Major Decisions to be made soon?

APTSec is becoming increasingly concerned that major planning applications for development in the A96 Corridor (which are currently contrary to existing local plans) will be determined before the new Highland–wide Local Development Plan has completed its 'Examination' stage. Why should I be concerned, well...

Once the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, 'Proposed Plan', is published in May 2010, consultation will take place (June / July / Aug / Sept?) and representations will no doubt be made. If there are any unresolved matters in relation to representations then someone will be appointed by Government Ministers to undertake an examination of the plan.

Examinations are intended as the principal means of independently testing the issues arising from representations on proposed strategic development plans (SDPs) and local development plans (LDPs). On completing the examination, the person appointed to examine the Local Development Plan will prepare a report setting out and giving reasons for their conclusions and recommendations. In contrast to the 'old' Public Inquiry System, examination reports are largely binding on planning authorities.

The Planning, Environment and Development Committee has agreed (Nov 2009) that major development schemes identified in the A96 Corridor should be taken forward in the context of the ongoing development plan process and should not be determined in advance of the preparation of the Proposed (HwLDP) Plan. The recommendation of the report was (click here):

"RECOMMENDATIONThe Committee is asked to:

(i) Agree that all the current major development schemes in East Inverness, Tornagrain, Delnies and South Nairn (and any which are subsequently submitted) which are identified in the A96 Corridor Framework are taken forward in the context of the ongoing Local Development Plan work and should not be determined in advance of the preparation of the Proposed Plan;

(ii) Agree that this will not affect consideration of those schemes which benefit from existing adopted Local Plan allocations, or the proposed Campus site at Beechwood, which was specifically promoted as a priority development area at the time the A96 Corridor Framework was approved by Council.

(iii) Agree that a review of this position be taken following the publication of the Highland wide Local Development Plan Proposed Plan in early 2010 and that in the meantime, discussions will continue with all interested parties as part of the normal planning process."

This could be seen as providing an option whereby the Tornagrain planning application, for example, or indeed any other major application, could be considered as soon as possible after the new plan is published, but not yet progressed to the examination stage. Why is this important to APTSec? Well...

In a letter (Oct 2005), from the former Director of Planning, Mr Rennilson, to Fergus Ewing MSP the Director states of the plans for the A96 Corridor, “…the concept will remain to be tested through the statutory development plan system. The information leaflet makes clear that the final conclusions of the work will require to be incorporated into future local plans of the area this will allow the public to make representations on this issue and, if necessary, for it to be tested through Public Local Inquiry. Thereafter, each aspect of the Masterplan will also require to be the subject of planning applications, when the public will have further opportunities to make their views known.” The A96 Corridor masterplan had moved from 'stage I ' to 'stage II' further to views being gathered via the 'information leaflet' that Mr Rennilson refers to.

Hence, it seems to me, that in response to concerns - with respect to the emergence of the A96 Corridor proposals - expressed by the MSP on behalf of his constituents, the Director had clearly indicated that any new plan into which proposals for the A96 was incorporated would be independently tested before any planning applications would be considered.

We also need to consider the fact that Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that a Planning Authority’s decision on a planning application must be made in accordance with the Development Plan – unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This has relevance because policies in emerging Development Plans, including proposed plans which are not yet “adopted” (Local Development Plans) or “approved” (Strategic Development Plans) are regarded as material considerations - see the updated Planning Aid Scotland leaflet on 'Material Considerations' here

Therefore if any or all of the proposals for the Corridor make it into the Proposed Plan, which is supposed to be the authorities 'settled view', then this could be seen as a significant material consideration in favour of relevant planning applications even though the plan would not yet have made it to the examination stage, with all the promise of 'independent testing'. APTSec is arranging a training meeting for May 14th in Inverness (more details to be announced) to cover responses to development plans and examinations. Please contact me if you would like more details.

Click here for more information on plans and examinations.

Charrette Update

"The SSCI Charrette Series has been designed to provide new potential models of good practice for sustainable development, and will illustrate that high-quality, sustainable places can be delivered across the whole of Scotland."

"Three projects have been identified by the Scottish Government for inclusion in the Charrette Series from the eleven exemplars that were recognised as working towards 'Creating a Scottish Sustainable Community'. The selected projects are:

* Grandhome & Whitestripes
* Ladyfield
* Lochgelly

"Following the conclusion of the charrettes on-site, specific deliverables for each landowner will be identified, and a book will be published in early summer 2010, providing a detailed explanation of the processes and outcomes of the charrette series. The book will explore the challenges of development in Scotland in the post-war era and introduce the three sites as case studies for sustainable development in Scotland."

