Seafront homes scheme in Cromarty rejected by Highland Council
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
CONTROVERSIAL plans for new homes right on the seafront in Cromarty have been thrown out by Highland councillors.
The North Planning Applications Committee voted to reject plans for three houses in the Daffodil Field off Miller Road.
The housing, which would have been located in the village’s conservation area, and flanked on either side by existing b-listed properties, was rejected by 10 votes to five.
If approved, the proposals by applicant John Nightingale, would have consisted of one-and-a-half and two storey houses as well as a separate shed/boat house. The buildings would have consisted of white harl and larch timber walls, with slate roofing to reflect the site's location within the historic core of Cromarty.
A section of the field’s existing wall boundary would also have been removed to create a new access, with the dismantled stone then being re-erected to follow the curve of the new road into the site.
But the proposals drew dozens of objections locally.
And, bringing a motion to refuse the application, Black Isle ward councillor Craig Fraser, who lives in Cromarty, argued that the proposal was out of keeping with the area.
“This application is unusual in that the majority of the objectors are from Cromarty itself," he said. "Having read and reread the application and comments on the e-planning portal I agree with the reasons given for their objections. There has been consistent objection to the application over the past three and a bit years.”
He continued: “I believe that its development will not add value to Cromarty’s conservation area.
“The application site is within the conservation area which is designated as outstanding in recognition of its outstanding architectural and historical interest. The layout chosen – three houses in a cul-de0sac arrangement – does not reflect the streetscape of the conservation area and will look out of place despite the traditional design chosen for the proposed houses.”
He argued that the site was not zoned for development in the current Inner Moray Firth Development Plan, raised concerns that the new buildings would “more than likely” not be affordable to local families, and that they had potential to become second or holiday homes in the future.
He also raised concerns over potential archaeological impacts and added that he believed the site had greater benefit as “a haven for wildlife”, adding: “Once this area is lost to development it will never be recovered.”
Cllr Fraser’s stance won support from Dingwall and Seaforth councillor Margaret Paterson, who seconded his motion to reject the proposal.
She said: “I’m really concerned about it. Cromarty is an area I went growing up. It's a beautiful area and sometimes think we don’t consider that when putting up applications.
“It spoils the look of the area. And the impact on traffic on the road will be larger then what has been put forward. It really does concern me.
“That is a really narrow road and people walk on that road. I just don’t think site is suitable for these houses.”
Dingwall and Seaforth ward councillor Angela MacLean, who put forward an amendment to grant the proposals, said she had “sympathy” for the concerns of councillors Fraser and Paterson, but added that the committee had dealt with applications that weren’t included in the Moray Firth Development Plan in the past. She also stressed that Cromarty’s historic layout meant that all of its streets were “quite narrow” and that this layout and reduced 20mph speed limits, meant motorists were already aware of the potential for pedestrians in the road, and that council roads teams had raised no objection.
Addressing concerns over any the future use of the houses, she added: “As members of this committee we have to stick with the application as presented to us and not second guess what might happen to the properties in the future, because that can happen in any application.”
Noting a lack of objection from Sepa or the council’s environmental officers, and the applicant’s move to reduce the original number of proposed houses from four to three, she said she was happy to go with recommendations to grant the proposal.
This was seconded by committee chairwoman, Cllr Maxine Smith.
Cllr Raymond Bremner said he had concerns over the suitability of the site, and that while he could sympathise with both arguments, “I don’t think it is in the right location”.
Members voted to reject the proposal.
