The IMFLDP (Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan), will
shortly be moving on to the next stage where all the Council’s preferred
development options will go to Scottish Government Reporters for examination.
The planners have reassessed the situation and are putting their latest
document to next week’s Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee.
In an agenda document the planners recommend the deletion of NA9 from the proposed Nairn South development area and state as the
reason: “Transport Scotland’s confirmation that no junction will be
provided from the A96 bypass to service the later phases of Nairn South”. As
for the area that is the existing application and now the subject of the June
planning hearing they state: “NA8 Nairn - outcome of Nairn South Hearing to
dictate allocations to be reflected in the Plan - The Hearing Reporter’s
findings will be known before the close of the Plan Examination and will
strongly influence the Plan Reporters’ findings.”
In a section that states “The following list outlines the
Council’s suggested position on issues that are regarded as worthy of consideration
at Examination. “ There is an entry that reads “Reduction in the capacity of
Nairn NA2 South Kingsteps - Dependent upon the outcome of transport and flood risk assessments.” Gurnites will recall that this reponse to the “call
for sites” received many submissions objecting to the proposal –
details in this Gurn article here. As this land belongs to Liz MacDonald it was to mean she
was unable to speak at the meeting when the Nairn South planning application was
turned down and she continues to be unable to speak on major planning issues
affecting Nairn.
Further down the lists there is a statement that the reason
for not supporting additional development sites at Househill is “need improved
access, linked to future bypass provision.” Likewise additional development sites at Fort Reay are not supported because "Premature to provision of improved access via Sandown, woodland impact".
Gurnites can read
the agenda document (Report by Director of Development and Infrastructure) here. There is also another document in the public domain
now and that contains detailed responses from the planners to community
concerns locally. It is a
massive PDF file available here. The Nairn section
begins on page 324 where the representations from the town’s Community Councils
and numerous individuals are listed. The
“summary of responses (including reasons) from the planning authority” begins
on page 360. There are detailed sections
on Nairn Harbour, Fort Reay, Househill, Delnies, the Showfield, South
Kingsteps, Achareidh, Sandown, Lochloy, the town centre and Balmakeith. There
is also extensive information on the Bypass requirement etc.
This observer has had a quick look and found it very
interesting. Some Gurnites may wish to give it considerable study. It goes
before the committee next week and this observer wonders if Nairn members will
back the officers’ recommendations or will make any interventions to try and
see further changes in the document before it goes for Scottish Government
scrutiny.
Over the next few days we hope to have a further look at
elements
of this longer document but, in the meantime, here’s one wee extract from the section
entitled “Plan involvement and preparation”:
“Expressed community opinion in Nairnshire does favour lower
growth levels than promoted by the Council. However, the Council must balance
other considerations in its plan making including the needs of those that do
not engage in the Plan process. As stated above, the Council’s growth locations
and assumptions are already established within the recently adopted Highland
wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP), which was subject to Examination by
Scottish Government appointed Reporters and addressed similar objections
regarding growth levels.”
The remark “the Council must balance other considerations in
its plan making including the needs of those that do not engage in the Plan
process” is very interesting to this observer. Is there an implication there that
the planners understand what is the desire of “those that do not engage in the
plan process” is? And would that be different to the opinions expressed in the
joint submission of the town’s community councils who spoke with one voice in
their submission to the plan process? Could one be forgiven for thinking that “Expressed
community opinion in Nairnshire” as articulated by the community councils for
example, could be seen as nearest thing to the democratic will of the people?
