INTRODUCTION
The
first issue is to determine the appropriate test to be applied. 1 agree with Mr
Patrick that the test is that contained in Section 25 of the Town & Country
Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which requires that the determination be made in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The development plan, of course, includes both the Structure Plan
and the Local Plan.
Dealing
first with the Local Plan, it is my submission that little weight should now be
given to the policy in paragraph 4.42 for the following reasons:
i.
It
is almost seven years since the Local Plan was adopted. By any standard this
policy is now old and the weight to be accorded to the policy at this time
depends upon events which have occurred since the policy was adopted'.' The
exhaustive consideration which has been given to the current proposal clearly
supersedes the policy. The fact that the Council have had three hearings
procedures into this proposal and its predecessor and on each occasion have
effectively decided that material considerations outweigh the Local Plan policy clearly demonstrate the
fact that it is no longer a relevant planning policy and that applying the test
in Section 25, the policy is clearly outweighed by other material planning
considerations.
ii. The fact that this policy apparently
was not objected to at the time of the Local
Plan preparation and
consequent Public Inquiry yet the current proposal has
attracted the level of
opposition demonstrated at this Inquiry clearly shows that
time has moved on since the
policy was adopted and the planning system must
be sufficiently dynamic and
responsive to reflect changes in attitude over the
lifetime of local plans.
iii. In any event, a careful reading of
paragraph 4.42 would lead you to believe
that what is proposed was
additional parking together with a Visitor Reception
Centre "to replace the
temporary ticket office". The scale of the development,
the subject of this Inquiry
is greater than could reasonably have been foreseen
by paragraph 4.42 and the
associated policy.
Structure Plan
"Sustainability"
is a key objective and theme throughout the Structure Plan (and is now firmly
entrenched in government policy). 1 refer particularly to policies P.98 and
P.99. In my view there is ample evidence to find that this development is
contrary to both of these policies and that in itself is sufficient to indicate
that this proposal does not accord with the Development Plan.
3
The
Options Exercise
In my view the options appraisal carried out by
Historic Scotland is flawed for the following reasons:
I. It can be clearly seen
from page 33 of HC.11 that the options appraisal concluded that only those
options within the land owned and controlled by Historic Scotland at Urquhart
Castle could be financed, controlled and managed in a satisfactory fashion. It
also states "It was an over‑riding consideration by Historic
Scotland that all other off‑site options would constitute development
outwith Historic Scotland's core functions ".
Therefore in my submission, at a stroke this options appraisal is significantly
devalued and attention is focused back on the land
between the Castle and the
A82 which Historic Scotland have now acquired. It is my contention that the
perceived restriction on Historic Scotland's powers to acquire land is
incorrect. Sections 10, 11 and 15 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Areas Act 1979 permit the Secretary of State or a local authority to acquire
ancient monuments or land adjoining or in the vicinity of an ancient monument
which is reasonably required for providing or facilitating access to the
monument, exercising proper control and management in respect
of a monument or the provision of facilities and services for the public
for or in connection with affording public access to the monument. Even if I am
wrong, Section 189 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
allows a local authority to
acquire compulsorily any land which is required in order to secure the carrying
out of development, redevelopment or improvement or, is required for a purpose
which it is necessary to achieve in
the interests of the proper
planning of an area. Mr MacIlwraith in cross examination acknowledged that he
was aware of this power. The future of this
monument should not be compromised by any perceived
lack of power on the part of Historic Scotland, a matter which 1 will return to
later in this submission. In conclusion to this subsection of this closing
submission 1 would simply refer the Reporter to HS 16, "Appraisal of
Capital Options" page 2 which indicates that in March 1996 "HS
purchase Mrs Chewitt's land to enable scheme". That in my submission
clearly demonstrates on the face of it, as at March 1996 Historic Scotland had
committed themselves to this scheme and that any appraisal carried out
thereafter must have had as a primary consideration achieving that which that
which they had already set their minds to.
ROAD TRAFFIC ISSUES
Car
Park Capacity
On the basis of the evidence, 1 would invite you to
find as a fact that in peak periods, demand will exceed supply by 2008 and
perhaps even earlier depending upon growth in visitor numbers and traffic
flows. In my submission that should be a clear finding of fact and the whole
burden of evidence in relation to car park capacity amply justifies such a
finding. In my submission this indicates quite clearly that what is proposed
will ameliorate matters for a short time only during a substantial part of
which there will be considerable disruption due to the envisaged 27 month
construction period. This development does not provide a long term solution.to
the difficulties caused by car parking.
5
Visibility Splays
Visibility
splays attracted a considerable amount of evidence. 1 would refer you
particularly to production HS‑37 from Ken Wilson Associates wherein
design speed was assessed using the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and
which concluded that the design speed was between 44 and 55 mph "say 50
mph or 85 at kph". Yet in Mr Carrie's evidence at 2. 10, he initially
stated that the design speed lay at 44 mph but in cross examination
acknowledged that that was not what Ken Wilson's letter of 1 l` June said.
