wilsywilsy

40 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

It's not residential at all lmao, if anything it's a small retail park, with a driving range and a go kart track, the nearest residents are over 200m away from the proposed site, its effectively hugging the backside of the kart track. They've said they'll do everything to hide it and make it blend in. Completely different story if the Cloud Factory was being relocated to Fairways, especially when the project causes no pollution in the slightest, so to label it as "heavy industry" is a bit of a stretch to say the least...

Super - I'm glad we agree that it's not an industrial area.

6 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

There's a site search document included as part of the application which says they'd been looking for sites close to the Inverness GSP substation for a couple of years before this site was considered. They ruled out the church next to the substation and sites near the Ness-side housing development for various reasons.

I suspect the planners didn't find that very convincing: "We asked the minister for his land, he said thou shalt not. So we looked at a wee ground switcheroo for some allotments with the church land and the minister said thou shalt not. Tulloch were already milking the arse out of the other land around the GSP and we.... sorry they.... said the land was unavailable..... so what else could we do except choose Fairways".

14 minutes ago, Row S said:

It was not so long ago that the Council was prepared to ignore its policy for open space protection to allow roads to be built (1) from the SDR Eagle roundabout into Drakies and (2) to wipe out a well established equipped play area on the long established Drakies buffer land to serve a spurious housing site south of the Police HQ. 

The large green shed shown in the photo in committee this morning is not a green keepers' shed. It is the Inverness Kart Raceway building, which was also built on the Fairways open space.    

I'm not familiar with the Drakies development - that sounds like a crap outcome. But councillors need to feel the heat from residents when these issues surface.

For context, the Kart Raceway building is an indoor leisure facility that covers circa 0.2 hectares - this project is 1.7 hectares populated with 52 huge industrial containers and related transformers and control units.

20 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Aye but theres a mahoosive difference between building a brand spanking new housing estate, and hiding some shipping containers in the corner right at the edge of the area where you won't be able to see it unless you throw up a drone or specifically go looking for it.

I understand why there needs to be a green place in a rapidly expanding city, but there's not much alternative places to put this thing, and I can't imagine it'd be a popular idea to dump it in the middle of town or in a housing estate. The club and ILI have said that it'd be camoflagued to hell and back, and in a field where very few people would actually use it as a park, I can't imagine there'd be much of a kick in the teeth...

Other than the mahoosive housing estate you reference, the planners and council have also rejected at least one other planning application for small scale housing and chalet developments at this site for the same reasons.

I think you are missing the scale of this thing. 1.7 hectares is a big chunk of land being turned to heavy industrial use in a predominantly residential area.

Just now, Stephen Malkmus said:

It's protected from development unless either:

- it can be suitably demonstrated that the development that the open space is not fit for purpose

- substitute provision will be provided, or

- development of the open space would significantly contribute to the spatial strategy for the area 

The applicant should have made the case that the development significantly contributes to the spatial strategy for the area by providing renewable energy infrastructure to support the creation of sustainable communities. 

As the planners said today, it has to be "the right development in the right place" and they challenged the applicants to prove they considered, and ruled out, other sites first. I bet they didn't - they have probably just tried to use this land because David Cameron already owns it.

5 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Can only see a typical Neanderthalic response from the Highland Council. Google maps shows the former golf course is MASSIVE and has no development on it whatsoever, and I can't imagine HC are planning on a Central Park copycat any time soon.

Rather spend money on random crap like an unwanted wall in the river, but will happily turn down a proposal that, if expanded across the Highlands, can EASILY be one massive step towards Carbon Neutrality...

It's protected green space as per the well published Inner Moray Firth Development Plan, that, ya know..... folk considered as intelligent land investors might be aware of. That means it is protected from development and why all attempts to build houses here has always been rejected. I don't see it as "Neanderthalic" for the planners to point this out - they are doing their job.

1 minute ago, Row S said:

Yes, I saw that. I got the impression that most councillors want to approve it but as the technical objections had not been addressed by the applicant they felt they couldn't support it. Also time to explain the 'community benefits' (to ICT). Best outcome in the circumstances.

The councillors certainly sounded like they had been buttered up. I noticed the burning eyes of the ICT board sitting in the gallery punching their palms to apply some final pressure on them to relent.

Amongst other things, the planners rightly pointed to the proposed category of usage being industrial (not compatible with surroundings) and the site being designated green open space as part of IMLDP2. The councillors were fishing for the category to be "softened" for this case and for a site visit to see the impact on the green space in-situ. One councillor was hilariously trying to describe the aesthetics as looking like a golf course maintenance shed - I have never seen a golf course with 3m high sheds and a footprint of a modern football stadium.

1 hour ago, Northern_jaggie said:

Surely the Council will condition the consent rather than refuse it? All the conditions have mitigations which the club has addressed. If it’s refused, the appeal will surely be consented.

I really hope ICT succeed with this.  Clearly a lot of work has gone in behind the scenes which is to be commended. 

Just because a lot of effort has gone into it, and some mitigations have been added belatedly, does not mean the council should approve it - even on appeal.

They have been trying to whore off bits of the golf course for years and have always failed. This latest attempt is not a routine planning application. I find it staggering that the club, and others, seem surprised they have met understandable resistance.