Controversial flat plan to go before committee again
A second stab is to be made next week to push through controversial plans to convert a former office building on Golspie’s Main Street into seven flats.
The development, proposed by local couple Jan and Elise Smienk, Big Barns, was first considered by Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee last month.
Although it had the backing of planning officials who recommended it be approved, it did not find favour with Golspie Community Council and attracted 22 individual objections as well as a 67-signature petition.
Bearing in mind the community opposition, planning committee members last month agreed to defer the application rather than reject it out of hand.
They made it clear that the deferral was order to allow the Smienks time to address concerns about the number and size of the flats, the design of the development and the loss of public car parking.
One councillor, Graeme Smith, Caithness, likened the proposed flats to: "battery cages" for humans and said the development was more suited to the student area in the West End of Glasgow than a small Highland village.
The Smienks have now resubmitted their application which is due to be discussed again by the same committee at its meeting in Tain on Tuesday.
But background papers show that the couple have not budged on any of the main issues raised – apart from the car parking concern.
They still want to develop seven flats - three one-bed units and four two bed units.
A fresh statement from chartered architects Colin Armstrong Associates in support of the Smienks’ application states: "The lay-out proposed was settled upon as being the one that would best balance both local housing market demand and development costs.
"In reaching this decision, local market advice was sought from a local estate agency who advised that smaller one-bed and two-bed units were more suitable for the local Golspie market."
Regarding the size of the flats, the Smienks maintain that they more than meet the standard.
The couple are also unwilling to take on board local councillor Ian Ross’s call for a pitched roof to be built onto a flat-roofed extension to the rear of the offices.
The Smienks claim they have rejected the suggestion on technical grounds. They had considered a 45 degree pitched roof, reflecting the design of the original building, but the ridge height to achieve this would need the above the height of the ridge of the existing building and this was not considered appropriate.
The couple also looked at a hipped roof but it was felt it would not only be too expensive but, due to the low pitch of the roof, could lead to various problems.
However the Smienks have taken on board the concern over the loss of car parking sited next to the building currently available to the public.
They are now proposing to provide 16 car parking spaces in the site, seven of which would be solely for the use of the flat residents but the remainder of which would be available for general use.
The couple were also criticised at last month’s planning meeting for their failure to "engage" with the local community regarding their development.
They now say that they have made efforts to arrange a meeting with Golspie Community Council prior to next Tuesday’s committee meeting.
Background papers state: "A verbal update on the outcome of this meeting will be given at the committee meeting."