Thus, in my submission in accordance with the design calculation, we
immediately have a significant potential variation in design speed between 44
and 55 mph. The speed survey carried out on 1 91h June indicated an eighty
fifth percentile speed of 43 mph. Significant evidence was led in relation to
the
possibility
of the eighty fifth percentile speed varying according to traffic volumes.
That
is particularly relevant to the A82 where, according to Mr Inglis' evidence
traffic figures vary from a January Daily Flow of 1540 vehicles per day to an
August Daily Flow of 53 10 vehicles.. Again, in relation to the "X"
distance, that can be relaxed from 9 metres to 4.5 metres for "lightly
trafficked simple junctions" yet there is no definition of "lightly
trafficked". What 1 conclude from this evidence is that theoretical speed calculations,
actual speed surveys and engineers' subjective views on whether a junction is
"lightly trafficked" do not in themselves provide the answer here.
They may all be useful aids but at the end of the day sound judgement and
common sense must apply.
1
would invite you to adopt the description in paragraph 2.23 of the Local Plan
wherein it states that the A82 "is severely deficient in terms of
alignment, gradients and visibilities within the Plan area". This
statement is now almost 8 years old and there have been no changes in relation
to the A82 in the vicinity of Urquhart Castle in
f
6
that time (other than the new footpath) yet traffic
flows and visitor numbers have increased substantially and both continue to
grow. If this statement was true in 1991
(and the
National Roads Directorate did not object to it at the time and nor did the
Secretary of State call the Plan in) then it must have even greater weight now.
It is also a fact that the national speed limit of 60 mph applies to this
section of road which accommodates Scotland's third most visited tourist
attraction. An added but very important ingredient in traffic movements at this
location is the fact that much of the traffic is tourist traffic which will be
unfamiliar with the area and indeed may be used to driving on the opposite side
of the road. There will still be awkward bends even after the development is
complete and 1 submit it still remains unclear what the eighty fifth percentile
speed will be after completion. Significant weight should be given to the views
of regular users of the road and 1 would draw your attention specifically to
the junction manoeuvres at Lundie Cottages. All
of this leads
me to invite you, Sir to accept that the plain statement in condition 5 of the TR/NPA/2
dated 27` June 1997
requiring visibility
splays of 9 x 215 metres is the standard which
should be sought at this junction, notwithstanding the complex explanation
elicited from Mr Inglis in cross examination and not proffered in evidence in
chief nor produced.
In conclusion in this section, 1 submit that no long
term solution to the Roads and Transport issues will be achieved by
implementation of this development although it is acknowledged that there may
well be short term gains, the duration of which will be constrained between the
construction phase and 2008 at the latest. 1 would also refer you to the
evidence of Superintendent Ramsay McGee who endorsed the need to find a long
term solution.
7
SCALE AND
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
In my submission this development will have, for all
practical purposes, an irreversible impact on the landscape. It is for you, Sir
to assess whether that impact is beneficial, neutral or detrimental. In my
submission, the impact cannot be neutral and therefore it must be either
beneficial or detrimental. In my submission, substantial weight should be given
to the fact that the Council held three hearings procedure meetings including a
meeting on site at which they had the benefit of viewing scaffolding, albeit of
NOP1) 1. Furthermore, the area is nationally and internationally renowned.
There can be no doubt that there will be a significant change in the
environment and setting of the Castle. If there is any risk that the impact
will be detrimental then in my submission, that is sufficient for applying the
precautionary principle and refusing permission for this development. One of
the most telling elements of evidence was from John Wood, the Council's
Archaeologist who suggested that you compare the footprint of the proposed
development with the footprint of the Castle itself. As will have been seen
from the site inspection, the alteration to the slope will come within some 30
metres from the scheduled monument itself. One only needs to look at the
difference between the evidence of Mr Sampson and the Secretary of State's own
Landscape Adviser, Scottish Natural Heritage to see the breadth of differences
of opinion that this matter can generate. Mr Patrick agreed with me when I put
it to him that SNH seemed to be "sitting on the fence". However, this
is a matter upon which we cannot sit on the fence. If there is likely to be a
detrimental effect on the setting of the Castle, then this development should
not be allowed. This is not a matter which is capable of scientific assessment
and in my view, the considered majority view of the Highland Council should be
given very considerable weight indeed. The fact that this development will
alter the profile of the
8
slope and thereby alter the understanding of the
setting of the Castle is in itself sufficient to refuse permission. In support
of this very important argument 1 refer to the The Royal Fine Art's Commission
written submission to this Inquiry which should be given very considerable
weight indeed.
