Pages

▼

Friday, January 21, 2011

Claymore controversy

There was a huge turnout at the West CC on Wednesday night. A lot of people were there highlight their objections to the proposed redevelopment of the Claymore House Hotel in Seabank Road. Already quite a few objections have been received. Here at Gurn HQ we would bet that this one builds up a head of steam similar to the Lodgehill Clinic campaign. Gurnites can see the plans and browse the objections here. (tip - click on the documents not the comments to see comments)
at

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:18 PM

    I do believe even the Forscythes made an appearance, accompanied by the Reapers and Grims ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Graisg10:33 PM

    Off topic but yes I think you are correct. Of course many Gurnites will already know that when the day comes to march on Inverness top-rung Councillors will have Claymores but the poor will only have scythes. (as promised should the big city ever try and rob the Common Good Fund)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:55 PM

    Community council objecting to a development, surely not ?
    What do you have to do to get community support for a new development in Nairn, other than promise them a quality shopping experience ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Graisg8:32 AM

    Of course anyone minded to support a planning application can pop along to the e-planning pages on the Highland Council website and do just that. That's what happened with the old Nairn County Social club application so it works both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:27 AM

    To the 10.55 anon: there are plenty of responsible planning applications in Nairn that are successful - have a look at the HC lists. It's only the ones that people object to that you get to hear about. What do you want? A free-for-all, build anything you like, irrespective of the effects on other peoples' lives?

    ReplyDelete
  6. APTSec7:22 PM

    From the INBS PAC Dec 2010 agenda

    6. Delegated Decisions

    Members are asked to note the undernoted delegated decisions from 16 July 2010 to 16 September 2010.

    INVERNESS
    Number of Applications Granted 112
    Number of Applications Refused 3
    % of all Applications Determined in 2 Months 62.96%

    NAIRN
    Number of Applications Granted 24
    Number of Applications Refused 0
    % of all Applications Determined in 2 Months 77.80%

    BABENOCH & STRATHSPEY
    Number of Applications Granted 56
    Number of Applications Refused 2
    % of all Applications Determined in 2 Months 77.96%

    Members are asked to note the undernoted delegated decisions from 17 September 2010 to 29 November 2010.

    INVERNESS
    Number of Applications Granted 114
    Number of Applications Refused 1
    % of all Applications Determined in 2 Months 65.15%

    NAIRN
    Number of Applications Granted 30
    Number of Applicatons Refused 0
    % of all Applications Determined in 2 Months 76.50%

    BADENOCH & STRATHSPEY
    Number of Applications Granted 42
    Number of Applications Refused 0
    % of all Applications Determined in 2 Months 86.36%

    If you look at the minutes you'll see that the committe also granted permission for the vast majority of applications that were considered by this committee at this meeting with only one refusal I think - on the grounds of public safety.

    Planning is supposed to balance competing and conflicting demands and do this in a fair manner taking into account what is material to the application (which includes national and local policy, the views of statutory consultees and the public etc)

    To see what is and is not material look at the Planning Aid Scotland web site

    http://www.planningaidscotland.org.uk/images/pdf/material.pdf

    ReplyDelete