Western Isles Structure Plan
ANNEX B: WESTERN ISLES STRUCTURE PLAN
REASONS FOR NOT MAKING MODIFICATIONS
Introduction
This Annex deals with representations made on the Western Isles Structure Plan where Scottish Ministers have decided not to make modifications. It includes reasons for their decision. The commentary covers both representations made on the Plan as submitted and on Scottish Ministers draft modifications. Many of the representations made on the Plan have been met either wholly, or in part, in the final modifications issued by Scottish Ministers (Annex A). Apart from a short general section at the beginning, this commentary follows the contents sequence in the Written Statement.
General
There are a number of general representations which cover the following themes.
1. The emerging Structure Plan does not meet the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC (Lafarge).
Reason: Approval of the Structure Plan accords with the provisions in the Directive.
2. The Plan does not help to tackle the area's declining population and economy. The acceptability of new development is conditional on ill-defined environmental and sustainability criteria. The overall approach lacks flexibility (Lafarge, ROCQ, S Macdermid).
Reason: The Plan provides a land-use framework for sustaining and developing communities throughout the Western Isles. It addresses the key aims satisfactorily, with appropriate flexibility and clarity and a proper balance with other important concerns.
3. Call for an Examination in Public (EIP) to hear objections (Mr & Mrs D Woolf).
Reason: There is sufficient material in the Plan to reach a decision without recourse to an EIP.
4. There should be a reference to "policy" or "proposal" preceding each provision in the Plan (S Macdermid).
Reason: The textual distinction between policy and proposal is considered sufficiently clear.
5. There is a lack of Gaelic in the Plan (J MacLean).
Reason: The Plan makes adequate provision for sustaining and enhancing cultural traditions and heritage, including Gaelic, in particular Policy SC8. A Gaelic version of the Plan, as modified, is to be issued by Western Isles Council. Scottish Ministers' decision on the Plan is available in Gaelic and English.
Sustainable Communities
6. The repetition in the text that all development must be sustainable is excessive and should be removed. Sustainability is undefined, unclear, confusing, superfluous and contrary to other policy aims (Lafarge, ROCQ).
Reason: The Plan sets out how land use planning can help deliver sustainability. The coverage is considered acceptable.
Development Management
7. Tighter restrictions are required on the location of new development (DM1) with justification needed for exceptions (RSPB). Others seek greater flexibility in locating new development with jobs and economic revival given higher priority (Lafarge, ROCQ, S Macdermid).
Reason: The policy as modified clarifies the approach which the Council will take in considering the location of development. The policy is considered appropriate for its intended purpose. Other policies such as DM7 amplify the criteria for assessing development proposals.
8. There is no need to refer to other policies when considering the needs of remote and peripheral areas (DM2) as this detracts from achieving the Plan's key aim to halt population decline by improving the economy (Lafarge).
Reason: It is appropriate that the needs of remote and peripheral areas are fully considered within the context of all of the key aims and the land-use framework set out in the Plan.
9. There are other areas, not specified in DM3, which are in economic, social or environmental decline (Lafarge, ROCQ, J MacLean).
Reason: The policy gives particular examples where the Council will seek to secure regeneration. These are not exclusive and the policy makes that clear.
10. Greater flexibility, clarity of purpose, exemptions and detail are needed in DM7 relating to the assessment of development proposals (Lafarge, ROCQ). Other commentators seek strengthening of the environmental content including incorporating the precautionary approach (SNH, RSPB).
Reason: The policy, as modified, provides sufficient criteria against which the Council can assess development proposals. It provides for full consideration to be given to both local and national needs including EIA requirements. Assessments will also take account of the requirements of other Plan policies.
11. Add "Public Art" to the heading (S Macdermid).
Reason: This is adequately covered in the text and falls to "Consultation and Community Benefit" on development schemes rather than a separate heading in itself.
Resource Management
12. Minerals are conspicuous by their absence in this section and the objectives set out should be applied with flexibility and due account taken in coastal zone management that development under ED9 requires a coastal location (Lafarge).
Reason: Minerals are specifically provided for in the Economic Development section of the Plan. The policy accords with current national planning guidance.
13. The Plan should balance environmental considerations, including new natural heritage designations, with socio-economic needs (S Macdermid, WIC, Lafarge, ROCQ).
Reason: Scottish Ministers are fully aware of the socio-economic needs of the islands. The natural heritage importance and the extent of current designated sites in the Western Isles are also apparent with many parts being of national and international significance. The Plan as modified recognises the contribution which natural heritage makes to the quality and distinctiveness of island life. The special qualities of the natural heritage assist the tourist industry helping to support local businesses. Designations do not preclude development but proposals require to be assessed for their effects on the interests which the designation is designed to protect and decisions made accordingly. In addition socio-economic factors can be taken into account in the management of a site. European designations have to be identified in line with scientific advice.
Economic Development
14. The feasibility of devising benefit from development in remote areas should be "supported" rather than "investigated" (Lafarge).
Reason: It is for the Council to consider each opportunity on its merits and therefore "investigated" is considered appropriate.
15. Policies are inter-related and inter-dependent and accordingly there is no need for modification to ED2 (WIC).
Reason: Earlier policies do not make explicit that the impact, cumulative or otherwise, of renewable energy proposals on the natural and historic environments should be part of any assessment.
16. There is no mention of Stoc-cleit in ED8 (J MacLean).
Reason: It is for the Council to identify the sites for mineral working which will satisfy local needs.
17. Ensure that the requirements for compliance with policies is not more severe in ED9 than in ED3 by deleting reference to "Community Minerals Trust Fund" and replacing "other" with "relevant" in iii) (Lafarge).
Reason: It is for the Council to consider whether to establish a Fund. The policy terms in iii) are similar to that in ED3.
Transportation
18. A fixed link across the Sound of Harris would have an adverse effect on boat movements, visual impact, environmental disruption and increased road traffic. The proposal is out of proportion to any social or economic benefits. It is an unjustified extravagance. It would harm wildlife, tourism, employment and the outstanding natural beauty and remoteness of the area. Supposed opportunities for renewable energy production are given simply to bolster an unsustainable scheme that would result in unsightliness and noise (A Johnson, D Simpson, M Maccuskie, I Watts, N David, P Wall, Mr & Mrs D Woolf). An EIP should be held to consider objections to this proposal (Mr & Mrs D Woolf).
Reason: The proposal as modified is considered acceptable. It allows the Council to have studies done of the feasibility of fixed linked crossings. In addition to transport issues, these would also cover economic, social, cultural and environmental factors. It would then be for the Council to consider whether to promote a development proposal which would be subject to full scrutiny through the planning process. An EIP is therefore not appropriate at this early stage. The proposal may or may not be progressed.
Key Diagram
19. Delete the NSA boundary over the sea (Lafarge).
Reason: Some NSAs includes areas of sea, including those in the Western Isles, as shown in the Key Diagram.