From 8 to 3 Options; Courier reports working group meet outcomes

A PREFERRED route for taking the Inverness bypass over the River Ness and Caledonian Canal has been whittled down to three options.

A working group of 15 councillors met in private this morning to consider the findings of a consultation into eight options for the route, which will link the Southern Distributor Road with the A82.

However, at the end of the meeting, no decision had been made on a preferred route - although options two, three, four, five and eight were ruled out.

Further information has been requested on options one, six and seven - the high-level bridge and the public's preferred route.

However, before that, the outcome of the consultation and the options will be discussed at a meeting of Inverness City Committee on 13th February.

This meeting is open to the public.

The working group will meet again on 17th February.

After that a recommendation will be made to a meeting of the full council for approval.

The options range in cost from £23.5 million to £75.5 million. Controversially, several would cross Whin Park, Torvean Golf Club and Highland Rugby Club's pitches.

A public consultation on the options attracted 400 responses. Link here

"What the Reporter Said" A short series of highlights

Introducing a short series of quoted paragraphs taken from the HwLDP Examination Report

Highlight 1

The Reporter Stated:


16. The Council has made it clear it has no intention of adopting the A96 Growth Corridor
Development Framework as supplementary guidance. It was accepted at the hearing that whilst it remains in place as background information, the statutory role is that of the Highland–wide plan, which incorporates the necessary elements of the framework. The latter has played its part and effectively become part of the planning history of the area.


I would welcome further suggestions for Report Highlights

Route Options for A96 Alignment / Nairn Bypass; public consultation work begins

From THC web Press Release here

Consultation Events for A96 Improvements and the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan (24/01/12)

Transport Scotland has begun a public consultation process on a number of route alignment options for improving the A96 between the A9 at Inshes and Auldearn including a bypass of Nairn. 
Two public exhibitions have been arranged at the Court House, Nairn on Monday 6th February (2-7pm) and Balloch Community Hall on Tuesday 7th February (also 2-7pm) at which interested members of the public can view the displayed route options. 
Respresentatives from Transport Scotland, along with their Design Consultants URS, will be on hand to discuss the proposals.  Comments have been invited by Transport Scotland on their options between 6th February 2012 and 31st March 2012.   Further details are provided on the Transport Scotland web-site at www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/projects/A96-Inshes-to-Nairn.  These are long term proposals and are separate from recent planning decisions taken in East Inverness at the Beechwood Campus and Stratton.

Anyone wishing more information on the project should contact Major Transport Infrastructure Projects (MTRIPS), Transport Scotland, Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow, G4 0HF.  Telephone: 0141 272 7100
A96InshestoNairn@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk

The consultation events will also allow people the opportunity to view initial work carried out by The Highland Council’s Development Plans team on the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan, which was agreed by the Planning Environment and Development Committee on 18th January 2012. 
Although the consultation on the plan and the route options are separate, there are close linkages between development proposals and the long term strategic transport improvements being put forward by Transport Scotland.  The choice of routes will have important implications for the planning of the A96 corridor, which the Council has earmarked for significant growth. Accordingly, planning officials will also be available at the same venues to explain how trunk road and planning issues overlap. 

What's been 'thrown out' and what is 'up for grabs'?

The Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan  - Main Issues Report


Don't Panic folks! This is just a draft of the 'Main Issues Report' that went to PED Committee this week so that councillors can have a gander at it and note the proposed consultation arrangements.

Why not find out what is planned by listening to the web cast of the Planning Environment and Development meeting, agenda item 9, at the link here

Planner Mr Stott gave brief presentation and councillors raised questions and congratulated officers for the hard work.

So, in that presentation for the IMFLDP, Main Issues Report, what development was described as having been, 'thrown out'?


What is described as 'up for grabs'?


What  very interesting comments did Councillor Chisholm make?


Hear Councillor Gray express the view that he feels that sometimes officers need patience when dealing with members of the public.


Hear that the 'Proposed Plan' stage will have getting on for a 1000 sites so there will be a lot of neighbour notification; mmm?  Interesting comment given some  earlier statements in the presentation about not prejudging the outcomes of the consultation on the MIR.


Listen as Mr Stott talks about 'mixed use' sites.