For more information click here

"...the Scottish government shelled out a reported £200,000 to import the expertise of Duany’s practice, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company." For more information on that story click here

What the people thought of the Charrette here

Mr Duany has also responded to some critics of the Lochgelly development click here

APTSec has noted a comment regarding Tornagrain on the Central Fife Times click here

Village proposals

Hi folks

News on the front page of the 'Nairnshire Telegraph' this week - regarding development proposals for Croy village - may have implications, not only for Croy, but for other villages in the A96 Corridor as well.

First, have a look at these statements from the Main Issues Report (MIR) for the Highland-wide Plan Local Development Plan (MIR here):

Developer Contributions in the A96 Corridor

An important part of the A96 Corridor Framework is the developer contributions protocol. This identifies how the infrastructure improvements we require (including the improvements to the A96, the provision of schools and other facilities and the environmental improvements) will be funded by the private and the public sector. We remain committed to ensuring that a developer contributions protocol exists for the A96 Corridor, and this will be an essential part of any policy set out within the Proposed Plan when it is prepared. There are a number of issues with the levels of these developer contributions however, not least the changed economic conditions and the need to more fully engage with our partner agencies like Transport Scotland. We are reviewing the developer contributions protocols to ensure that the delivery of infrastructure remains key to all development, and this work will inform the preparation of the proposed plan. The preferred option is: prepare a policy in our Proposed Plan which states that all of the development proposed in the expansion areas across the corridor will contribute to a revised developer contributions protocol. The A96 Corridor Developer Contributions protocol will be an essential requirement for the development proposals in the A96 Corridor; and ensure that these developer contribution requirements are reflected in the investment plans of the Council and other infrastructure providers.

Smaller Settlements in the A96 Corridor

The A96 Corridor Framework highlights that there is scope for expansion of the smaller settlements of Auldearn, Culloden Moor, Croy, Ardersier and Cawdor in the corridor as part of our long term development strategy. A number of sites identified in the existing Local Plans remain available for housing or business development. The main pressure for development is at Cawdor, where there are proposals being drawn up for the expansion of the village. In other villages like Ardersier the emphasis is very much on local regeneration and enhancement of community facilities. The role of these, and indeed any other proposals that come forward, must be considered as part of the development strategy and included within the Proposed Plan where appropriate.

'...preferred option...' (for small settlements)

identify the potential for growth of the smaller villages in the A96 Corridor areas set out in the A96 Framework; and

identify the appropriate scale of development that may be expected in these areas.

No 'reasonable alternatives' were identified with respect to this preferred option (despite the fact that Government Circular 1 2009, para 43, states with respect to an MIR that:

"...must also contain one or more reasonable alternative sets of proposals.")


Now, try taking a look at the A96 Growth Corridor Development Framework (A96 GCDF) - pages 33, 34, 35 and 36 (click here for document on THC web site)

The map on page 33 indicates 5 'development zones' in the A96 Corridor and appears to show that all the villages mentioned as 'Smaller Settlements in the Corridor in the MIR' (and many other areas as well) fall within what is described as a 'Central Development Zone'.

WRT the tables on pages 35 and 36 of the A96 GCDF:

The table on page 35 appears to show some 1885 units in the 'Central Zone' for the 30 years between 2011 and 2041 (although the table on page 40 gives 1955 units in the 'Central Zone' and the Scotia submission for Croy uses this 1955 figure). All development appears to be residential.

If there was an equivalent amount of development in each of the 5 named villages and no development anywhere else in this 'C Zone' then 1885/5= 377 houses in total in each place or roughly 12.5 houses per annum for 30 years (or approx 13 pa if 1955) Croy's 'share' over 10 years would be 130.

Scotia Homes' 'Representation Summary' requests that:

"The allocation in South West Croy should be phased to identify approximately 200 houses in the short term (2011-2016)"

However this appears to be contradicted by a statement at 6.9 of their submission:

"This may allow for up to 200 residential units delivered over a ten year period."

It is also worth remembering that when the public consultation took place on the A96 Corridor Masterplan in 2007 - before the recomendation to 'approve' it - the maps shown on the handout for the exhibition stated, "Limited expansion of Culloden Moor, Croy, Ardersier, Cawdor and Auldearn is also planned within the Corridor" and page 1 noted a population of 1000-2000 for the villages. At an occupancy of 2.1 this means only 952 units at the 2000 population figure, not 1955 units.

Pages 33 and 34 of the A96 GCDF also include statements about infrastructure delivery mechanisms for these 'Zones'.

