Latest Population Stats published today - but they are 2010 based

The GROS has just published the 'Population Projections for Scottish Areas (2010 - based)'


I have just had a quick scan at some of the tables - no time for an in depth read at the moment - but it seems that the 'Net Civilian Migration' for Highland is less than half what was estimated using the 2006/2007 numbers.


All comments gratefully  received.


Main link here


Extracts:


This paper summarises the Registrar General for Scotland’s mid-2010 based population projections for the Council and NHS Board areas of Scotland. The projections are consistent with the 2010-based national population projections, prepared by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on behalf of the Registrars General for the constituent countries of the UK.


But population projections have limitations.


The population of Scotland is projected to rise by 10 per cent over the next 25 years, from 5.22 million in 2010 to 5.76 million by 2035, and continue to rise into the future. But this pattern is not to be experienced in all areas of Scotland. Some areas are projected to increase in size while others to decrease.

Council meeting 01 March

A meeting of the Highland Council will take place in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 1 March 2012 at10.30am. 

Agenda Link here

West Link Road; Inverness Courier reveals recomendation

More here

Option Six has been picked today by Highland councillors as the possible new route for the much awaited Inverness by-pass.

The decision, made by a Highland Council working group, described as the most vital in Inverness for 20 years, will move the project step closer.


(Map link here)

Inverness Courier reports "...bypass route set to be decided"

From Courier e page here;

A MONUMENTAL decision - described as the most vital in Inverness for 20 years – will be made tomorrow, as Highland councillors pick their preferred option for the long-awaited bypass.

The cross-party working group meets for the last time to select their favoured route out of the three remaining options to cross the River Ness and Caledonian Canal and link the A82, A9 and A96 trunk roads.

Crunch talks will start at 2pm and the final decision is expected to be announced soon afterwards.

The favoured option to relieve heavy traffic congestion in the city will be recommended to Highland Council for approval when it meets on 1st March.

The talks will again be held behind closed doors.

No doubt more in the paper tomorrow

So that's it then, to all intents and purposes the decision is made

THC Press Release

Following a presentation on the responses to the second public consultation for the Inverness West Link, and the pooortunity (sic) to discuss feedback from the Inverness Trunk Link Road (West Link) Working Group held on the 27 January, members of the Inverness City Committee have had a chance to provide their views on the options under consideration.

After a debate during The Highland Council’s City Committee in Inverness Town House on Monday (13 February)  members agreed a statement expressing their views.

The statement reads:

“In view of the urgent and extreme importance of the West Link Road to Inverness and the Highlands, the Inverness City Committee urges The Highland Council to make an early decision to determine a route for the project, within the life of this council.

“In selecting a preferred route, the Council should attach priority to achieving the earliest possible satisfactory completion of the Link Road, with the funding that is realistically attainable for that purpose.

“In finalising the funding and planning arrangements for the project, the Council must give explicit and binding commitment that there will be an improvement in the extent and quality of recreation provision in the West of the city.”

The statement will be forwarded to the Working Group who are due to meet again in Inverness on Friday 17 February.  Web page here

Details of the Inverness City Committee Meetings can be found here; details of membership here and remit here

Fancy being an Election Candidate; help is at hand

Extract below from THC web site; link to page with more details and dates here

'Prospective candidates at the forthcoming Highland Council elections on 3 May 2012 and their agents are being invited to attend one of a series of 6 awareness briefing sessions being held by the Returning Officer, Alistair Dodds, Chief Executive of The Highland Council.

The election will be called on Tuesday 13 March and candidates have until 4 pm on Thursday 29 March to lodge their nominations.

Topics to be covered at the awareness sessions will be the nomination procedure, the election timetable, the issuing of poll cards, postal ballot packs, candidate’s spending limits, and what is involved in being a councillor.'

Transport Scotland A96 etc / Nairn Bypass Consultation; more info

Herein some brief email correspondence

I would be interested to hear your experience of the consultation which starts next week, see previous post.

• From APTSec to Transport Scotland (TS):

Good afternoon

I wonder if you could provide a little more information and clarity on the web page at this link below

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/projects/A96-Inshes-to-Nairn

This link is was quoted as part of a Highland Council Press Release – see below disclaimer

The section in question is as below

Status - In preparation.

Would it be possible to link another page(s) on your site which could outline the various stages of projects such as this with approximate timescales etc  

I feel it would be very helpful to have as much general and background information as possible in advance of the meeting dates and for future reference.

