Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL

ROSS & CROMARTY EAST LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY

STATEMENT OF OBSERVATIONS by the DIRECTOR OF PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE 9: Housing at Corntown by Conon Bridge

1. Introduction

1.1 The Highland Council (THC) has undertaken to hold a Public Local Inquiry to consider objections lodged by Ferintosh Community Council [CD30/78] in respect of Chapter 6: Landward para. 11 of the Deposit Draft of the above Local Plan, with regard to the provisions for housing development at Corntown by Conon Bridge. Ferintosh CC wish to appear at the Inquiry.

1.2 Objections by Donald Mackillop Associates on behalf of Craig Millar and Lisa Manclark [CD30/226] and by SEPA [CD30/170] were conditionally withdrawn.

1.3 The Deposit Draft with proposed Modifications to Local Plan was advertised by the Council on 4 February 2005 with a closing date for further objections to be heard at this Inquiry of 18 March 2005. The proposed changes in respect of the provisions for Corntown drew objections from Graham Sullivan and Sheila Maher [CD31/430], who do not wish to appear at the Inquiry, preferring their written submission to be considered.

1.3 THC will call Alan Ogilvie as the planning witness.

1.4 THC wishes to submit the productions listed below. References to productions are shown in the text as follows, [CD 1]. Quotes from productions are shown as follows, “extract”. [CD1] The Highland Structure Plan: Approved Plan: The Highland Council: March 2001 [CD5] Black Isle Local Plan: Alteration No.2: Housing: Highland Regional Council: September 1996 [CD6] Development Plan Policy Guidelines: The Highland Council: October 2003 [CD8] Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan: Consultative Draft: The Highland Council: May 2002 [CD9] Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan: Deposit Draft: The Highland Council: October 2003 [CD10] Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan: Statement of Publicity, Consultation and Representations: The Highland Council: October 2003 [CD11] Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan: Proposed Modifications to the Deposit Draft (Prior to Public Local Inquiry): The Highland Council: February 2005 [CD17] SPP15: Rural Development: Scottish Executive: February 2005

Director of Planning and Development 1 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

[CD25] Ross & Cromarty Area Planning Committee Item: Representations on the Consultative Draft Local Plan: The Highland Council: 15 September 2003 [CD27] Ross & Cromarty Area Planning Committee Item: Objections and Representations on the Deposit Draft Local Plan: The Highland Council: 25 January 2005 [CD30] Letters of Objection and Representation to the Deposit Draft Local Plan [CD31] Objections to the Proposed Changes to the Deposit Draft Local Plan [THC9/1] Extract from agenda of the meeting of the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee: Report on planning application for Erection of House (Detail) (Resubmission) at Corntown, Conon Bridge, Ref. 04/00742/FULRC: The Highland Council: 7 December 2004. [THC9/2] Extract from minute of the meeting of the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee: Report on planning application for Erection of House (Detail) (Resubmission) at Corntown, Conon Bridge, Ref. 04/00742/FULRC: The Highland Council: 7 December 2004.

2. Background

National Planning Guidance/Advice

2.1 Scottish Planning Policy 15: Planning for Rural Development [CD17], at paragraph 18, “advances policy in respect of small scale rural housing developments including clusters and groups in close proximity to settlements,………. The overall message is that there is considerable scope for allowing more housing developments of this nature and that this should be expressed in development plans, either as part of general settlement policy or as a separate sub-set on rural housing policy.”

Highland Structure Plan

2.2 The Highland Structure Plan [CD1] was approved in March 2001. Paragraph 1.7.1 refers to the emergence from the sustainability objectives and the strategic themes the development of a number of general policies demonstrating the expectations of The Council with regard to any proposal for development. They cover a range of issues relating to sustainable development and are considered vital to the implementation of the Plan's strategic themes. More specifically, Policy G2 Design for sustainability indicates that “Proposed developments will be assessed on the extent to which they: • are compatible with service provision (water and sewerage, drainage, roads, schools, electricity); …………”

2.3 Policy H3 Housing in the countryside states that “housing development will generally be within existing and planned new settlements.”

Development Plan Policy Guidelines

2.4 In October 2003, following previous consultation on a draft, THC published Supplementary Development Plan Policy Guidelines on Housing in the Countryside

Director of Planning and Development 2 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

and Affordable Housing [CD6]. This publication is founded upon the Structure Plan and provides more detailed guidance for Local Plans, development control, developers and the public on the interpretation of specific policies contained in the Plan. It must, however, be read in conjunction with the Structure Plan Written Statement and in particular with the General Strategic Policies. Guideline 1 deals with Housing in the Countryside, which provides more detailed guidance in amplification of Structure Plan Policy H3. This was drafted after discussions with Scottish Executive Planning officials.