The' Infrastructure Costs and Allocations' table on page 36 shows a figure of 29.1%/23.62m against Central for 'A96 dualling and by-passes' (A96 costs to be shared equally between public at private). This fact is referred to in the Scotia submission:

"The A96 Corridor Framework identifies significant costs associated with the provision of infrastructure in the Central area, of which Croy forms a part, and the delivery of sufficient effective housing land in the short term, medium and long term will be required to satisfy the potential requirements. "

So, just what will the Proposed Plan consider to be the 'appropriate scale' of development for these villages now? What is considered the right balance of growth?

More on this topic to follow.

(See also post on blog 01/01/2010 re Scotia Homes Ltd submission to the HwLDP for development at Croy village).

Candidate quizing

I had hoped to give out information on a couple of events planned to allow the voting public to quiz the election candidates . Since APTSec has just found out that the Inverness Chamber of Commerce pre-election debate will not take place there is now only one event that I know of which affords an opportunity to question the candidates.

This details of this event are:

7.30 on Monday May 3 at Hilton Church

ASK THE CLIMATE QUESTION

Each candidate will get only 3 minutes to set out their environmental agenda and then it is over to the public to ask questions on environmental matters.

For more details please e mail APT.intouch@live.co.uk and I will forward your enquiry.

Does anyone have any details of other events which provide opportunities to quiz the candidates on (a) different topic(s)?

>

Sandown latest

This is the latest item available on the DPEA web pages regarding the Sandown Lands Planning Appeal, Nairn. It is the response of the Case Worker to a query from the the appellants planning consultants.

"Thanks for the email concerning the progress of the decision for planning appeal PPA-270-632. I understand the reporters are currently still writing the decision on this appeal but unfortunately have no information as when they are likely to have the decision ready for issue. Sorry. I can only suggest you check back with me in a few weeks when I hope to be in a better position to advise you."

Click here for original item on DPEA site.

According to the DPEA site, the Target date for this appeal was 21/04/2010. (The case details are here)

[DPEA - Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. The Scottish Government]

Good Planning Works!

I have always had a lot of time for Mr Morris of Planning Magazine; try his latest piece here (extract below)

"...the most common criticisms of planning are that it is slow, bureaucratic, blocks desperately needed development or undermines the economy. But as the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) asks this week, is this really the case?

Conventional wisdom usually leads to blanket perceptions that may be totally inaccurate. One of the biggest causes of disrepute is where developers jump over every conceivable hurdle to gain the backing of planning officers, only for members to throw out the application.

How many times have councillors gone against hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of legal and professional advice on the grounds that they have "local knowledge"?

According to the PAS, however, the system is not quite the symbol of broken Britain that some would like to portray. Where clear and strong planning policies are in place, members are in little doubt about why particular decisions must be made. This gives developers that elusive quality called certainty.

Good planning works. Unfortunately, that is not a message the system's detractors want to hear."

Freedom of candidates speech

Has anyone seen any comments from candidates on planning issues in the press? Are all candidates free to do so?

For more information on who got the most votes at the last few elections click here

For the party political stance on planning issues see RTPI election web page here

Back from Easter Break

APTSec is finding it difficult to catch up with the planning stuff after visiting friends and relatives over Easter.

With an election fast approaching uppermost in the mind is:

Of all the politicians APTSec has contacted and spoken to on planning issues over the last few years:

Who has impressed me most and shown the clearest indication that they have the brains to grasp the issues and are genuinely acting in the public interest?

What does the written and verbal evidence to date show?

Well, that would be telling...My lips are sealed and it is between me and the ballot paper.

Views welcome

Where does the Council Spend its budget?

Budget Consultation (from THC web pages)

Click here to find out - pages 10 and 11.

Costs include (out of a total of 604m) :

Computer, Communications and Tech contract at 14.6m

Repayment of borrowing at £45.9m

Children and Education 235m

Social Work 109.5m

Roads / Transport 27.5 - road / winter maintenance and street cleaning forms a big part

Environmental Services 39m (approx) - includes waste disposal, street cleaning, burials, public toilets and environmental health.

Mix of other services 44m

'Savings' of 36m are needed

Will you be taking part in the consultation?

Croy Village Developments

Scotia Homes has made a submission to the Main Issues Report for the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. This submission can be found here

Included in the submission is a letter advising that Scotia Homes will be progressing an application for Croy 'South West'. As a resident of Croy APTSec requested more information regarding this planning application from The Planning Authority. I felt it was appropriate to ask for detail, since no details of the application had been included with the submission but the submission was asking for land to be zoned to support this application.

