in local interests.
Mr Mackay expressed the view that the current proposal would not make a radical difference to the current operation of the facility and indicated his confidence in Officers’ professional advice.
In wider discussion, a range of comments were expressed. The Convener emphasised the application’s fit with planning policies. Much discussion focused on the perceived safety issues at the Tomich junction and further reference was also made to the tourism image of Invergordon.
After discussion, Ms M Smith, seconded by Mr M Rattray, MOVED that the decision of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee be upheld and that, accordingly, the application be refused on the grounds of (i) safety, due to the inadequacy of the Tomich junction off the A9 leading towards Invergordon, and (ii) the adverse impact of the development on the amenity of the surrounding area, due to increased traffic movements and the potential nuisance from the activities involved.
As an AMENDMENT, the Convener, seconded by Mr D MacKay, moved that the application be approved as recommended in the report.
Clarification was given at this point that, in order to participate in the vote, Members must have been in attendance throughout the whole of the item.
On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 10 votes and the AMENDMENT received 9 votes, with no abstentions. The MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:
For the Motion:
Mrs M Smith; Mr G Farlow; Mr M Rattray; Mr D Fallows; Mr I Brown Mr M Finlayson; Mr B Clark; Mr D Hendry; Mr R Durham; Mr A Torrance
For the Amendment:
Mr A S Park; Mr D Henderson; Mr D MacKay; Mrs I McCallum; Mr B Barclay; Mr T Prag; Mrs H Carmichael; Mrs C Wilson; Mr J Gray
Decision:
The Committee AGREED to uphold the CSER PARC decision to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds of (i) safety, due to the inadequacy of the Tomich junction off the A9 leading towards Invergordon, and (ii) the adverse impact of the development on the amenity of the surrounding area, due to increased traffic movements and potential nuisance from the activities involved.
5. Revenue Expenditure Outturn 2008/09 and Monitoring 2009/10
There had been circulated for noting Report No. ped-51-09 dated 31 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the final outturn/variance for Revenue Expenditure for 2008/09, the revenue monitoring position for the three month period to 30 June 2009 and the projected year end position for 2009/10.
During discussion, the Director of Planning and Development advised that a report on the way in which Planning and Development services were funded, including reference to varying activity and fee income levels, would be presented to the Committee at its meeting on 23 September 2009.
In response to a question, the Head of Planning and Building Standards advised that the Council was eligible to recoup costs on Public Local Inquiries if any parties acted unreasonably.
The Committee NOTED:-
i. the Planning and Development Revenue Budget Outturn Statement for
2008/09;
ii. the monitoring report to end of June 2009;
iii. that a report be brought to the September Committee on the way in which
the Planning and Development fee income is currently incorporated in the
overall service budget and its link to activity levels; and
iv. that the wording at Paragraph 2.1 should read “January 2009”.
The Committee also AGREED the management action being taken to bring the budget in on target.
6. Capital Expenditure Outturn 2008/09 and Monitoring 2009/10,
including Vacant and Derelict Land Fund
There had been circulated Report No. ped-52-09 dated 28 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the variance/outturn for the Year 2008/09 Capital Programme, the expenditure and income for the three month period to 30 June 2009 and the projected year end position for 2009/10. The report also showed progress with projects under the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund (VDLF). As a correction to the report, it was confirmed that Bone Mill, High Street, as referred to in Appendix 1, should read “Invergordon”.
During discussion, the Economy and Regeneration Manager confirmed that he would provide information to Members after the meeting relating to Victoria Walk, Thurso; Watten Gateways; and Bone Mill and surrounding site, Invergordon.
The Committee NOTED the terms of the report as circulated and APPROVED the re-allocation of Capital Programme funds to Dunnet Pavilion as per Paragraph 2.6 of the report.
The Committee also NOTED that the Economy and Regeneration Manager would provide information to appropriate Members after the meeting relating to:
• Victoria Walk, Thurso
• progress with Watten Gateways
• status of development options for the Bone Mill and surrounding site, Invergordon.
7. Audit Scotland Statutory Performance Indicators – First Quarterly
Review 2009/10
There had been circulated Report No. ped-53-09 dated 4 August 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development advising as to the delivery of the Development Management, Building Standards and Development Plan services for the first quarter of 2009/10, with comparative figures for previous years. The Development Management and Development Plan figures were statutory performance returns to Audit Scotland. The Building Standards returns were no longer statutory but had proved to be a useful management tool to assess the Service’s performance.