On a personal note; I will find it difficult to attend one of the consultation meetings since as luck would have I will be in Inverness at the time the Nairn meeting is held and in heading East towards Nairn on the Tuesday Evening so will have to make a special journey Balloch.

Do you intend to hold any more meetings?

Thank you for your help.

• Reply from TS Respondent:

Thank you for your e-mail.

We have received a number of similar requests for information on the stages of our projects with approximate timescales. We hope to have some further information in the next couple of weeks.

With regards to the public exhibition, the information to be presented in Nairn and Balloch will be available on our web page from 6 February 2012. We have no plans at this stage to hold any further public exhibitions as we are still at the very early stages of the design process. If you are unable to attend one of the public exhibitions, we would be more than happy to answer any queries you may have. Our e-mail address for this project is A96InshestoNairn@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk.  If you direct any future queries to this e-mail address, one of our Project Engineers will be able to quickly respond. Alternatively, you may wish to call me on the number below.

I trust this is satisfactory and please check our web page http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/projects/A96-Inshes-to-Nairn from 6 February for additional project information.

• Return request from APTSec:

Thank you very much for such a prompt and helpful reply.

The issue of provision of transport infrastructure to support all the planned development in the A96 Corridor is one which resonates strongly with many, many people.  The lack of transport infrastructure has been overriding and front-focused concern amongst the public since the Highland Council first began to promote and drive forward their extensive plans for the area of the A96 Corridor; an area which THC has unquestioningly enlarged well beyond its original description (through in the adopted ILP process) as a ‘narrow tract of land’ straddling the A96 trunk road.

Here is what the recently published HwLDP Examination Report stated:  

Infrastructure (74, 153, 168, 218, 291, 431, 527)

8. The preamble to the policy sets out clearly that the main A96 development is to be in the medium to longer term. This is partially in recognition that to enable it to go ahead major improvements will be needed to infrastructure, including transport, education, water supply and drainage. The plan states specifically (paragraph 10.6) that infrastructure capacity needs to be increased to accommodate new development, and that the policy framework will resist development beyond the first phases until improvements have been designed and funding agreed.

9. In these respects I find no substantive difference between what the plan states and the representors are seeking. I consider the concerns raised are more relevant to the future implementation of the plan, and it will be up to the Council to demonstrate that the stated policy regarding infrastructure and timing is followed. Otherwise the wider fears raised by representors will have been seen to have a solid base. In terms of the plan however, I find no need for any modification in this regard.

10. Specific mention is made of the Inverness Trunk Link Route (168), suggesting that this is not required, at least at the eastern end. No evidence has been provided to justify this, and I have no basis on which to make any recommendation

It is so important that we, as lay members of the public understand, well to put it very simply, how everything works and fits together with respect to bringing forward a major project like this.

Could I be very cheeky and introduce a request for perhaps some ‘joined up thinking’ – presuming of course that this is not already in the pipeline.  The upgrades to the Aberdeen / Inverness rail line and provision of a rail halt at Dalcross is a subject which is very close to my heart...Could pages be linked across the TS web site so that we look at the progress of the rail upgrades / station provision in tandem with road alignment work?

Would it be OK if I just popped your responses to me up on the APT blog?

• Reply from TS Respondent

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We are at the very early stages of developing options for trunk road improvements for the A96 corridor. We have been working with The Highland Council as they progress their Inner Moray Firth Development Plan. As part of our design process, our consultation includes key parties such as Scottish Natural Heritage, SEPA and Historic Scotland. As the A96 Inshes to Nairn project also includes a number of railway interfaces, we will also be consulting with Network Rail. The development proposals at Dalcross have been taken into consideration during the option development of the A96 section between Culloden and Brackley. When a preferred option has been identified, we will investigate the options for providing connections to the development at Dalcross.

Whilst at this early stage we have not developed particular detail at railway interfaces such as Dalcross, we will keep this under consideration for our web-site as the schemes progress.

I trust this is satisfactory and I am happy for you to include my response on your blog if you wish to do so.

Sandown; just in case we forget

[QUIZ questions for those readers who get to the bottom of this post; to the Reporter's recommendation that ends it.  


What happens if potential for business development is not identified?


Who will pro-actively determine the potential and over what timescale?


How will that sit with the layouts being brought forward through the charrette?]


