Dingwall hotel appeal to be considered by Scottish Government reporter
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
A FRESH battle is looming in the heart of Ross-shire's county town over previously rejected proposals to extend a hotel.
Members of a local Highland Council planning committee earlier this year threw out the proposals tabled by G and M Properties for the Waverley Inn in Dingwall's Castle Street.
Neighbours concerned about loss of privacy, the extra late-night traffic and noise nuisance they claim has been generated by the business were jubilant when the scheme – which had been recommended for approval by planning officers – was overturned back in September.
However it has emerged that the applicant has appealed against the refusal to the Scottish Government – and objectors have just days to have their say before the period for representations ends.
The firm wants to erect a first floor extension to the building to create an extra eight bedrooms.
At the last planning committee, Cllr Kirsteen Currie admitted she was "really uneasy" about the proposal while local representative Margaret Paterson also moved refusal describing it as "not the most attractive building" and asking: "I wonder when enough is enough?"
While a number of local people are up in arms that they weren't informed about the appeal, it has emerged they have until Monday to make additional representations.
Some are concerned that a range of vehicles from laundry vans to coaches and lorries associated with the hotel are regularly parked on Castle Street, creating an issue for traffic.
One objector, David Bonney said: “As a resident of this street for exactly 41 years this week. I do feel that there should not be any more rooms added to the hotel. There has definitely been a vast increase in the last year that is absolutely related to the hotel. There are problems already with HGVs parked overnight.”
Jim Burgess has told the Scottish Government Reporter Andrew Fleming, who will probe the appeal, that “almost every resident” was against the hotel extension. He said: “This is a residential area and the effect of more guests at the Waverley would seriously impact on the traffic and parking.
"As it is already we regularly have problems parking outside our own house due to guests at the Inn using the streets to park, sometimes leaving their vehicles for several days, this includes large HGV types as well as cars. This area is not capable of safely accommodating any further vehicle traffic and parking which the Waverley Inn intends and I stress that this must be considered as being a residential area first and foremost.”
Dr Diana Black wrote: “Even with the number of rooms that they have at present, they do not have sufficient parking for staff and clients. Unfortunately on several occasions this has resulted in cars being parked across my drive blocking access.”
David Campbell, whose home is next door to the hotel, has taken photos of traffic concerns.He said the extension would badly affect the are by driving traffic up, impact the conservation area, vehicular access, noise pollution, loss of light or overshadowing as well as overlooking rooms causing a loss of privacy. He cites the inadequacy of parking, loading and turning space for hotel vehicles being a particular problem: “Having looked at the proposed site plan it is unclear how or where an extra seven parking spaces could or would be made. Also, to have another drop kerb in such close proximity to the existing drop kerbs on either side would be hazardous and quite possibly dangerous.”
However the applicant is entitled to appeal against the local decision because the proposal had initially been recommended for approval by Highland Council planning officials.
It's understood the reporter will make a site visit to the area to help reach a decision on the appeal.
To find out more about the process see here.
