Further objections to Bighouse home plan

[Nwicker60]

Controversial North Sutherland
house application would spoil
views objectors are claiming

A DECISION on a controversial planning application by a North
Sutherland couple, to build a new home it is claimed would spoil the
view, has been deferred following some additional objections.
The application, by Allan and Cathy Wares, was to have been dealt with
at a meeting of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning
Applications Committee, on Tuesday, which had before it a
recommendation for approval.
The couple want to build their new house on a site west of Bighouse
Farm. The application initially attracted 15 objections from people,
more than half of whom live in the south. They claim that the house,
which would be constructed in a dip, is of “an inappropriate design and
scale” and would have an adverse impact on the landscape. That view
found support from an unexpected ally, the council’s own conservation
officer.
Tuesday’s meeting was informed that there had been an objection from
Melvich Community Council. It observed that, according to the local
plan, “important views over open water across Melvich Bay, should be
protected” and that there was no provision for housing in the
settlement of Bighouse.
The council spokesman added: “This proposal would clearly disrupt those
very views from all areas of Melvich and Portskerra. The views and
walks over to Bighouse, from the villages of Melvich and Portskerra are
enjoyed by locals and visitors. The area has the only listed building
in our community and surely this should be preserved.”
The spokesman also expressed concern that the Wares’ development would
encroach on the right-of-way path through the Bighouse Park.
Local resident, Caroline Graham, who lives at neighbouring Kennel
Cottage, Bighouse, claimed that the report, submitted to the planning
committee by Bob Robertson, was “inaccurate and incomplete” and she
listed several reservations regarding the way the application was
processed.
Historic Scotland states that the new house would have “potential
implications for the wider landscape”. While not objecting, their
spokesman states: “It would appear that this rural landscape, including
the listed structures within, have developed over time, with each
subsequent development supporting the requirements of Bighouse. This
development will depart from this tradition, introducing a modern,
domestic, building in the landscape. Your council will need to
consider if this development will preserve the setting of the list
building in the existing landscape.”
The HS concern was echoed by Highland Council’s conservation officer,
who said that the application must be considered against a desirability
to “preserve and protect the open landscape of North Sutherland”.
She continued: “The historic natural landscape is a key element of the
wider historic environment and makes a valuable contribution to the
wider setting of its historic, environmental, assets. Highland Council
has a number of historic environmental assets recorded in the
immediately surrounding area, incorporating a number of significant
archaeological finds/features, as well as the more visually-obvious,
listed buildings. The Landscape Character Appraisal of Caithness and
Sutherland classifies this area of Sutherland, as a combination of
sweeping moorland and long sandy beaches. Both of these character
types consist of open landscapes which afford far-reaching views. The
appraisal identifies the beaches of the North Sutherland and Caithness
coasts and recognises they have a ‘magical’ quality to them.”
The conservation officer added, that to allow new development to
encroach on “this historic landscape” would, inevitably, have some
impact on the intrinsic value and the setting contribution of the
landscape, to the existing dwellings and settlements of the area. She
concluded that the application had the potential for “negative impact”
on the neighbouring listed buildings, their setting and the wider
historic landscape in which they are located. As such, it is
considered that the proposed development does not meet the requirements
of local and national policy in relation to landscape character and the
historic environment. Therefore, it is not possible to support the
development proposal.”
However, planning official, Mr Robertson, who compiled the planning
report for councillors, argues: “While it is recognised that the site
does have an historic and scenic quality, it is not considered that
this will be significantly and adversely affected by the erection of a
single house on this site. Furthermore, the proposal is not considered
to conflict with Scottish planning policy, in relation to its potential
impact on the landscape or natural heritage.”
As indicated earlier, the issue was deferred to allow officials to
assess the additional submissions and report on their influence on the
application, to the next meeting.