2.5 On page 4 of the Guideline there is a section on “Defining the hinterland of towns in the pressurised countryside areas of” Inverness and the Inner Moray Firth (i.e. Nairn, Dingwall, Alness, Invergordon and Tain). The Guideline goes on to indicate on the rest of page 4 and over on to page 5 that the “Policy application within the hinterland of towns” requires a planned approach to new housing development opportunities either within existing or planned new settlements. The Guideline also defines “existing settlements” as: (a) those identified through the Structure Plan and local plan settlement hierarchies (based on the provision of services); (b) groups of houses which have one or more of the following facilities: mains drainage or a scheme in SW’s 3-year plan; a public septic tank; street lighting; a 30 mph speed limit; a school, a doctor’s surgery, a shop, a post office, a petrol filling station, a public hall, or a pub; (c) established groups which comprise cluster, linear, or other recognisable forms of building without such a facility, but which are contained within a clear visual envelope; or (d) dispersed grouping with a crofting settlement pattern.

2.6 DPPG1 makes clear that such settlements are only to be defined where there are opportunities to make use of spare capacity to accommodate new housing, and where this would be consistent with, or enhance, the cohesiveness and visual appearance of the group. Generally, this will be within the existing boundary of the group, although there may be opportunities for some limited extension where the development will help to enhance the appearance of the group as a whole.

Adopted Local Plan

2.7 The Black Isle Local Plan Alteration No. 2: Housing [CD5] was adopted in September 1996. The following provisions are relevant: -

Policy RS1.3 maintains a strong presumption against the development of houses in the countryside. Exceptions will only be made where a house is essential for the management of land, related family or occupational reasons. Restrictions on the subsequent occupancy of such houses will be enforced. Adherence to the principle of good siting and design will be required in such cases.

Policy 1.2 applies to all sensitive areas as shown on the Proposals Map, notably the safeguarding of prime agricultural land and indicated as lying north of the B9163 road.

Director of Planning and Development 3 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

In the Ferintosh section (5), 17 groups of three or more houses are identified on the Proposals Map and are subject to the following policy (page 37) and detailed guidance set out in a subsequent table (page 39). “POLICY 5.5: A strong presumption will be maintained against the development of further ad hoc clusters of houses in the countryside. In exceptional cases, there may be opportunities to consolidate or round off certain existing housing groups.” Para 5.5.6 refers to Corntown: “Mixed group including modern house and Garage……… and the development potential: “One plot to south of road at west end………….”

Consultative Draft Plan

2.8 The Consultative Draft [CD8] of the Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan was published in May 2002. This provided a detailed interpretation of Structure Plan Housing policies, notably H3 and the need to define settlements. At the same Highland wide guidance on Housing in the Countryside [CD6] was in preparation, which included criteria for the definition of rural settlements and groups of houses. The following provisions are relevant: -

Chapter 5: General Policies – Settlement Boundary “The Council will maintain a strong presumption against sporadic development outwith settlement boundaries in order to protect their landscape setting or avoid adversely affecting their longer-term expansion.”

Chapter 6: Landward, paragraph 3 indicated the potential for development within the defined boundaries of 31 small rural settlements listed in a table. The relevant policy stated: “Suitably designed proposals will be supported if they • are consistent with General and Housing Policies in the Structure Plan • are consistent with the established settlement/development pattern • can be adequately serviced and do not involve undue public expenditure or infrastructure out of keeping with the rural character • avoid hazards, significant earthworks, prominent siting or conflict with sensitive features. In line with General Housing Policy H a strong presumption against development will also be maintained on land immediately outwith the defined settlement boundaries.”

Chapter 6: Landward, paragraph 11 of the table referred to Corntown with potential for 10 additional houses through filling the gap between the two existing clusters of houses and converting the steading adjoining the garage.