Here is a brief summary of the answers I received:

Mr Watt was advised in a very informal meeting on 18/11/09 that any proposal for development of this scale should follow the Highland Council’s pre-application advice service as set out in the following link
Pre-Application Advice Service

As a recent post on this blog has revealed, this pre-application guidance indicates:

“There is a possibility that, under the Freedom of Information Act, The Council will be asked to provide information regarding inquiries for pre-application advice and copies of any advice provided or correspondence entered into. This information may only be withheld if its disclosure could prejudice commercial interests, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views during the planning process, or could prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. Those seeking pre-application advice should provide a covering letter that sets out the reasons why, and for how long, any information relating to the case needs to remain confidential..."

I understand from Mr Hartland, Planning THC, that following the meeting on the 26/01/2010 Scotia Homes have requested, via e-mail, that the information they presented and the advice given by the Council remains confidential while legal discussions take place between Scotia Homes and the
landowner and that, "It is our assessment that, at this time, the information presented by Scotia Homes at the meeting and the advice subsequently offered is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, given that its disclosure could prejudice commercial interests. Any developer promoting development of this scale requires to undertake pre-application consultation with the local community, at which time the information should be made available to the wider public."

APTSec is keen to find out from other members of the public whether they have had a similar experience. Please contact using apt e mail

"RIAS Criticise Planning Gain"

Latest from 'Urban Realm"

The Royal Incorporation of Architects have criticised the system of planning gain for “killing off” development. More here

"Latest on Dev Plans" blog update

Further to comments on the Post of 17 March (thank you Nairnbairn for keeping the debate open on this issue).

A helpful member of THC Democratic Services staff assisted me in finding that there was indeed no live link to the committee paper APTSec needed regarding the responses to the last consultation on the Inverness Local Plan, ILP. She then kindly forwarded me a copy of the sought after report.

The report summarises the representations received in respect of the consultative draft of the Inverness Local Plan etc. More than 800 individual and consul tee responses were received raising some 2000 issues for consideration.

It is worth noting at that time that policy was to prevent loss of identity and overheating in the villages and strengthening of rural settlement patterns. The Plan directed that growth in communities under pressure "does not normally exceed 25% in any 10 year period".

The big question is, on this and other issues,

How much of a 'change' in terms of 'Policy' will we expect to find?

More on this very soon.

If anyone wants a copy of this report please e mail APT apt.intouch@live.co.uk

Latest news on Development Plans

Highland-wide Local Development Plan

(Latest from the Council's Development Plan Scheme)

15 WEEK PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT STARTING JUNE 2010

CHANGE AND REVIEW PLAN FOLLOWING CONSULTATION SEPT-NOV 2010

SCOTTISH MINISTERS EXAMINE PLAN JAN-MAR 2011

PUBLISH POST EXAMINATION CHANGES, MAR 2011

ADOPT AND PUBLISH PLAN AND ACTION PLAN MAY 2011

Make sure your views on the future of the Highlands are known by commenting on the Proposed HwLDP during the consultation period!

Delivering Major Developments - A Pre-Application Guide

Extract:

The Highland Council is committed to the creation of sustainable communities to ensure a balanced population growth and economic development across the area and to deliver a fairer and healthier Highlands.

To assist the delivery of these aims, and in line with the requirements of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, we have put in place new processes for dealing with major applications. The guidance outlines the procedures The Highland Council will adopt to provide effective and early pre-application advice to developers in the Highland area.

Regulations defining what a major development is have been issued by the Scottish
Government and came into force on the 6th April 2009.

Part of Disclaimer:

There is a possibility that, under the Freedom of Information Act, The Council will be asked to provide information regarding inquiries for pre-application advice and copies of any advice provided or correspondence entered into. This information may only be withheld if its disclosure could prejudice commercial interests, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views during the planning process, or could prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. Those seeking pre-application advice should provide a covering letter that sets out the reasons why, and for how long, any information relating to the case needs to remain confidential.

For more information click here (HwLDP blog post) and here

Also on the HwLDP blog is an item on the new Development Plan Scheme 2010 click here

[The Development Plan Scheme sets out how Highland Council will be preparing plans for
using new land over the next year. It states:

"This document makes it easier for you to find out how far we have developed our plans and how you can get involved."!]

Welsh Council withdraws plan

Interesting item from 'Planning Daily' electronic newsletter:

Cardiff Council has voted to withdraw its Local Development Plan following criticism from the Welsh Assembly Government.

In a statement the council said: "Legal Counsel has advised that given the magnitude of the concerns raised that it is evident the plan would not be recommended for adoption and that it is highly unlikely that the Inspectors will try to overcome the concerns by recommending modifications to the plan given their significance.

The move will see Cardiff Council revert to the last adopted Local Development Plan from 1996.

More here and here