However, in a response to a question from Councillor Chisholm, Mr Stott also said that the Reporters' conclusions were that they didn't think the '25% rule' worked and they (Reporters') did not back it in any way through the HwLDP; mmm, that was not my precise interpretation I will go back and check on exactly what the Reporters said and update this post.


In the meantime, back to basics, why not check out this brief and interesting power point presentation on the nature and purpose of Main Issues Reports click here


As always your views on this would be welcome


Update as promised

My understanding is that the assigned Reporter was, given the limits of his remit, only able to consider this ‘25% rule’ or ‘25% policy’ (or anything else for that matter) in so far as it had been presented as part of the written submissions to the HwLDP.  In this respect representors lobbied to have this rule still applied to development in the main smaller settlements in the A96 Corridor, namely Ardersier, Cawdor and Croy.  The Reporter noted the following:

14. Regarding the “25% in ten years” limit, I find that this is a general policy which applies to a variety of communities – local centres, key villages and small settlements – across a wide area. The A96 corridor is distinct from this because it has been identified as a growth area. My conclusion is that the 25% limit need not be retained in the A96 corridor.

As far as I can find through a document search on the examination report, this is the most comprehensive and clear reference that the Reporter makes re this rule.

Of course, what I cannot understand is the role that the Strategic Environmental Assessment work done for the A96 Corridor Masterplan played.

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2D4B1D7F-BC9A-40CA-803F-9DA06CC5CB52/0/A96SEAEnvRprtJF310107.PDF

The SEA for the A96 corridor, which was presented for consultation at the same time as the masterplan work in March 2007 noted that:

7.4.5 Expansion of several existing Corridor villages is a key component of the draft Masterplan – these are identified as Culloden Moor, Croy, Ardersier, Cawdor and Auldearn. Each of these communities has the benefit of existing Local Plan land allocations for residential and community uses. These commitments comprise almost 500 additional dwellings, with capacity for up to 1000 additional residents overall.

7.4.6 Any proposals to increase or amend these allocations will need to respect Highland Council guidelines controlling the margin of expansion to no greater than +25% during any ten year period, and should undergo full public consultation in 2007.

Much is made that the A96 Framework was approved in 2007.  But the ‘approval’ took place over two committees with the main ‘approval’ (of the work carried out as part of the A96 Masterplanning) done in March and the approval of the ‘Framework’ document –the Framework document was to be merely a ‘concise strategy document’ based on what had been approved in March and was not in itself subject to any separate public scrutiny or consultation – done in September.

In March, the appendix to the committee report noted that:

6.2 Cawdor is already recognised in the Strategy as a key village capable of expansion. There is an existing stock of zoned land and planning consents here. Given its special built conservation value, any additional proposals will need to pay particular attention to the heritage considerations, and will require to be progressed through the formal development plan process. The rate of development should respect the threshold of a maximum 25% housing increase in any given ten year period. Development will be liable to the developer contributions framework.

Highland planning decided that it wanted to jettison the 25% rule at some point after these commitments were made.

The Reporters can only look at the facts through the HwLDP issues, they cannot delve further into the A96 Corridor as Supplementary Guidance that is not within their remit

No real joy as yet from my letter to Minister

The latest correspondence with the Scottish Government further to my email to the Minister:

From APTSec

Wed 04/01/2012 14:41

Hello

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me this afternoon.

I have attached the correspondence to the Reporters’ unit as promised.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Wed 18/01/2012 12:30

Good afternoon

I was just wondering how you were getting on since I had not heard from you.  I hope that you have not been unwell?

Thu 19/01/2012 16:47

Good afternoon

I have just become aware of a consultation re ‘Administrative Decisions made by Public Bodies in Scotland…’  I am told that comments on the attached discussion paper are due in by the end of January 2012.  I am looking into the possibility of submitting our experiences re having issues but there being no effective mechanism by which our problems could be addressed other than through the courts.  Do you think that this particular consultation would benefit from access to our experiences?

From Scottish Gov

Hi 

First of all apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

Having spoken to x, it would seem that there are no further avenues open to you to make representations in respect of the development plan process. However as we discussed, the Scottish Government are always keen to receive views on experiences of the planning system, and more generally on the operation of government and local government, and how we can improve it.

I would certainly encourage you to submit your views to this consultation.