EFFECT ON
DRUMNADROCHIT
1 will deal with this briefly by referring to the
INE Report which can be found at HS7 which indicated displacement effects of a
turnover reduction of between 7 and 11 per cent in the year the Castle
development opens and an average reduction of between 4 and 7 per cent for
local retailers of tourist merchandise, albeit in the medium to long term these
effects are "likely" to be reversed. 1 would refer you to the
evidence of Mr Beech for justification for finding that the development would
be contrary to development control policy No. 7.
ARCHAEOLOGY
The archaeology questions have never been placed
before the Council but it is my submission that they certainly should have been
one of the issues which the Council was required to weigh in the balance. Had
Historic Scotland properly obeyed paragraph 25 of NPPG 5, an appropriate
archaeological assessment would have been carried out at the correct time. The
evidence clearly indicates that this did not happen and the Headland Report was
only produced some months after the Council took its final decision on this
issue. This is to say the least, unfortunate. It is entirely possible that had
an appropriate archaeological assessment been carried out at the correct time,
that may in itself have been sufficient to dissuade Historic Scotland from
proceeding
9
with this particular scheme. I would refer you to Mr
Bridgeland's evidence and in particular, his evidence in cross examination. The
existence of the findings in trench 9 are highly significant. Government policy
in my submission, presumes in favour of preservation in situ of important
archaeological remains. NPPG 5 stresses the important of preserving scheduled
ancient monuments within an appropriate setting. Because of the failure to
comply with NPPG 5 and the fact that the Council have never had an opportunity
of considering the archaeological issues raised by the Headland Report, I am
not in a position to give a formal statement of the Council's position. At
various stages during the Inquiry, Mr Anderson has put it to witnesses that
questions of archaeology are now for you, Sir. I feel 1 must stress that 1 have
to reserve the Council's position in relation to that issue. 1 would not wish
my silence to be taken as acquiescence that Mr Anderson is indeed correct.
There clearly is an issue here about the Council taking a decision in the
absence of information about a material planning matter. 1 do not make any
submission one way or the other but reserve the Council's position in relation
this matter. It may indeed be that the boundary of the scheduled monument
should be extended to include trench 9. Failure to carry out the appropriate
procedures at the appropriate time should not be seen as a reason for not now
dealing with the archaeological remains appropriately.
CONCLUSIONS
This is a complex case involving one of the most
important historical monuments of Scotland. The process whereby we have arrived
at this position has been long and tortuous but in my view, it has not been as
comprehensive or as considered as it should have been. The lack of clarity arises
right from the outset of Historic Scotland's Project Aims as referred to in
para.5 of Mr MacIlwraith's precognition.
10
Improving road safety, enhancing visitor
understanding and enjoyment and incorporating retail, tea‑room and
washroom facilities were all cited as being the main project aims. It was
during cross examination that the fact that there required to be a return on
capital was accepted. That appears to have been government policy and it is
clearly not for me or this Inquiry to question that. However, it is
demonstrative of the fact that this important ingredient in the equation was
only alluded to very briefly in examination in chief and required to be given
into evidence in cross examination. The fact that in my submission, Historic Scotland
have proceeded upon a misunderstanding of the powers available to them in
relation to acquiring land by compulsory purchase if necessary and the fact
that they have bought the land between the A82 and the Castle have not been
helpful in producing an objective assessment of the needs of this critically
important site for Scotland. Accurate visitor numbers, particularly in relation
to those wishing to visit the site as compared to those who wish to simply view
the site from a distance, or indeed view the Loch itself would be very helpful.
The National Roads Directorate, Scottish Natural
Heritage and Historic Scotland are all agents of the Secretary of State for
Scotland. It is my submission that a better solution could well be arrived at
if these three agencies worked together along with other interested parties
including the Council, to objectively examine all of the problems and potential
solutions. It was Mr Liddle in re‑examination who asked Mr Inglis to
affirm that there was no link between the National Roads Directorate and
Historic Scotland. In my submission, this is demonstrative of the problem. This
monument should not be irreversibly altered because of a failure on the part of
all interested parties at this stage to thoroughly and comprehensively identify
the
11
problems, consider the options and through the use
of powers available to local and national government, produce a long term
solution which will benefit tourists and road users yet not compromise the
integrity and landscape setting of the monument and its surrounding
archaeology. The Council have demonstrated their willingness previously to
participate in finding a solution and 1 am sure that the Council remain willing
to participate in any other process which the Secretary of State may wish to
set up to produce a long term sustainable solution to this problem as opposed
to the current proposal which, in my view, will irreversibly affect the setting
of the monument, irreversibly affect one of the most famous views in the world
and provide at best, a short term amelioration of the undoubted traffic
problems on the A82.
In my submission, the Secretary of State for
Scotland should not authorise this proposed development.
A F Simpson Highland Council
15th June 1998