An indication of what is to come

DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXAMINATION:
WEST HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS LOCAL PLAN

DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXAMINATION:
SUTHERLAND LOCAL PLAN

Link to DPEA development plan examinations page

Worth looking at on the DPEA* page:

• Guidance to assist planning authorities with the preparation and handling of information prior to the submission of development plans is set out in Practical Guidance for Planning Authorities.

Note the reference to the above 2 plan examinations on this DPEA web page

*DPEA = Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

Important announcement on HwLDP

Go to Council's planning blog now for latest press release.

Moving the Development Plan Forward

More on this later

The numbers game

APTSec read a recent item (18/05) on the Gurn re a local councillor's reply to questions regarding the role of Provost. The concept of support for someones position seemed to be being directly linked to overall support for the person. APTSec wondered if we could focus on the numbers mentioned for a moment rather than any of the people involved.

Well in terms of the votes cast the Gurn provides a link to some figures:

5142 votes cast, a 58% turnout (electorate 9009). The highest polling candidate received 1576 votes. This is a hefty % of the total vote and a good turnout.

Can we use this analysis to look at the approximate amount of 'support' that the possible proposals for the HwLDP have?

Highland Council reported to members that, "In total 335 responses were received to the Main Issues Report." If you look at the table of analysis at the very back of the linked report you can see that substantial numbers of respondents did not in fact answer the questions. So for each issue there may only be a hundred or so responses.

APTSec as already done a few extra calculations of her own re the HwLDP

If we try to establish how many people may have been reached on a face to face basis during the consultation on the MIR, using the meetings listed on the Highland Plan blog as a guide, we could estimate that ward forums and community council meetings totalled approximately 30 meetings across Highland and assuming that the average attendance for each meeting was perhaps 30 (including Elected Members, community councillors and members of the public), then you would arrive at a figure of 900 people attending these meetings in total. Of course there could be a cross over of attendees between the types of meetings. Lets round up to maybe 1000

Performing the same exercise with respect to the information days and assuming 20 days with an average attendance of 150 people then you arrive at a figure of 3000 people.

If you then took into account meetings with the Crofter’s commission; The Chamber of Commerce, HIE, The Forestry Commission, Inverness Civic Trust, Bypass Action Group, BIDS Meeting, Woodlands, Development Forums, etc you could perhaps add another 500 people.

3 members of the DPT gave up their time, which is to be commended, for 2 days over a weekend to attend the Belladrum Festival. The blog stated that they had met with 300 people over the 2 days. If we assume that all 3 had attended both days and each day had lasted 10 hours with no breaks for the officers, then each officer could have seen 5 members of the public per hour which means 12 minutes time per person

This could be less than 5000 in total people in 'formal' contact with the plan process.

Now approximately 80% of the Highland population of 219,000 -GROS 2008 - is over 16 (let's say that those over 16 would be most likely to comment for now) amd the Development Plans team's checklist identifies everyone who lives, works and visits Highland as being affected by the process:

So very crudely speaking maybe 175000 potential 'voters', perhaps 5000 in contact with the process of which 335 written responses noted.

This is of course not at all sophisticated and does not take into account that people may only focus on what is of interest in their locality. However, if you restricted it to say the INBS voting area of 72,000 voters and assigned all the contacts and responses to them how much would that mean?

I leave it to you to criticise, finesse or organise the numbers as you see fit.

APTs Guest Speaker talks natural materials

Annual General Meeting

Monday

24 May 2010

7.30 pm

Croy Village Hall

Guest Speaker - Peter Wilson

Peter Wilson is an architect and director of the Wood Studio, a postgraduate research centre within Edinburgh Napier University’s Forest Products Research Institute. The Centre’s focus is on innovation in the use of timber in architecture and construction, a specialist area that reflects Peter’s career-long interest in the use of indigenous building materials, and in recent years has both edited and been the publisher of several reference publications, cd-roms and websites aimed at raising standards in the use of timber in architecture and construction, including 'Designing with Timber', 'Timber Cladding in Scotland', 'Making the Grade – a guide to appearance grading UK grown hardwood timber' and ‘Sustainable Timber Construction – sourcing and specifying local timber’. Aside from timber-oriented publications, he has edited and published 'Building with Scottish Stone’, ‘Housing and Sound Insulation’, ‘Home Improvements – A Sustainability Guide’ (the latter a website for Scottish Building Standards). His own book, ‘New Timber Architecture in Scotland in Scotland’ was published in December 2007 and, in addition to a follow-up volume to this, he is currently working on several new publications including an architect’s pocket guide to timber.

He is a regular contributor on architecture and related subjects to a number of journals and magazines including the Architects' Journal, Building Design, Prospect, the Scotsman, TTJ and Timber Building and is frequently requested by other sections of the media to comment on new developments and other construction-related issues. In this guise he produces ‘Wilson’s Weekly Wrap’ for the www.urbanrealm.co.uk website.

Future Ward Forums discuss budgets

Important request!