You may also wish to note that Planning Aid for Scotland have recently produced a booklet  Planning for Community Developments which while primarily aimed at people looking to submit an application, provides information on how the public can be involved in planning decisions. I attach a copy for interest.

David

So more work to do then but I cannot help but feel that we are not getting anywhere.

Has anyone else who wrote to the Government received any feedback?

How did you feel about it?

New North South Planning Chairmen appointed

The Highland Council has appointed chairmen to its two new area Planning Applications Committees.

Councillor David Chisholm, Dingwall and Seaforth, is Chairman of the North PAC, Vice-Chairman is Councillor Audrey Sinclair, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh.

Councillor Bob Wynd, Inverness South, is Chairman of the South Committee, Vice-Chairman is Councillor David Fallows, Badenoch and Strathspey.

link here

'No' to Windfarm

The Highland Council’s South Planning Application Committee members turned down an application for a 31 turbine wind farm on land at Dunachton, Alvie and Dalraddy Estates to the North West of Kincraig. 

The proposed development, know as Allt Duine, was lodged by RWE Npower Renewables Limited.

This morning Members of the Committee were taken on a site visit before reconvening in Inverness to debate the application.

Following the debate, Vice Chairman and local Councillor Dave Fallows moved an amendment that the Council should object to the application on the grounds of the proximity to the Cairngorm National Park, the significant detriment to the landscape of the Monadhliath mountain range and the emerging Draft Highland Renewable Energy Strategy. 

Councillor Thomas Prag moved an amendment to support the officer recommendation to approve the application.  This was defeated 3 votes to 9.

Link here

Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan – Approval of Main Issues Report and Draft for Consultation

Latest Planning, Environment and Development Committee Agenda

http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/committees/strategiccommittees/planningenvironmentanddevelopmentcommittee/2012-01-18-ped-ag.htm

Lots of interesting items including

9. Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan – Approval of Main Issues Report and Draft for Consultation

There is circulated Report No.PED-7-12 (76kb pdf) ated 10 January 2012 by the Director of Planning and Development seting out the content of the first, statutory draft of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan - the Main Issues Report.  The Main Issues Report (Appendix 1(1)(1643kb pdf) | Apendix 1(2) (2293kb pdf)) is circulated separately.  A colour version will be available in the Members’ library and on the Council’s website.  Electronic copies of individual maps can be requested from the Planning and Development Service.  The document can also be accessed via the Planning and Development website here.

The Committee is asked to:

i. approve Appendix 1 (Booklet A) as the material content of the Inner Moray
   Firth Local Development Plan: Main Issues Report; and
ii. note the proposed consultation arrangements as outlined in the report and
   at Appendix 2.

Click on the links to find out what local development Highland Council is considering supporting in the Inner Moray Firth

(Appendix 1(1)(1643kb pdf) | Apendix 1(2) (2293kb pdf))

Deadline Looms for Road Option consultation

Inverness Courier reports


"THE deadline for feedback on the options for the route of the Inverness bypass is looming."

Having reported on the issue so many times surely the Courier should know by now that this is not a bypass, it is a distributor road which will carry an element of 'through traffic' - estimated, according to THC to be around 20%.

The article states:

Highland Council transport committee chairman John Laing is urging people with a view on the multi-million pound plans to link Dores Road with the A82 via a crossing over the River Ness and Caledonian Canal to submit their thoughts before the consultation ends.

And quotes Councillor Laing as saying:

“It is absolutely vital that people who have an interest in it and the on-going future of Inverness make their views known.

“The deadline is close of play on Monday, but if representations arrive on Tuesday we won’t ignore them.”

Court Challenge on Plan Policies supporting Aviemore settlement

From 'Planning' here

"The Cairngorms Campaign, the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group are seeking to overturn policies in the Cairngorms National Park Local Plan supporting a new settlement of up to 1,500 homes at An Camas Mor, near Aviemore, and smaller allocations at Nethy Bridge, Carrbridge and Kingussie.

The groups argue that these developments "would cause unacceptable damage to the national park and are contrary to the first aim of the park, namely to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area".

Planning permission in principle for the An Camas Mor scheme was issued in June 2010 and the local plan was adopted in October 2010. The scheme is being promoted by landowner the Rothiemurchus Estate.