Chapter 6: Landward, paragraphs 36 and 37 maintain the existing Policy position set out in Policy H3 of the Structure Plan and also RS1.3 of the Black Isle Local Plan, presuming against development in the countryside with the exception for houses required on a land management justification. - Paragraph 36 presumes against housing that creates new ad hoc clusters of housing or adds to small tightly-knit groups of housing with the exception of

Director of Planning and Development 4 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

limited opportunities to round off some existing groups identified on the Proposals Map and listed in Appendix III. - Paragraph 37 presumes against housing elsewhere in the countryside, notably in the Hinterland around the towns and the Black Isle, with exceptions only for justified land management reasons, demonstrated local affordable needs unable to be met within settlements or a conversion of a traditional building or redevelopment of a ruinous dwelling. All exceptions are subject to good siting and design requirements.

2.9 The representations made and the changes agreed by THC in response are detailed in CD25. Relevant comments are summarised in paragraphs 2.12 to 2.15 below.

2.10 In respect of paragraph 3, SEPA [CD25/157] expressed concerns about a number of small rural settlements because the lack of or inadequate public drainage system and no works programmed by Scottish Water to install or upgrade such systems. SEPA advised that they would object to further expansion of these settlements until such provision is made. In response THC drew attention to the phrase in the policy "where services are readily available", the highlighting of specific problems in each of the settlements and that any proposal would be subject to General Strategic Policy G2 of the Structure Plan and a new General Supporting Policy on Waste Water Treatment proposed for inclusion in the Draft Local Plan.

2.11 In respect of paragraph 11, SEPA [CD25/157] advised of pollution problems in this area caused by foul drainage and the fact that watercourses are very small. These issues were also raised by Ferintosh CC [CD25/172], concerned about the suggestion of almost doubling the size of this small existing settlement and the use of additional private individual drainage systems. They objected to the zoning of land within the village unless an embargo was placed on development until served by adequate public sewerage facilities. In response it was agreed that reference be made to the need for adequate drainage to serve future development and that consideration be given to a privately developed package treatment works serving all new dwellings, capable adoption by the drainage authority. THC agreed to add "Subject to adequate drainage," to the start of the sentence in the Constraints/ Comments column and to reflect the localised drainage constraint on the Inset Map through the application of hatching of Background Policy 2.

Deposit Draft Local Plan

2.12 The Deposit Draft [CD9] of the Local Plan was published in November 2003. Chapter 6: Landward, at paragraph 3 continued to indicate the potential for development within the defined boundaries of 30 small rural settlements listed in a table. Paragraph 11 of the table continued to refer to Corntown with potential for 10 additional houses. The provisions of the Settlement Boundary General Policy (Ch.5) and Housing in the Countryside Policy (Ch. 6, paras. 35 & 36) continued to apply to land outwith the defined settlement.

2.13 The following were submitted: - • SEPA [CD30/170] objected to the policy contained in Chapter 6: Landward,

Director of Planning and Development 5 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

paragraph 3. • SEPA [CD30/170] commented on the policy contained Chapter 6: Landward, paragraph 11. • Donald MacKillop Associates on behalf of Craig Millar and Lisa Manclark [CD30/226] objected to Chapter 6: Landward, paragraph 11 seeking expansion of the boundary to include their house site. • Ferintosh CC [CD30/170] expressed “support” for “the proposal of no development unless there is adequate public drainage” at Corntown. THC’s response and reasoning in respect of each of these comments is set out in CD27.

Deposit Draft with Modifications (Proposed Changes)

2.14 Proposed changes to the Deposit Draft [CD11] were approved in January 2005. Those made largely in response to objections and comments indicated at paras. 3.6 to 3.13 below are as follows: - • Modify Chapter 5 General Supporting Policy (GSP) 2 to read as follows: - "…………..Where public drainage does not exist, the development and use of private systems may be acceptable if designed to a standard suitable for adoption by the water authority and arrangements are agreed for long-term plant maintenance and refurbishment. Development seeking to use individual septic tanks should be very limited in scale, located where satisfactory foul drainage can be demonstrated and located in areas where there are no existing foul drainage problems. Proliferation of septic tanks should be avoided. In considering programmes to improve provision of public drainage, Scottish Water and SEPA should weigh investment and environmental priorities against development pressures, affordable housing needs, the retention of other essential services and the aspirations of local communities. [W11]. " • See also Issue 4 on GSP2. • Using the new GSP2 as background, Modify Chapter 6 Policy 3 by DELETING the first part of the third bullet point from "can" to "do" and INSERTING "can be connected to a public sewer with adequate sewage treatment (GSP2) and where other servicing does………". • Then on the assumption that Corntown was to remain as a small rural settlement in Chapter 6, at paragraph 11, MODIFY the Comments/Constraints by DELETING the first part of the sentence, "Subject to adequate drainage" and INSERTING a new second sentence, "Connection to public sewer and Conon Bridge treatment works advised." • Close to reporting the objection to Committee, THC became aware that the development opportunities on the south side of the public road were not available. In view of this and the concerns over drainage for 10 additional dwellings, THC agreed to DELETE Corntown from the table of Small Rural Settlements in Chapter 6 as well as the Inset Map. As an alternative it was agreed that Corntown be added to the list of small groups with potential in Appendix III and to be covered by the provisions of paragraph 35 (now 34 in the Deposit Draft with Modifications), with the development potential limited to one house, the site sought by Craig Millar and Lisa Manclark.