The Head of Planning and Building Standards drew attention to the main points in the report, including that numbers of applications for planning permission and building warrants and income from planning applications were down. Whilst there had been an improvement in Development Management performance, the number of applications determined in the first quarter of 2009/10 had reduced by 17.9% from the same period in 2008/09. However, the number of completion certificates granted had risen by 16%, perhaps because a number of householders/businesses were improving or extending property rather than purchasing new properties at a time of difficulty with property sales or mortgage funding.
Responding to concerns regarding the current level of vacancies in Planning and Building Standards, the Head of Planning and Building Standards advised that the next quarterly review report would provide details of vacant * and frozen posts.
(*Agreed by Highland Council 3 September 2009)
Responding to concerns that the non-householder applications were lagging behind in numbers compared to other applications, he advised that, in many instances, non-householder applications were more complex and took longer to process, and, where applications were recommended for refusal, they required Committee referral, and so were subject to delay while awaiting a Committee meeting.
The Committee NOTED:-
i. the continued impact of the recession with a further decline in planning
applications, building warrants and fee income;
ii. the improved performance in determining planning applications and building
warrants; and
iii. that the next quarterly review report would provide detail on vacant * and frozen posts.
(*Agreed by Highland Council 3 September 2009)
8. Highland-wide Local Development Plan – Main Issues Report
There had been circulated Report No. ped-54-09 dated 4 August 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development on the Main Issues Report for the Highland-wide Local Development Plan which had been circulated separately as Booklet A and represented a major first step in the preparation of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan which was a key part of the Council’s Programme and was being brought forward as part of a pilot project with the Scottish Government. The Plan would enhance the conditions for balanced and sustainable economic growth for Highland Communities.
The Main Issues Report highlighted the major development issues facing the Highlands and set out a number of options for how these would be dealt with in the Local Development Plan. It also highlighted where the Council sought help from members of the public, the development industry, key agencies and other interests to work out the best way forward.
During discussion, Members requested that any minor, non-material changes to the document (such as typographical errors) be agreed with the Chairman prior to publication of the document and suggested that the following comments be incorporated into the Main Issues Report:
• mention be made of telecommunications in relation to “competitive,
sustainable and adaptable Highland economy”
• fragile areas be flagged up
• the 5% potential increase in delivery of affordable housing be also given as a figure
• a question box asking what hours people would like to see for ferry
operations be added
• a question box be added asking whether people wanted to see Highland
Council facilitating community control of land.
The Committee AGREED:-
i. that the Main Issues Report be made available for public consultation from
31 August 2009;
ii. that a report be brought back to the Committee setting out the findings of
the public consultation and bringing forward the Proposed Highland-wide
Local Development Plan; and
iii. that any minor, non-material changes to the document (such as
typographical errors) be agreed with the Chairman prior to publication of
the document.
9. Highland Coastal Development Strategy – Consultation Draft
There had been circulated Report No. ped-55-09 dated 4 August 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development providing an outline of the draft Highland Coastal Development Strategy. The Draft Highland Coastal Development Strategy highlighted the potential issues and opportunities surrounding coastal development and classified the Highland coast into one of 3 categories: Developed, Undeveloped or Isolated. It also sub-divided the Highland coast into 3 areas - East, North and West - and provided more detailed information on the issues and opportunities for each. It was intended that the Coastal Development Strategy would become supplementary guidance incorporated within the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.
During discussion, it was suggested that place names on Map 6 be revisited to identify larger settlements and that any minor, non-material changes to the document (such as typographical errors) should be agreed with the Chairman prior to publication of the document.
Members were advised to submit any further comments on the Strategy to the Director of Planning and Development prior to publication.
The Committee APPROVED the Draft Strategy for public consultation commencing in Aug 2009 alongside consultation on the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, subject to place names on Map 6 being revisited to identify larger settlements.
The Committee also AGREED:-
i. that any further comments on the Strategy should be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Development prior to publication; and
ii. that any minor, non-material changes to the document (such as
typographical errors) should be agreed with the Chairman prior to publication
of the document.
10. Housing in the Countryside – Interim Guidance
Members were reminded that the outcomes of the Housing in the Countryside Policy Review Working Group had been reported to the Committee at the meeting on 18 March 2009, when Members had been presented with a revised draft interim guidance that incorporated changes to the existing Housing in the Countryside guidance, and that it had been agreed that this draft interim guidance policy should be issued for public consultation.
In this regard, there had been circulated Report No. ped-56-09 Development detailing the comments received during the consultation and setting out recommended changes.
In speaking to the report, the Development Plans Manager advised that, whilst the consultation had produced sizeable support for the proposed amendments to the policy, some respondents had expressed concern that the revised policy would be too liberal and, as such, a backward step. He also expressed regret that it had not been possible to finalise the proposed Siting and Design Guidance which would be key to the successful operation of the revised policy.
