Former bakery flats conversion approved by councillors on appeal despite parking concern
THE CONVERSION of the former Walls bakery building into flats has been approved by councillors following an appeal.
Two elected members of Shetland Islands Council’s (SIC) planning committee said there was a danger of “making a mountain out of molehill” over parking, which was the main reason for the application’s initial refusal.
Shetland West councillor Mark Robinson also said extra housing for people in Walls was “much needed”.
The application was brought to the committee on Wednesday following an appeal from the applicant.
The application was initially turned down by the SIC’s planning service over concern there was not sufficient parking or turning space available at the site.
The decision notice said this would place “unacceptable parking pressure” in the area affecting the use of the adjoining shop, and road and traffic safety.
The proprietor of the Walls Shop objected to the application, saying parking was a “major issue” with the plans – adding that the business and the post office provide “lifeline services” to the community.
The applicant, Fiona Cooper, had said the intended use was for long-term rentals which they hoped would “take some pressure off the already difficult rental property market” and potentially provide accommodation for key workers.
The Westside bakery closed its doors in 2023 with the loss of nine jobs, and the building went up for sale as part of an administration process.
Plans were then lodged by Cooper for turning parts of the vacant building into three flats.
The application was refused by the planning service mainly due to concerns over the pressure the conversion could bring on the nearby car park at the Walls shop.
The decision notice said: “While the use of shared use car park is proposed, this area is not indicated as land within the control or ownership of the applicant, and therefore cannot be secured or enforced through planning conditions and it has not been demonstrated that the available public parking in the area and the shared use car parking would be sufficient to accommodate the parking needs generated by the proposed development.”
Help keep Shetland’s news open to everyone
Good local journalism takes time, care and people on the ground. Membership helps us keep reporting the stories that matter to Shetland — and keep them free for everyone to read. Members get a weekly newsletter created especially for them, local ads only, and can bookmark stories and join the conversation in the comments.
Already a member? Sign in.
The committee hearing on Wednesday heard that the shared car park essentially has nine spaces, and is owned by the SIC and leased out.
The parking proposed for the conversion is outwith the boundary of the development site.
An appeal document from the applicant also said any parking demand could utilise public spaces which are “located in the surrounding area, most notably the visitor spaces in front of the hall/public toilets to the north”.
Planning officer Ritchie Gillies said the principle of the development was “generally acceptable”, but parking was a barrier.
He said the proposed flats do not provide dedicated parking, and that two spaces in the shared car park are already dedicated to the bakery’s existing first floor residential flat.
Gillies said the applicant made “considerable efforts’ to address the issues, including a parking survey, but the roads department maintained its objection.
It said the most recent survey, undertaken this summer, does not represent parking demand through the year because it took place during the school holidays.
SIC lawyer Paul Sutherland told the meeting that he understood that parking arrangements in the shared car park have “arisen through practice informally” rather than being on title deeds.
He also reminded elected members against straying into areas of possible conflict given the SIC is the landowner of the car park.
Appeal documents from the applicant said they have “legal rights to use the shared parking area”.
Shetland North member Andrea Manson meanwhile suggested the parking demand from flats during the day, when the shop is open, would be less because people living in the proposed flats may be at work.
She asked if “we are making a mountain out of molehill here?”
The SIC’s asset and network management team leader within the roads service, Colin Gair, said the expectation is that that most folk would take the car away from their house during the day.
However, he said given that the property is located next to a bus stop, people may seek to use public transport.
Gair also confirmed that if the conversion project was theoretically a new build, a total of five parking spaces would be required for the three flats.
Cooper also took to the stand to speak to councillors, saying the proposal was simple – “we’re trying to put three front doors back into a building which already has a place in the community”.
She said the title deeds to the property provide shared use of the car park, and said they approached the SIC about formalising arrangements.
Cooper said the SIC’s assets team said on 14 October it was seeking legal advice, which was still pending.
She also claimed the “goalposts seemed to move” as to the SIC’s response to parking surveys.
Cooper said the peak occupancy in the entire area, and not just the car park, was said to be nine vehicles – for a period of only four minutes.
A previous survey, from November 2025, suggested a 15 per cent utilisation rate, with the peak average of four cars during busy periods.
A statement issued to planning staff also claimed that the proposed change of use to residential flats would “materially reduce traffic movements” compared to the former bakery, or any future commercial operation there.
However the proprietor of the Walls Shop said during the planning process that the vehicle footprint from the bakery when it was operational was “minimal and completely insignificant to that which would be generated by three residential properties”.
At Wednesday’s meeting Cooper encouraged councillors to “consider the whole picture” and assess the “genuine additional impact” from three new flats.
She also claimed that the planning department “mislaid documents” relating to property’s purchase history “which may have additional information about parking”.
During debate councillors sided with the applicant, with no member calling for the application to be rejected.
Robinson said “since I first stood for election, the one thing that the community wants is housing in Walls”.
The Sandness and Walls Community Council said during the planning process that it is supportive of additional housing in the area, but said there were parking issues.
Robinson said the flats would not be marketed for holiday use, and instead may accommodate people working for the likes of the SIC, NHS Shetland or local businesses.
He added there was parking available in the area, including by the war memorial, the school and the hall, as well as outside the shop.
North Isles member Robert Thomson also highlighted how the proposed change of use for the building would actually lower the theoretical requirement for parking.
“Being a bit pragmatic here, and understanding fully the desperate need for housing in Shetland here, that if this is the only barrier, I think it’s one we can overcome,” he said.
Shetland Central member Davie Sandison also sided with the applicant, despite the councillor saying he would usually take “great cognisance” of the views of planning officers.
“I would like to think the publicly available parking spaces, and there are many, would be sufficient for the shared parking to continue,” he said.
Keep Shetland’s news open to everyone
Your membership helps us report the stories that matter to Shetland — and keep them free for everyone to read.
Already a member? Sign in.
