I am a resident of Old Bar Road.

I’m assuming the Nairnshire’s article is accurate.

My understanding is that Jack’s Contracts do not have a legal liability for maintaining the open spaces in this part of Nairn, although it has been their employees (now redundant) who have been doing the work. I believe the legal responsibility lies with the company with legal ownership of the common ground. According to our missives, this is a company called Lochloy Properties Ltd which is, according to documents available from Companies House, a subsidiary of Courtallam Developments Ltd. This company has appointed a “Factor”  contractor called Hubbies for Hire (Scotland) Ltd. Hubbies for Hire have been using Jack’s Contracts employees to deliver their responsibilities.

According to the documents available from Companies House, Michael Jack is a director of all of these companies.

Although Jack’s Contracts have gone into receivership, there is no legal or financial reason that I can see why any of the companies in the actual chain of accountability for maintaining the common ground should avoid their responsibilities. Hubbies for Hire has been charging residents annual fees and should continue to deliver on their contract. They are not bound by their contracts to use Jack’s Contracts employees. However, having spoken with her, I know that Hubbies for Hire’s Company Secretary is relying on the Jacks’ receivership and the redundancy of Jacks’ employees to explain the hiatus in maintaining the common land, including the emptying of the pooh bins. She is talking about resolving the problem by consulting with residents – at some unspecified time in the future – about the appointment of an alternative Factor, rather than ensuring that Hubbies for Hire deliver on their contract.

A deep hole in the High St

Less than a month after the completion of the new streetscape, it has been dug up. Could it be that something was damaged when the new road was laid or has some other emergency just happended? Must be frustrating for all involved but isn’t it typical?

A Safer Crossing?

New work at the bottom of The Brae designed to slow traffic has made little or no difference to the speed of traffic coming off the A96. Most vehicles mount the newly added kerb with no reduction in speed. The odd vehicle that does take time to avoid the raised area risks mounting the opposite pavement. Take 5 minutes observing traffic and you’ll realise that although the chains have gone, the “crossing” is no safer and still a serious hazard to pedestrians who regard it as a crossing. In fact, planners obviously designated it a crossing by providing a drop-kerb and by removing the safety chains. We wonder how trained engineers can now conclude that The Brae is safe. An accident waiting to happen we fear.

Nairn Community & Arts Centre

We have just observed that the striking Community Centre logo has been removed and the building is now called Nairn Community and Arts Centre. We wonder why the change. Could it be that talk of a new Arts Centre worried NCC that they’d lose out if a new centre did go ahead? But can they seriously imagine that wonderful though the building is, it can never be an arts centre. By all means have exhibitions and host events – which it does superbly well – but it doesn’t make it an arts centre. Whether or not there will ever be a proper Nairn arts centre or not, it is disappointing that they felt the need to incorporate the word “Arts”. They cannot offer what might be expected in an arts centre – art and craft workshops, a cafe, rolling exhibitions and a well equipped performance area designed for the purpose. It need never compete with the Community Centre and we can’t help wonder if this is little more than a cheap spoiling tactic. But let’s hope there is an suitably striking logo on the way.

Delighted to see the logo now back on the centre wall.

No don’t worry, for a moment I thought this was describing Nairn, but it is in fact Inverness on the shortlist for winning the Award. So that’s OK then!

We have to be concerned that developers, once again, seem to be in the driving seat when it comes to delivering the future of Nairn. There is no coordinated or joined-up thinking about how we improve the town. None of the responsible agencies have sat round a table and put together any ideas about Nairn’s future direction. We’ve had lots of ideas from developers  – and perhaps too often – getting planning approval. So we end up with disjointed and often out-of-character developments, not because Nairn is in any way enhanced but simply on the basis that money can made from a plot of land.

The council ought to engage with Nairn businesses, residents, developers and property owners to deliver a joined-up vision for the town. Property owners should not be allowed to sit on their hands while buildings crumble;  developers should not be setting the agenda for change. There needs to be a new memorandum of understanding to ensure that all stakeholders work together for the good of the town and to an agreed objective. Other towns have done it and it has meant that planners are no longer be besieged by developers; developers know what they have to do within the strategic plan to have the proposals speeded through the planning process. Fundamentally every developer should be working within a framework that takes the town closer to its defined objectives. At the moment we just have a hotch-potch of uncoordinated developments. It’s surely not beyond the wit of man to come up with a plan, but I do worry that it might be beyond the wit of Highland Council.