The national park authority argues that the principle of development at the site was established in the 1990 Highland Structure Plan and that the scheme will meet long-term growth needs in the Badenoch and Strathspey area.

The court hearing is scheduled to last until Friday."

Proposals for Capped Fees in Planning Disputes

From 'Planning' 

http://www.planningresource.net/Development_Control/article/1111602/scottish-government-proposes-capping-legal-fees-planning-disputes/

The Scottish Government has proposed introducing caps on the legal fees associated with challenges to planning decisions.

Under the proposals, protective expenses orders (PEO) would be introduced that would limit the liability of a petitioner, or applicant, to £5,000 when paying a respondent’s costs, while limiting the liability of the respondent to £30,000 when paying the petitioner's costs.

The Scottish Government said PEOs were designed to ensure "access to justice" in planning disputes, while discouraging spurious challenges that could cause unnecessary delay to projects of strategic national importance.

Minister for community safety and legal affairs Roseanna Cunningham said: "The Scottish Government is committed to affordable access to justice in cases of importance, including where environmental issues are at stake."

"Challenges to these decisions can, however, have significant impacts on the economy. We are determined to ensure that major planning and infrastructure decisions are not unreasonably delayed. The proposals we are consulting upon therefore seek to achieve a fair balance between the costs to persons wishing to challenge these decisions and the potential implications for economic development."

The consultation on the proposed PEOs closes on 3 April.

For more information on the consultation, click here

So much to do; so little motivation

APTSec has reached something of a crisis point.

I find myself sitting at my computer knowing that I have so much work to do with respect to planning matters but not having the mental or emotional energy to tackle it.  The deadlines are looming and I cannot summon up the will; I find myself wondering just what the point of continued participation is.  The constant rejection by and poor quality experience of working within the planning system has taken its toll it seems; it is acting as a mental block to my continued participation, the participation which, we are continually advised, is so valued in the planning process.

It seems that over the last 5 years of concentrated effort we have tried and tried to express our discontent regarding the lack of meaningful engagement in the process; to no avail it seems.  No wonder people lose interest in the planning system.

I tried to distance myself from planning matters over the festive period in order to recharge the batteries and to be fairer to the family, but the batteries are still empty.  I know I should pull myself together and just get cracking, there is still a little time, but that is easier said than done.

 

Perhaps the Scottish Parliament should take a look at this

A few quotes from a very thought provoking report from the 'think tank' the 'Institute of Public Policy Research'.  If you agree with what is being put forward in the 'IPPR' report then it would seem (after a very quick read through) that whilst the main political parties in Scotland are set to support lots of land release if there is not an 'open' structure in the building industry the nation will still not provide the range of affordable, good quality homes that are needed. 


What do you think?  Are land costs too high here?  Is the Scottish building industry dominated by too few key players to the detriment of delivery?


Quotes from the IPPR Report:


"During the 1960s, the top 10 housing companies had eight to nine per cent of market share. In the 1970s, the top 10 housebuilders by market share rose to approximately 17 per cent in 1973. There then followed two recessionary periods of major consolidation. In the first post-recessionary period after 1974, the share of the top 10 builders went from 17 per cent in 1973 to 28 per cent in 1980. In the 1990s, the market share of the top 10 major housebuilders rose from 27 per cent in the late 1980s to 47 per cent in 2002. Both periods coincided with a significant shake-out of smaller players within the industry ."


"The falling size of new British homes occurs alongside a poor r ecord on product, innovation and design. The housing minister recently criticised UK housebuilders for producing an ‘identikit Legoland box’.12 The Barker report found that ‘housebuilders have little incentive to compete for consumers’ and have a ‘weak record of innovation’ (Barker 2003). While the leading academic on the sector notes that ‘British house[ ]building has
an exceptionally poor record at introducing innovation in design and production methods’ (Ball 1999, see also Neale 2009)."

"What is particularly interesting from a UK perspective is the example of the Netherlands, where a restrictive planning system and a highly populated country still manages to deliver large homes. Poor UK delivery cannot be entirely explained by population pressures and a tight planning regime.

"The UK house building sector also suf fers from a lack of economic resilience, which is highly striking when considered in an international context. This lack of resilience is not just a problem for the rates of UK house building, it is also a source of macroeconomic instability for the UK economy as a whole (OECD 2011b)."