Let us not forget that some time in the not so distant past the following was set before a Highland Council Area Planning Committee:  

INVERNESS, NAIRN, BADENOCH & STRATHSPEY

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 12th May 2009

07/00188/OUTNA: Development of 550 houses etc, Sandown Lands, Nairn

(in outline)

Recommendation: Grant Outline Planning Permission 

following conclusion of Section 75 Agreement

Application for Outline Planning permission for development of 550 houses, business park, community facilities and related landscaping works at Sandown. The development is on land generally allocated in the Development Plan for the mix of uses described, but there are some differences in the distribution and extent of individual land uses and the number of houses specified (550) represents more than five times the number specified in the Local Plan. The increase is largely achieved by opting for a high density design philosophy which has notable precedents elsewhere but again is not consistent with the density and character specified in the Local Plan. Notwithstanding that, the general principles of the development are judged acceptable in relation to planning priorities and Policy advice which post-dates the Local Plan as well as the Structure Plan. Based on that consideration the recommendation is to grant outline planning permission subject to conditions. If that recommendation is accepted a number of other procedures must be undertaken before permission can be granted, as a consequence of the Council’s financial interest in the land and the significant number of objections received; these are outlined in the report.


Terms of sale: the planning decision is taken on the planning merits of the case. Because the Council has a financial interest in the site permission cannot be granted without the case first being notified to Scottish Ministers to allow the opportunity for call-in. This involves submission of all the information contained in the application case file together with this Committee report as background.




There would not have been a charrette as such if members of the community had not marshaled together before and during the Application Hearing enough sound planning points to allow the planning committee to refuse the application


Further to the application being  refused, the Applicant submitted an appeal and an Inquiry was held in the Nairn Community Centre.  The Reporters refused the Applicant's appeal, again, presumably, having enough sound planning reasons with which to do so.


The Reporter conclusions - found in full here - included the words:

“The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of the site, adopting

high densities and an urban form that is inappropriate for the location and inconsistent with the character of Nairn.”

In that respect, Councillor Park expressed concern that local people should be able
to have confidence in the council’s plans for development of the area. The council’s vision
for Sandown, as articulated by Councillor Park at the inquiry, has, in broad terms, been
consistently expressed through the local plan and a series of non-statutory council
documents over the last 10 years or so. It looks for lower rise development in clusters, a
more generous landscape/treed framework, and a prestigious office development: all
amounting to an attractive and sympathetic gateway to the town. It is evident that the
council are open to design ideas which would create more of a sense of place and a
pedestrian-friendly layout.




Much more recently, further to the Examination of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, the Reporters' recommendations - in the report here - regarding the  development at Sandown:



'Delete Policy 16 and put instead:


The Council will support development at Sandown (as shown on Map 9) in the short
term. A masterplan will be prepared and adopted as supplementary guidance. A
recreational access management plan will also be prepared.


Issues addressed by the masterplan will include:


• site layout;
• design of buildings and open areas;
• housing density;
• provision of affordable housing;
• provision of employment-generating uses;
• phasing;
• flood risk;
• an access solution that provides unfettered links to the Delnies development area
to the west and shared arrangements wherever possible;
• infrastructure provision; and
• delivery of the development.



The design for development of Sandown shall be based on the masterplan and the
recreational access management plan. The design for development of Sandown and
Delnies shall be progressed side-by-side and shall:


• show an overall coherence, attractiveness and local character;
• be efficient in terms of movement of people and vehicles; and
• enhance the town.


Note: Two more paragraphs are to be added to Policy 16. Please see the recommendations under Issue 92: Nairn.





That paragraph from Issue 92 is:

In Policy 16: Sandown, add two new paragraphs:

In preparing proposals for the site, consideration must be given to the extent to which

tourism-related development and business development might be attracted to the site.

If potential, either in the short term or in the longer term, is identified for one or both of

these kinds of development, land must be reserved accordingly.

Connections to the public water and waste water systems will be required

Sandown 'consultation'; Opening old Wounds?

The event taking place in Nairn this week (see 'Gurn' here for several posts) has released a deal of emotional turmoil in the APTSec bosom - perhaps I am not alone?


Someone suggested to me that perhaps what I was feeling at the moment was due to the opening up of 'old wounds'.  Thinking about it the wounds have never closed to be opened again; they continue to suppurate.  


The Planning Authority has never satisfactorily addressed what I see as the really sore points of contention that we have placed before them over the years and many outstanding issues remain despite the fact that the formal Highland-wide Local Development Plan is now in its final pre-adoption phases.  


The Authority has never sought to offer any truly 'healing' support; they allow the perception to fester that if enough pain is piled on those who seek to fairly and politely challenge their actions then eventually we will be worn down and fade away. 

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?