I have been asked if I could include details of the forthcoming budget consultation ward meetings on the blog. All details can be checked and confirmed at this link here

Tickets for the forums are limited to 100 for each meeting (forums will be run as 'round table discussion' workshops after an initial presentation) and I suspect that demand should be high in lieu of all the interest being taken in the possible outcomes of the budget cuts (to libraries and swimming pools etc) and the publicity regarding the cuts. So order your tickets now! Meetings are open to all members of the public. If demand exceeds supply then I understand that more meetings will be arranged

Date and Time: Tuesday 1st June 2010, 7.00pm for 7.30pm

Venue: Culloden Academy Community Complex

Theme: Budget Consultation with Chief Executive, Alistair Dodds (For ticket enquiries contact morven.macleod@highland.gov.uk)

The meeting noted immediately above is for Ward 13 Aird and Loch Ness, Ward 18 Culloden and Ardersier, Ward 20 Inverness South

Date and Time: Tuesday 22nd June 2010, 7.00pm for 7.30pm

Venue: Inverness Town House

Theme: Budget Consultation with Chief Executive, Alistair Dodds (For ticket enquiries contact morven.macleod@highland.gov.uk)

The meeting noted immediately above is for Ward 14 Inverness West, Ward 15 Inverness Central, Ward 16 Inverness Ness-side, Ward 17 Inverness Millburn

Date and Time: Wednesday 30 June 2010 at 7.00 pm

Venue: The Chamber, The Court House, High Street, Nairn

Theme: Highland Council Budget Consultation

The meeting noted immediately above is for ward 19 Nairn. Not sure about this meeting as no mention of numbers or tickets on web page?

The Highland Council web sites states that:

Ward Forums have been set up across the Highlands to help you have your say in what's happening in your area. The forums will meet regularly in public led by the ward members in your area, assisted by the Ward Manager. Representatives of community councils and partner agencies, such as the police and fire, will also serve on the forums.

The meetings will last for up to 2 hours, with a 20-minute slot allocated at the end of the meeting for questions from the public.

So much for the reassurance?

Stay with me on this one OK.

Imagine the scene; summer 2010 and we're all sitting at our desks composing our representations as part of the consultation on the proposed HwLDP**. We each know that we have to put in the best response we can because there is no automatic right to submit any further representations on the Highland-wide Plan - not quite the last chance saloon, but close!

So, we should be able to say what we want and feel that what we say could influence the decisions that are made regarding how the place we live develops in the future, yes?

Now, we know that at the end of the plan process any unresolved issues will go to a Reporter for Examination. With the new Planning Act, Examinations are intended as the principal means of independently testing the issues arising from representations on proposed development plans. The Examinations report is, unlike the report prepared by the Reporter under the old Public Local Inquiry system, largely binding on the Local Authority.

But what about if the Highland -wide Plan provides for significant development for the A96 Corridor?

Well, try this for size;

The Scottish Government, "is committed to creating a more successful Scotland by increasing sustainable economic growth. The second National Planning Framework ( NPF2) takes forward the spatial aspects of that commitment, setting out a strategy for long-term development."

NPF2 is a significant policy document and Paragraph 214 of NPF2 says:

"The A96 corridor between Inverness and Nairn is the main focus of growth in the Inner Moray Firth. Highland Council's A96 Corridor Development Framework includes proposals designed to accommodate an additional 30,000 people in the area over 35 years. These include significant expansion to the East of Inverness and at Nairn, the creation of a new settlement at Tornagrain, and a residential and marina development at Whiteness. Development on this scale will require substantial investment in transport and water and drainage infrastructure and the creation of supporting green infrastructure. The STPR has identified the need to dual the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and provide a new rail station, airport interchange and park-and-ride facilities at Dalcross. It has also identified a package of improvements to the Aberdeen - Inverness rail line which would reduce journey times between the two cities by 20 minutes and improve the connectivity of communities along the route."

APT was not happy that developments for the A96 Corridor were included in the NPF2 before they had been through a local plan process. Back in 2008 our MSPs, Mary Scanlon and Peter Peacock, asked questions on our behalf in Parliament as part of the debate on the NPF2 and received assurance from SNP Government Minister Stewart Stevenson, as Mr Stevenson addressed the question of the interaction between the second National Planning Framework and development in the A96 Corridor as follows,

“The reference reflects work undertaken by Highland Council to plan for and manage growth pressures in the long term. Highland Council will decide how it integrates a strategy for management of this growth into development plan policies for the area. The Council continues to lead on this work. The reference in the proposed NPF in no way prejudges the outcome of the development plan preparation process.”

Should we feel reassured by that? Well APTSec might have been until I read this in 'Planning Circular 1 2009 - Development Planning':

61. Examination reports are largely binding on planning authorities. Regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Grounds for declining to follow recommendations) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 states that authorities may only depart from recommendations that:

a) Would have the effect of making the LDP inconsistent with the National Planning Framework, or with any SDP or national park plan for the same area;

So what now?

What happens if a good case is presented against some of the proposed development in the A96 Corridor and the Reporter agrees and the prepared report and recommendations reflect that? Could the Council then argue that this contradicts 'National' policy and that they do not have to be bound by the Reporter's recommendations? The council put forward the A96 Corridor developments for inclusion in the NPF 2. With the publication of these regulations how can this not be seen as 'prejudging' the outcome?

Whilst there were reassurances made by the former Director of Planning to Fergus Ewing that we could comment 'unfetterred' on issues underlying the proposals, it seems that as far as the ability for our views to taken on board is concerned then we are very much constrained?

The circular here is worth a look

APTSec will be focusing on gaining clarification on this point.

** The latest from a senior planning officer speaking at a local Community Council AGM is that the HwLDP will not go before councillors in May; it will be a 'strategy' document that is put before the council committee. APTSec is seeking further details.

Come along and join us on Friday 14th

This week


Friday 14th May

Spectrum Centre

Inverness

5pm - 6.15 pm

With the publication of the Proposed Highland-wide Local Development Plan imminent – May 2010 – I am sure that we are all keen to get as much information and training as possible to help us to respond to any matters of interest that the Plan brings forward. I have been successful in securing an opportunity for us to meet with Mr Liddell, a Scottish Government Planner, on one of the few days that he visits THC in Inverness. He will give a short presentation leaving enough time for plenty of questions on development planning.

(Room opens at 4.15 so come along for a chat first if you can and there will some time afterwards to digest the contents of the meeting and focus on more local issues after Mr Liddell has departed)

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