Council / Councillors not won over by proposal for seven homes in Trondra
AN APPLICATION for planning permission in principle for seven new homes in Trondra which attracted numerous objections has been refused by councillors.
The application, which involved seven detached homes at the end of the road at Cauldhame, drew concerns in areas such as overdevelopment and access.
Due to an objection from the Burra and Trondra Community Council the application had to be determined by Shetland Islands Council’s (SIC) planning committee, which met this morning (Wednesday).
A report to councillors recommended approval of the application, subjection to conditions being imposed.
The planning service said the application complied with policy and that there were “no material considerations which would warrant refusal”.
But after considering presentations from both planners and objectors, as well as a representative of the applicant, councillors were unanimous in deciding not to approve it.
The application was submitted by Graham Sinclair last year but quickly drew concern from some nearby local residents with access, drainage and design among the issues raised.
The Burra and Trondra Community Council also echoed these concerns.
The application said the introduction of seven new homes, of a variety of sizes up to four bedrooms, would help with demand for housing.
As part of the plans an access road would be created into the new housing development from the existing road.
Some of the concerns from residents highlighted how the single track access road into the existing housing is said to be problematic, with blind summits, sharp corners and a limited number of passing places.
The community council also said the access to the proposed housing site is “not suitable due to the steep elevation, road width and lack of pedestrian access”.
It also raised the issue of drainage, “which will run on to the neighbouring property”, while it also said the increase in traffic needs to be considered in light of the layout of the Cauldhame junction, where children access the school bus onto the main road.
However, the SIC’s roads department – at this stage, in a planning in principle application – had offered no objections. They added that there are some issues which could have been resolved at the full planning stage, such as road drainage and details of the scheme entry.
Speaking at Wednesday’s meeting, planning officer Ritchie Gillies said the overall view from the service was that it represented an “appropriate and suitable location” for small scale development, with the scheme making use of existing infrastructure.
He said the application at this stage was about establishing the principle of whether seven houses were suitable on the site.
With the planning service holding the view that it would not represent overdevelopment, Shetland Central councillor Catherine Hughson questioned how this is decided on.
Gillies said there is no threshold or criteria, with planning officers instead looking at the surrounding development pattern.
Planning manager Iain McDiarmid also said the service “can only assess what we’ve got in front of us”, with officers using their knowledge and experience of the area, and how things have developed over the years.
The meeting also heard from two local residents, with Kevin Nicolson saying he also brought to the table experience of more than 30 years in the construction industry.
He said at first glance on paper it appeared to be a “practical looking scheme”, but on closer inspection a “very different picture begins to emerge, one that raises significant concerns”.
Nicolson said while the neighbours understand the importance of providing housing in Shetland, they had concerns over issues like scale, location and access – as well as the impact of construction traffic on the existing roads to the site.
He said it was the neighbours’ view that the proposed access arrangements, which would join on to an existing turning head, would be “fundamentally unsafe” due to its width and location.
Neighbours have also expressed concern about how streetlights would be required, which would affect the visual amenity of the area in the dark.
Nicolson reiterated that the site is not part of the Shetland local development plan, adding that it is “not a small scale or sympathetic addition to Cauldhame”.
Another resident also expressed concern at a lack of privacy and the impact constructing the access would have on her property.
Mark Dennis from Nee Gibson Architects said the applicant and his family had owned the site for a number of years, adding that the proposed development was designed to accommodate people from first-time buyers to larger families.
He said the applicant owners a large site beyond the boundary and while there were “opportunities to go further”, they did not want to “overdevelop” the area.
Dennis said they have worked closely with all statutory bodies on the process to ensure that the application met policy.
But councillors were left unsure about whether it met policy, with committee vice-chair Davie Sandison – who was presiding over the meeting – for instance pointing to one in the local development plan around sustainable development.
He felt there were a “significant number of issues” at play, with his biggest concern being around overdevelopment, as well as capacity to integrate it into the existing infrastructure.
Sandison also said he was not convinced that housing need matched the area, suggesting it might for the Central Mainland, but not Trondra.
Shetland West member Mark Robinson said he had “very real concerns” about the point of access, both in width and how steep it was, while there being no separate pedestrian access was a “big red flag”.
He also said the scale of the development was “out of character” with the surrounding area, and adding in concerns about drainage and streetlights, Robinson said “to me it is just wrong”.
Meanwhile Shetland Central councillor Catherine Hughson said “for me this application is so full of if, buts and ands that I feel that I really could not support it”.
She was also keen to see a road access safety audit and a traffic count undertaken in case the matter comes up again in future.
Lerwick South councillor Cecil Smith also expressed concern that the site was not included in the local development plan.
However Robert Thomson, who represents the North Isles, highlighted how Shetland relies a lot on “windfall sites” – locations which crop up outside of the usual ‘call for sites’ process in which land owners and developers can submit areas for potential housing development.
The councillor said he visited the site in Trondra yesterday and was “deeply concerned” about the access to the potential development, while he also said the construction would cause a “huge amount” of disruption to residents for a long period of time.
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its readers to consider paying for membership to get additional perks:
- Removal of third-party ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