During discussion, Members generally expressed their support for the proposed changes and commented that the previous policy had been too restrictive. Whilst Members did not wish to foster the urbanisation of the countryside, they recognised that there was increasing demand to live and work there. Discussion focused in particular on the draft policy’s provisions in relation to development associated with agriculture (Paragraph 3.21 of the report) or business (Paragraph 3.27) and the wording used in relation to the Council’s requirement to provide evidence of such need.
Perceived greater flexibility in defining settlement boundaries was welcomed, although the Development Plans Manager drew attention to the relevant provisions of the Highland Wide Development Plan Main Issues Report (Item 8 above refers), which maintained a restrictive approach in the area immediately surrounding settlements. He also supported Member comments that effective staff training in implementing the new policy would be important, whilst emphasising that the degree of flexibility now being proposed did not augur a “free for all” approach.
Following discussion, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr D Henderson, MOVED that the wording of point “e” in Paragraphs 3.21 (p. 50) and 3.27 (p. 51) of the report should stand.
As an AMENDMENT, Mr R Durham, seconded by Mr B Barclay, moved that the wording of point “e” in Paragraphs 3.21 (p. 50) and 3.27 (p. 51) of the report should be amended to read: “Evidence of why it is necessary to the business that accommodation is actually needed on site”.
On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 5 votes and the AMENDMENT received 7 votes, with 2 abstentions. The AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:
For the Motion:
Mr D Mackay; Mr T Prag; Mr W MacKay; Mr D Fallows; Mr D Henderson
For the Amendment:
Mr M Rattray; Mr B Barclay; Mr R Durham; Mrs I McCallum; Mr A Torrance; Mrs H Carmichael; Mr I Brown
Abstentions:
Mr G Farlow; Mr D Hendry
Decision:
The Committee AGREED the interim planning policy set out in Appendix 1 to the report as interim guidance, with a further review of hinterland boundaries to be undertaken as part of the preparation of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, subject to incorporation of the following comments made by Members at the meeting:
• that, in Paragraph 3.24, (p.51), the words “ * unless there is no alternative”
be included after “the better land of the croft”
• that the wording of point “e” in Paragraphs 3.21 (p. 50) and 3.27 (p.51) of
the report be amended to read: “Evidence of why it is necessary to the
business that accommodation is actually needed on site”.
(*Agreed by Highland Council 3 September 2009)
11. Developer Contributions for Education Provision: Supplementary Guidance
There had been circulated Report No. ped-57-09 dated 27 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that, following a public consultation in May and June 2009, adjustments had been made to the consultation version of the supplementary guidance on Developer Contributions for Education Provision which had been brought before the Committee in March 2009.
The report contributed to the Council’s Programme to work with the Scottish Government, local partners and the private sector to enable 6,000 new houses, with appropriate amenities, to be built in the Highlands between 2007/08 and 2010/11.
In speaking to the report, the Development Plans Manager advised that, due to confusion regarding affordable housing contributing to education provision under this policy, the wording in the guidance had been amended to clarify that, to ensure that the Council’s target of enabling 2,000 new affordable houses to be built between 2007/08 and 2010/11 was not compromised, “developer contributions required under this guidance” would not be applied to affordable housing developments delivered by Registered Social Landlords.
The Committee NOTED the amended wording within the guidance and AGREED:
i. to adopt the updated supplementary guidance for use as a material
planning consideration in the determination of planning applications;
ii. that the recommendations for implementing the supplementary guidance
be carried out; and
iii. that the guidance be brought back to the Committee to be re-adopted as
part of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan at the appropriate time.
12. Business Gateway Performance Report – First Quarter 2009/10
Declarations of Interest:
Mrs I McCallum, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr D Hendry, Mr J Gray, Mr D Henderson and Mr I Brown declared non-financial interests in this item as Directors of Highland Opportunity Limited 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 ped-58-09 dated 31 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development which provided an update on the performance of the Business Gateway contract with Highland Opportunity Ltd and sought consideration of the establishment of a grant scheme to encourage and assist new business starts.
The delivery of the Business Gateway contract and introduction of the complementary grant scheme was directly supportive of the Council’s Single Outcome Agreement commitment to create “a competitive, sustainable and adaptable Highland economy”.
In speaking to the report, the Economy and Regeneration Manager confirmed that, although complete statistics were not yet available, experience had shown that the Business Gateway service had had a successful operational start in both the Highland Council and Moray Council areas. He advised that the service would be formally launched in the near future by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and outlined proposals for Highland Opportunity Limited to establish a new discretionary grant scheme for new business start-ups, which it was hoped would draw on LEADER Programme funding.