"The drop in land values hit balance sheets hard. Under UK accounting rules, land values have to be written down immediately. In 2008 and 2009, large losses impacted on all of the major builders."


"The politics of local authorities make most reluctant to prioritise housing development, as 

anti-housing groups have greater clout at the ballot box than the more dispersed interests 

of those who need housing.83 Local authorities will be required to use need assessments 

to calculate their housing plans, but these assessments under estimate housing need, 

particularly in high demand housing markets. Local authorities are therefore likely to

release limited amounts of new land for house building, and only in order to satisfy central

government pressure. This will almost certainly be land that was likely to be designated as  

planning land over a short to medium time frame."

And the conclusion?


That the building sector reform must "... insulate land based risk..."


Ways forward?



"Part of this vision must be diversification. We are at low point in an 80-year tr end of
industry consolidation. This has decreased both the sector’s performance and its
economic resilience. On simple arithmetical terms alone, relying on the top 10 UK builders
will not deliver the increase in housing we need."


"Greater transparency is also needed so that the benefits and costs of development, which
currently fall unevenly (with some who bear costs receiving no benefit and vice versa), can be discussed more openly. Too often communities are kept in the dark about what prices are being paid and who is gaining from what is perceived as the loss of an important communal good."


"Planning reform must release more land suitable for development (putting a downwards
pressure on land prices), but it must also deliver reform of developers via changing who
has access to this land and how it is utilised. This requires not just a greater release of
land, but also a structural change to how land release happens."

Leftovers from 2011

The start of a new year but there is still a little unfinished business from the old one.


If you recall a few weeks back (30 Nov2011) APTSec sent an email to the then Minister for Local Government and Planning, Aileen Campbell.  The main text went:

Dear Minister

We have been totally overwhelmed by our experiences of planning over the last few years.  One of our members was in touch with PAS recently and Mr David Wood at PAS mentioned that you were keen to find out how the new planning act was performing.  For some time now we have felt that our input into the planning system is not meaningful and carries little weight.  The new planning reforms have not improved matters and in fact in our particular circumstances have made things worse. 

We desperately want to take a constructive part in the development of our community but feel marginalised and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the motivation to continue.  Please could you help us to find a way to restore our faith in the system and please could we send you a note of our experiences to date for your serious consideration.

I received the following reply on December 23rd  

Dear Mrs Stafford

Thank you for your e-mail of 30 November to the Minister for Local Government and Planning regarding your concerns about the planning system. I have been asked to respond.

 I am sorry that you feel disappointed with the system.

The Scottish Government are always keen to hear people’s views on the operation of the planning system.  We regularly run consultations on specific aspects of planning. Consultations can be viewed on the Scottish Government website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/publications/consult.

You can also subscribe to our e-alerts (http://register.scotland.gov.uk/Subscribe/Step1)

 to ensure that you are notified of planning news and developments, including details of consultations.

While consultations seek views on specific issues, we are always keen to hear from members of the public and interested community bodies about issues or concerns they may have with the planning system. Such views help to inform future work to improve the operation of the system. I would be very happy to speak to you or to consider any written concerns you may wish to raise.    

I hope this information is useful and look forward to hearing from you.

David  Reekie

Policy Manager

Planning Legislation & Performance

Area 2 J South

Victoria Quay

EH6 6QQ

I have arranged to speak to Mr Reekie in the New Year and I will keep the blog updated.

The Reporters final update on their HwLDP examination

'One final reporters progress update for December:'


"Reporters Monthly Progress Update for December 2011


The report was delivered to the council on 20 December, three week later than 
we had hoped, but within the Scottish Governments overall examination
targets. It has been a complex exercise, and whilst not everyone will be happy
with our recommendations, we hope that our conclusions will help the
understanding of our reasons for making them.


We would like to thank everyone who has taken part in the examination,
whether through sending a representation to the council, responding to our
requests for further information, or taking part in our two public hearings. As
one of the first plans and examinations to be prepared and conducted through
the new legislative system we have been at time feeling our way, but we hope
our report will provide positive direction for the council in what will be a
challenging time delivering its future development plan programme."


Original material here