Director of Planning and Development 6 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

• In response to more general objections from SEPA on housing groups, THC agreed that Policy 35 (34) in Chapter 6 should be Modified to include reference to criteria used to define the small tightly-knit groups or clusters in the Hinterland area. It is now proposed tha the policy reads as follows: - “34. In the open countryside of the Hinterland area the Council will presume against housing development that creates new ad hoc clusters of housing or adds to existing small tightly-knit groups of housing comprising 3 or more dwellings sited less than 50 metres apart. In exceptional cases and subject to adequate drainage (GSP2), there may be opportunities to consolidate or round off certain existing groups with 1 or 2 suitably designed new houses. These groups are identified on the Proposals Map and listed in Appendix III. Development proposals should indicate the relationship of the new buildings to the group as a whole, arrangements for planting to screen or enhance the group’s amenity and appearance, and measures to remedy infrastructure problems [H3].”

2.15 Further objections were lodged by Graham Sullivan and Sheila Maher [CD31/430], seeking the reinstatement of Corntown as a small rural settlement, as per paragraph 11 in Chapter 6 of the Deposit Draft Local Plan.

3. The Council’s Observations

The Objections

3.1 The objections on the Deposit Draft Local Plan are as follows: -

SEPA [CD27/170]

Chapter 6, paragraph 3: As stated at the Consultative Draft stage, SEPA objects to significant allocations in areas without public foul drainage infrastructure, with no prospect of public foul drainage infrastructure and known to suffer from drainage problems or are particularly sensitive to pollution. It is considered that it is inappropriate to allocate significant further expansion of these villages or settlements where a significant risk of harm to the environment is entailed. SEPA is particularly concerned that the Local Plan itself identifies that several of these settlements suffer from drainage problems but nevertheless allocates further housing "subject to servicing." SEPA is pleased to note that in some cases such as Alcaig the text states: "No new development until adequate public drainage and sewage treatment is available for connection. Otherwise developers are expected to contribute towards a public drainage connection and improvements under Scottish Water's Site Servicing policy" and considers that a variation of this could be made a more general requirement.

Chapter 6, paragraph 11 – Corntown: SEPA is aware of pollution problems caused by foul drainage in this area. The watercourses in this area are very small. New development should be connected to public sewer and pumped to Conon Bridge sewage works.

Director of Planning and Development 7 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

Donald MacKillop Associates on behalf of Craig Millar and Lisa Manclark [CD30/226]

Seeks inclusion of land within the settlement boundary for a house to the rear of No. 12 Corntown.

Ferintosh CC [CD30/170]

Corntown (Deposit Draft): We support the proposal of no development unless there is adequate public drainage.

Also of relevance is the following part of their objections to housing groups in the Deposit Draft and the list of such groups in Appendix III of the Deposit Draft with Modifications. We note that Dunvournie and Balmeanach have been added to this list of "small housing groups in the countryside with further development potential since the Consultative Draft. We note following our comments at that stage that these so-called "groups" of houses are NOT considered to be "settlements". We do, however, still find the whole development of housing in these small housing groups extremely confusing. The possible area for development is not indicated nor are the possible potential (maximum) numbers of houses. We also believe that the development of further housing in these areas could well create further drainage problems as these do not benefit from any form of public drainage system and are therefore likely to be drained via individual septic tanks. We therefore object to the inclusion of Balnabeen, Duncanston, Wester Alcaig,…………

3.2 The objection on the Proposed Modifications to the Deposit Draft (Prior to Public Local Inquiry) was as follows: -

Graham Sullivan and Sheila Maher [CD31/430]

The Deposit Draft provided a coherent plan for potential future development of Corntown, in accordance with the established pattern of development in the area, and a mix of new-build and conversion. The reasons for the identification of Corntown as a small settlement, and for the proposed boundaries, remain valid.