Yes, most dog owners are responsible but I wonder how many will keep their dogs on a lead on the beach. How many have sufficient control of their dogs to be able to call them back from a “friendly” leap towards a frightened child or nervous adult? Obviously it was beyond the control of the owner whose dog attacked the swan recently. There are simply too many owners who refuse to clean up after their pets. The dunes are a mess and so are many of our pavements. So dog owners you are being let down by some who just don’t care and who are spoiling our enjoyment of one of Nairn’s main attractions.

Yes, we have regulations in place and we have dog wardens but none of that seems to affect uncaring owners or unruly dogs. They have insisted on their rights without any consideration for others who also have rights to enjoy open spaces. It’s a sad day for Nairn when we thought we could all enjoy the beach without fear of being attacked or worry about stepping in something. So if you go down to the beach today you’re sure of a big surprise.

Latest: See this update: http://www.gurnnurn.com/2010/06/sandown-not-for-sale-says-sandy.html. It appears that this is an old for sale notice still marked as “Under Offer” despite additions and updates dated June 2010. How confusing.
But the big issue remains. How can the terms of an recorded agreement suddenly change with no record of a Council meeting to approve the substantive change. No wonder suspicions have been roused. Even if Deveron do still have first call on the land, they are still obliged to consult the community – unless the old agreement really has been torn up and quietly replaced.

Dear Mr. Black,
It has come to the NRCG’s attention that Sandown Common Good Lands are again up for sale.  The Particulars of the sale cite a Development brief which has been prepared by Highland Council. It is our understanding, following approval of the  HwLDP – Vision and Strategy paper presented to PED on 26th May 2010 that a NEW development brief will be drafted, that the Nairn community will be fully consulted on the contents of such a brief, and that any such Development Brief must be approved by the Council. No such consultation has taken place has taken place with the Nairn Community.

I would urgently seek your assurance that - (1) no un-consulted and unapproved development brief for the above site will be made available to prospective purchasers – until the Development Brief is approved fully by the Council
(2) the Nairn Community will be fully consulted on all aspects of the development brief
(3) the Nairn Community will be given appropriate time to disseminate and discuss the proposed development brief prior to formally submitting comments
(4) the Nairn Community will be given a copy of the final development brief prior its presentation to PED
(5) the Nairn Community will be fully apprised of the progression of the Development Brief to the Council I look forward to your reply as soon as possible.
Regards
Loreine Thomson on behalf of NRCG

A second email is as follows.

Dear Mr. Black,
The NRCG’s attention has been drawn to the fact that the version of the Vision and Spatial Strategy now showing on your website reflects two different versions of point 5.39. Original wording in the Draft presented to the Council on 26 May 2010 (Printed out by me on 25th May 2010 at 14:00)

Sandown 5.39   The development of Sandown in the short to medium term will be supported, at a level more commensurate with the aspirations of the elected Members in their decision on the Sandown planning application.  IN ORDER TO PROGRESS THIS DEVELOPMENT A REVISED DEVELOPMENT BRIEF WILL BE PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, WHICH WILL ENSURE A CO-ORDINATED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT WITH THE LAND AT DELNIES.

POSITION STATEMENT 21:  The Council will support the development of the Sandown Lands, and a Development Brief will be prepared to guide its development.  Any access solution must also relate to the Delnies land to the west, and provide for unfettered access to that development and shared access arrangements wherever possible.

This is now the wording shown on the website.

“Sandown

5.39   The Development of Sandown in the short to medium term will be supported, at a level more commensurate with the aspiration of the elected members in their decision on the Sandown planning application.

POSITION STATEMENT 21:  The Council will support the development Sandown subject to a review of the development potential for the site.  Any access solution  must also relate to the Delnies land to the west and provide for unfettered access to that development and shared access arrangements wherever possible.

Having checked the minutes of PED for 26 May 2010 I can see no mention of these significant changes being minuted and detailed as changes to the draft presented to the Committee.

website:  http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/committees/strategiccommittees/planningenvironmentanddevelopmentcommittee/2010-05-26-ped-min.htm

1.  Can you please explain how such significant changes can be made to this document without the approval of the PED?

2.  How is it possible for the Community to constructively engage in planning matters when significant changes are made and not recorded in minutes?

I am bitterly disappointed with the approach of your Department.  This highlights the deviousness of Highland Council Planning Department to do what it likes – being open and transparent just doesn’t seem to be in the vocabulary of your Department.

I should be grateful for an urgent response.

Regards

Loreine Thomson on behalf of NRCG