It would seem to me that the Reporter was not prepared to give the appellants in this case the degree of freedom to develop that they were hoping for...
Links
The Reporter stated in the Decision Notice:
5. Section 25 of the Planning Act requires me to determine the appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Since the council determined the planning application, the development plan has changed. I consider that in making my decision I should consider the provisions of the current development plan. There was no dispute that this now consists of the Highland wide Local Development Plan (adopted April 2012) and the Inverness Local Plan (adopted March 2006).
(There then followed the Reporter's Reasoning - Decision Notice at link above)
44. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal does not comply with the policy and objectives of the development plan. Based on the information before me, I do not consider that there are any material considerations that are so compelling as to set aside the provisions of the development plan in this instance.
The Courier quoted Mr Sutherland of Inverness Estates - an Appellant - as saying:
"We are very disappointed that planning dogma has overridden a project to create almost 400 real jobs at a time when the city is crying out for them. The Scottish Government should be focusing on creating employment rather than their reporter failing to respond to the important issues relating to this site and letting the restaurant complex proceed. It was well recognmised that the local plan referred to was 10 years out of date and time has moved on.
My view -
I understand that the Planning System is there to balance competing and conflicting demands.
Within the system a Reporter is engaged to exercise planning judgement and those making an appeal may or may not agree with this judgement. It is up to all parties taking part to set out their stall of evidence so that the Reporter has the best quality of information upon which to make a decision.
The Reporter in this case seemed to me to be faced with a degree of uncertainty in terms of the evidence that had been placed (or not placed) before him by the parties involved in the appeal. For example he notes that:
2. It would appear that the appellant’s current intention is to develop the site as shown on the site layout plan and in the transport assessment. Nonetheless, the planning
permission would only be for this form of development if it were specified as such in any
planning conditions.
3. The proposal is therefore potentially for a much broader range of uses and I consider that needs to be taken into account when assessing the appeal.
13. I accept that it is a possible scenario that there are no suitable alternative sites elsewhere for a mixed use development, including class 3 uses. Also, that as the class 3
uses have been promoted because of the close relationship with the other uses at the retail park (including commercial leisure), the appeal site may be appropriate. However, I have been provided with insufficient information to demonstrate this is the case at the moment.
18. In relation to Policy 40, I consider that there is insufficient information to demonstrate
that there are no suitable sequentially preferable sites or that there is an acceptable impact
on the city centre or other centres.
33. I consider that there was limited design information before me. The appeal documents described the layout plan as illustrative and only showed uses, building
footprints and road layout. It did not show massing or provide any analysis as to how the proposal could create a sense of place or show how the proposal could integrate visually and functionally with existing and proposed development on adjoining land.
I disagree with the appellant that the submitted information is adequate and that there would be no need
for a master plan. I consider it is important that overall design principles be established in case the development commences over a longer period or takes a different form to that currently envisaged.
No comments:
Post a Comment