The basis of the proposed modification of the Deposit Draft, i.e. an application for a single house, is insufficient justification for removing Corntown from the list of small settlements and altering the proposed boundaries. As owners of the land to the south of the road, we can state that the new information quoted as justification for the proposed modification, that this land is unavailable for development, is incorrect.

The proposed modification to the Deposit Draft would allow backland development, contrary to the established pattern of the area, of houses with road frontages and good separation. The development would lead to the establishment of an undesirable precedent for backland development.

Our objection would be resolved by adherence to the coherent and rational proposals of the Deposit Draft, without modification.

Director of Planning and Development 8 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

In support of the third point they submit a copy of the report to the Ross and Cromarty Area Committee by the Area Planning and Building Control Manager in respect of a resubmitted planning application (ref 04/00742/FULRC) for the erection of a house in detail on land to the rear of No.12 Corntown [THC9/1].

The Planning Authority’s Response

3.3 THC as Planning Authority wishes to respond to the objections set out in paras. 3.4 to 4.2 below. These are contained in the Annex to the Committee report of 25 January 2005 and expanded as necessary. Para. 2.15 above indicates the proposed Modifications in response to the original objections.

SEPA

3.4 With regard to paragraph 3 of Chapter 6, Structure Plan Policy G2 [CD1] makes it clear that adequate drainage is a requirement of any development proposal. This principle carries forward to all development proposals. In most settlements drainage is recognised as an important development factor. It should also be recognised that the Local Plan allocations and priorities are not driven by the availability of public sewers, Scottish Water’s current investment programme or by SEPA’s environmental remit. These organisations’ priorities have to be weighed against development pressures and the aspirations of local communities and the Council to promote improved provision elsewhere. In some cases the Council would argue for first time provision of a public drainage system in the interests of sustaining a community facility or the community itself e.g. in relation to the primary schools at Easter Kinkell (Ferintosh) or Newmore.

3.5 It was considered that a Proposed Modification of Policy GSP2 Waste Water Treatment in Chapter 5 would address general concerns (see the first bullet of para. 2.17 above). However, continued objections to this by SEPA and counter objections by others have required more detailed examination of the policy, as covered in detail by the statement for Issue 4. Negotiations with SEPA have also taken place in relation to the recommendation of the Report on Inverness Local Plan Inquiry on similar objections. As a result it is now proposed that policy GSP2 Waste Water Treatment be further Modified to read as follows: -

“Connection to the public sewer as defined in the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 will be a pre-requisite of planning permission for all development proposals in the Main Settlements and in other locations where land is identified for significant development in the plan. Elsewhere, connection to the public sewer will be required, unless the applicant can demonstrate that: (i) connection is not feasible, for technical or economic reasons, or; (ii) the receiving WWTP is at capacity and Scottish Water has no programmed investment to increase that capacity; and (iii) the proposal is not likely to result in significant environmental or health problems.

Director of Planning and Development 9 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

Planning permission for developments with private waste water systems will only be allowed where proposals satisfy (i) or (ii) above, and satisfy (iii).”

A further recommendation from the Inverness LPI is that the “Council reassesses the allocations and locations … in discussion with SEPA and Scottish Water, based on the principles listed above (relating to recommended amended Policy GSP2), before deciding whether or not to confirm these allocations.”

3.6 On the basis of the proposed Modification to Policy GSP2, as previously agreed by THC, proposed changes were recommended for Policy 3 in Chapter 6 in the form of an insertion of reference to the need for a connection “to a public sewer with adequate sewage treatment”. At the time it was considered that this would also address the comments on the detailed settlement provisions in subsequent paragraphs 4 to 33 and help reduce the text in the corresponding Comments/ Constraints column in the table. Consequently, it was thought that inclusion of reference to advice about the need to connect to a public sewer and the Conon Bridge treatment works at Corntown would address SEPA’s objection to Paragraph 11. However, it was the proposal to delete Corntown from the table of Small Rural Settlements in Chapter 6 and reduce it to the status of a small housing group with limited potential that resulted in SEPA conditionally withdrawing this objection.