After discussion, the Committee NOTED the successful commencement of the Business Gateway service and APPROVED a contribution of £150,000 towards the establishment of a Business Start-up grant scheme, to be administered by Highland Opportunity Ltd as part of its Business Gateway contract.
The Committee also AGREED that the Director of Planning and Development, in consultation with the Chairman, should be authorised to agree with Highland Opportunity Ltd the details of the grant scheme.
13. Highland Employer Coalition
Declarations of Interest:
Mrs I McCallum, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr D Hendry, Mr J Gray, Mr D Henderson and Mr I Brown declared non-financial interests in this item as Directors of Highland Opportunity Limited 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. ped-59-09 dated 30 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining a request for the Council to facilitate the transfer of the Highland Employer Coalition (HEC) from Working Ventures UK (Department of Work and Pensions) to Highland Opportunity Ltd (HOL).
In speaking to the report, the Economy and Regeneration Manager clarified the technical difficulties which inhibited a direct contractual arrangement between the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and HOL and the Council’s role in overcoming these difficulties by facilitating the transfer. He also highlighted the strategic fit which the proposal would create with HOL’s Business Gateway role in particular.
In response to concerns that the report appeared to envisage that the arrangement might come to an end in 2011 and the Coalition would be wound up at that point if it could not identify alternative funding options, it was confirmed that reference to this possibility had been designed to protect the interests of HOL and the Council by ensuring that there was no obligation to continue to host the Coalition beyond that point if it was deemed inappropriate. However, the position would be assessed at that time.
After discussion, the Committee APPROVED the proposal to enter into an agreement with the Department of Work and Pensions and, in turn, a contract with Highland Opportunity Ltd to facilitate the transfer of the Highland Employer Coalition from Working Ventures UK to Highland Opportunity Ltd.
14. Town Centre Regeneration Fund
There had been circulated Report No. ped-60-09 dated 31 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development providing information on the first round of Town Centre Regeneration Fund applications submitted by the Council and providing an update on the current position in respect of second round applications.
In speaking to the report, the Economy and Regeneration Manager advised that Dingwall had been awarded £463,000 under the Town Centre Regeneration Fund; however, he expressed his disappointment that no grants had been awarded to other applications. It was also confirmed that the deadline for the second round of applications had been put back to 28 August 2009 and a decision on successful applicants was expected in October 2009.
The Committee NOTED that Dingwall had been awarded £463,000 under the scheme and AGREED:-
i. that the Director of Planning and Development, in consultation with the
Convener, Leader of the Council’s Administration and Chairman of the
Committee, should submit an application (or applications) for the Town
Centre Regeneration Fund by the 21 August 2009 deadline and determine
which other applications, to be made by others, should be supported; and
ii. that a further report be presented to the Committee on 23 September
2009 on any second round application(s).
15. Drumnadrochit Futures and Allanmore-Pitkerald Development Brief
There had been circulated Report No. ped-61-09 dated 22 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development summarising work carried out to date on Drumnadrochit Futures: A Vision 2030 and the Draft Allanmore-Pitkerrald Development Brief. It was confirmed that work which had been carried out on these documents would be carried forward through the production of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan.
The Committee AGREED:-
i. that no further work should be carried out on the draft Allanmore-Pitkerrald
Development Brief in the short term; and
ii. that the work from both Drumnadrochit Futures: A Vision 2030 and draft
Allanmore Pitkerrald Development Brief should be carried forward into the
production of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan.
16. Highland Economic Forum
At its meeting held on 21 January 2009, the Committee had agreed that the Minutes of Meetings of the Highland Economic Forum, and any matters arising for consideration, should be reported.
There had been circulated Report No. ped-62-09 dated 28 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development informing Members of the outcomes of the second meeting of the Highland Economic Forum which had been held in Inverness on 26 May 2009.
During discussion, disappointment was expressed at the limit imposed on Highland Council representation at the Economic Forum and it was suggested that there should be broader cross-party representation on the Forum.
The Committee NOTED:-
i. progress with the development of the Highland Economic Forum; and
ii. comments made at the meeting regarding the desirability of increasing the
Council’s representation on the Forum to provide broader cross-party
representation.
17. MIPIM Property Conference – Feedback from 2009 Attendance
As agreed at the meeting on 21 January 2009, there had been circulated Report No. ped-63-09 dated 31 July 2009 by the Director of Planning and Development on the MIPIM (Marché International Des Professionnels de l’Immobilier – the International Market for Property Professionals) Conference which had been held in March 2009.
The Committee NOTED the terms of the report as circulated and AGREED that a further report should be brought to a future meeting on attendance at MIPIM 2010, following discussions with Highlands & Islands Enterprise and private sector developers.
The meeting ended at 3.35 p.m.