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