Donald MacKillop Associates on behalf of Craig Millar and Lisa Manclark

3.7 The objection submitted by Donald MacKillop Associates related to a planning application lodged by clients Craig Millar and Lisa Manclark for a new house in a field to the rear of No.12A Corntown. The policy comments made on the application advised that the development potential indicated in the Deposit Draft is within the Corntown settlement boundary and principally within the gap on the south east side of the public road, between the two groups of houses [THC9/1]. There is also thought to be some potential in the conversion of the large steading on the south east side of the road, should it fall into disuse, as well as in the renovation of existing properties. The proposed house site clearly lies outwith the Deposit Draft Plan settlement boundary and is not therefore supported by the Plan. Furthermore, the proposal effectively suggests backland development in close proximity to existing dwellings. This form of development is contrary to the established pattern of settlement in the area and the spirit of general policy guidance on Housing in the Countryside.

3.8 On 7 December 2004, the application was the subject of a report to the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee with a recommendation to REFUSE on the following grounds: -

“1. The proposal is contrary to Structure Plan Policy H3 in respect of houses in the countryside and also the Deposit Draft of the Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan which seeks to restrict the development of new houses in the countryside, unless there are exceptional needs. No exceptional need is demonstrated in this case.”

2. The proposal is contrary to Structure Plan Policy G2 and the Development Plan Policy Guidelines as a dwelling house in this location would be intrusive and out of

Director of Planning and Development 10 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

character with the surrounding properties, detracting from the visual amenity of the area. It is backland development. If approved, it would serve to set a precedent for further houses in the countryside which would erode the objectives of the Council maintaining the open nature of the countryside and seeking to develop the area in a sustainable manner.”

3.9 The minute of the Committee meeting [THC9/2] reports the views of the local Member, Mrs A MacLean, who “referred to the representations that had been made under the Draft Local Plan in relation to this site, and the efforts that had been made by the applicant’s son to secure land for development.” It is then continues “She recognised the difficulty associated with any breach of Council policy, and advised that deferral of the application until the outcome of the Local Plan review has been completed would appear to be the appropriate action.” Consequently, the Committee AGREED to defer the application to await the outcome of the deliberations on the Draft Local Plan.

3.10 In respect of the efforts of applicant’s son to secure land for development, it is understood that this included areas within the Corntown settlement boundary (Deposit Draft). This is when information emerged regarding the non-availability of undeveloped land on the south side of the public road, as well as the intention to convert part of the steading for other uses. In these respects and having regard to the other objections on drainage grounds, consideration was given to abandoning the larger Corntown settlement (Small Rural Settlement Inset 11). Limiting the development potential to a single house addition to the smaller close-knit cluster of houses around No.12A Corntown, on the west side of the settlement would be consistent with the adopted Black Isle Local Plan Housing Alteration No. 2 [CD5], at paragraph 5.5.6. This group is defined by a solid back shape on the Proposals Map and although the scale is too small to clarify exactly where the boundary is, the enclosure of the objector’s application site by fast growing conifers could see the single house “contained within a clear visual envelope”, as per DPPG1 [CD6].

3.11 In light of the above, THC agreed proposed Modifications to the Deposit Draft Plan [CD27], as indicated at para. 2.14 above, to confine the potential for development to a smaller group of houses in the western area of Corntown and to list the group in Appendix III, covered by the provisions of paragraph 35 (34 in the Proposed Modifications to DD version). This potential should be limited to one house, the subject site, to the rear of the smaller group of three houses north of the B9163 road. It was further agreed that if there were no objections to the proposed Modifications and the original objections were withdrawn by the closing date of the next (pre- public Inquiry) Deposit period the application be referred back to Committee for approval. Had this issue followed this process and the house approved and/or commenced before post Inquiry Modifications, there was the provision to remove the group from the finalised Plan.

Ferintosh CC

3.12 While Ferintosh CC continues to support SEPA’s view in respect of Corntown, SEPA have conditionally withdrawn. THC would also argue that the wording of the

Director of Planning and Development 11 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

Community Council’s comment - “We support the proposal of no development unless there is adequate public drainage” - is not clearly stated as an objection. However, their overall objections to smaller housing groups or clusters are of relevance to the proposed Modification for Corntown. Various objections to housing groups across the Local Plan area are addressed in full in Issue 14.

3.13 These groups are excluded from the list of Small Rural Settlements in paragraphs 4 to 33 because of their very small scale. The criteria for identifying the groups listed is that they must comprise a small cluster of three or more existing houses sited no greater than 50 metres apart on average. The development potential is mostly limited to one or two additional houses and subject to suitable drainage and access. Additional housing must be consistent with the criteria of DPPG1 [CD6].

