Principles of Planning

admin — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:24:06 +0000

We do have to keep a close eye on the land which belongs to us and on the Planners who are supposed to Progress the development of Nairn and its hinterland with several principles in mind.
1. supporting the viability of communities
2. developing a prosperous and vibrant local economy and
3. safeguarding and enhancing the natural and built environment.

In support of those principles the Council and Planners are required, amongst other things, to a) give weight to the priority issues and b) have regard to the results of the public consultation exercise. With regard to these principles and in light of two previous developments (Lochloy and The Maggot block of flats) item number 3 seems to have been disregarded completely. Lochloy only has houses, nothing there to enhance the lives of the occupants other than their own efforts to establish gardens and its urban sprawl does nothing to enhance either the living conditions of the inhabitants or the town as a draw for Tourists.
The Maggot is an example of a Planning Authority riding roughshod over valid objections and allowing a building out of kilter with the natural and built environment and which, moreover, considerably affects good neighbour amenities and relations. Regarding the proposed (now refused) development at Manse Road, the Reporter recognised the dangers of poor road provision and listened to the objections carefully. In the case of Sandown, had it not been for the determination of the objectors Nairn would have been saddled with a development which would have put considerable strain on an already overburdend A96 and the rat-runs already established going into Nairn.
Flooding issues were not being addressed satisfactorily. Educational and health needs were not being addressed at all even with 1000 new people, probably some with children which racks the population up again. The effect of such a large, high density, development with 4 storey blocks of flats at the Gateway to Nairn would have done very little to enhance our Town as a tourist destination.
The Structure Plan, which Mr. McCracken places so much faith in but ultimately ignored, clearly states that, “Highland’s towns and villages are an integral part of the region’s heritage. This includes both the patterns of development and the nature of their historic and modern buildings”. The Plan goes on to say, “Highland’s identity is perhaps its greatest strength. Identity is of vital importance to the tourism industry but in a much broader range of industries it creates a distinctiveness for Highland products”. “The high quality of the environment of the Highlands can be relatively easily damaged by poor building development, ill-sited industry”.
The Sandown proposal did not reflect the surrounding built environment or the identity of Nairn and I feel that any development in any part of Nairn should be of a quality that will enhance our strong community identity and benefit the town in general. Just because we have three Community Council areas, does not mean that what happens in one area does not impact on other areas. A town is the sum total of its parts, and we should look after each other. Our Ward Members need to hear from people all over the town, not just those folk dealing with a particular development proposal which is proving contentious. If the Ward Members are not completely aware of the concerns of a wider community, we cannot expect them to have the information that would allow them to support us, their electorate. It is up to us. And if you don’t agree, just ask yourself how many of our Ward Members, let alone the rest of the Planning Committee, bothered or thought to question any part of the Sandown Proposal, either before the Outline Planning Meeting on the 12th May or on the day. When the Chairman asked for any questions of the Developer or the Objectors, Laurie Fraser was the lone voice on a question regarding conditions relating to roads. That was pretty much it. No other Ward Member questioned the viability of this proposal either in terms of density, height of buildings, lack of consultation, lack of infrastructure etc.
When a Ward is pushing for a scheme which is clearly Developer-led and is seduced by the sale price of Common Good land which would allow it to consolidate its debts to the H.C. (100.00 plus) and the previous Tenant Farmer of Sandown (£385,00 plus legal expenses) it’s no contest. So, you really are right when you say we must keep on top of planning, but that should mean all of us, not just a few.

Nairn Matters » Planning Considerations

Principles of Planning