Graham Sullivan and Sheila Maher

3.14 THC does not dispute that “the Deposit Draft provided a coherent plan for potential future development of Corntown, in accordance with the established pattern of development in the area, and a mix of new-build and conversion.” It was THC that promoted this approach initially. The proposal to change the Deposit Draft to confine the development potential to the smaller group of houses at the western end of Corntown was based on concerns by SEPA and Ferintosh CC over drainage together with land availability considerations at the time.

3.15 SEPA [CD30/170] and the Community Council [CD30/78] essentially seek the connection of development in a larger group to a public sewer, in this case all the way to the Conon Bridge waste water treatment works some 600 metres to the north of Corntown. The servicing of land for a further 10 houses on this basis is likely to be cost prohibitive, given the length of sewers required. This factor and the possibility that one additional house in the area could instead have its own private system suggested a return to the Adopted Plan approach of just identifying a smaller cluster of houses with such limited potential.

3.16 THC has learned that late in 2004 Ferintosh Community Council discussed the planning application for the single house to the rear of No.12A Corntown. While it is understood that discussion on the matter was not recorded in a minute of that meeting, when the Deposit Draft Local Plan provisions it was mentioned that the allocated land on the south side belonging to Graham Sullivan and Sheila Maher was not available for development. It is also understood that the applicants or original objectors, Craig Millar and Lisa Manclark, had approached Sheila Maher close to the time of their application being reported to Committee on 7 December 2004. This was part of their attempt to consider building on land in the Corntown area that would comply with the Deposit Draft Plan when they became aware of proposed recommendation to refuse the application. They were allegedly told that the allocated land was not available, information that the local Member’s relayed to Committee over efforts to secure other land for development [THC9/2].

3.17 In view of the above the Proposed Modification was aimed at recognising some potential for development based on the Adopted Local Plan Alteration [CD5].

Director of Planning and Development 12 Issue 9 – June/July 2005 Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan Inquiry

Indeed had the Local Plan not been under Review the recommendation might have been to approve the single house on the basis of the Adopted Plan Alteration. It is also unfortunate that the Draft Local Plan has become embroiled in such a point of detail. An Area Planning Committee decision to either approve or refuse the planning application instead of deferring it for the Local Plan Review might have resolved the matter of the appropriate policy for the area.

3.18 In respect of the matter of the Proposed Modification “allowing backland development, contrary to the established pattern of the area”, it is agreed that this precedent would be created if the settlement remains as per the Deposit Draft Plan. In this situation the further development potential should be confined to the south east side of the road. However, the group comprising three houses on the north west side of the road (including No.12A) and three to the south east are sited relatively close together. In this respect they meet the initial criteria for defining small clusters of 3 or more dwellings sited less than 50 metres apart. Only one of the three houses north west of the road is a traditional dwelling, No.12A. The western most of two modern houses either side of this is set back further from the road. In the respect, the addition of a new house to the rear of No.12A in essence to “round off” the small group may not be so at odds with the settlement pattern.

3.19 As indicated in the 7 December 2004 Area Planning Committee report [THC9/1], the family of the Craig Millar are owners of the neighbouring properties, 12 and 12A Corntown, as well as the application site. The transfer of plots within families or to members of the local community at below market value can help address local affordable housing needs, a key objective of the THC’s Local Housing Strategy. In relation to the Adopted and Deposit Draft Local Plan provisions, the site in dispute lies in an area of open countryside, where the presumption is against new housing without an exceptional need.

4. Conclusion

4.1 This case presents a dilemma as far as the interests of the two main parties is concerned. There is clearly support for retaining Corntown as a larger group of houses, as per the Deposit Draft Plan except that the requirement to connect to the Conon Bridge wastewater treatment works for up to 10 houses could place very high costs on development. This level of development would also effectively double the number of dwellings in this location, a matter that Ferintosh CC had concerns about at the Consultative Draft stage. In this respect and ignoring the land ownership issues, on balance THC now feels that the provisions for this area should be more in keeping with the Adopted Local Plan Alteration as small group with limited potential for one house, possibly with its own private drainage system.

4.2 Accordingly, The Council would ask that the Reporter support the provisions of the Deposit Draft Plan with the proposed Modifications, as highlighted in bold text paragraph 2.14 above.

Director of Planning and Development 13 Issue 9 – June/July 2005