Controversial bid for holiday apartments in Aviemore street is refused
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
A senior Highland councillor said he has seen 'fewer objections for a wind farm' than those submitted protesting against plans for holiday apartments on a residential street in Aviemore.
Sweeney Apartments & Rooms had applied for the change of use for Dunroamin B&B on Craig-na-Gower Road into 10 serviced apartments.
Highland Council planners had recommended approval but members of Highland Council's South Planning Applications committee roundly refused the bid at their latest meeting.
Committee chairman Thomas MacLennan had backed the motion to approve but could not find anyone to second him in the chamber at Inverness headquarters.
Instead, councillors agree that the development along with a similar apartment block next-door – which used to be Vermont Guest House – and already operated by the same Motherwell-based company would impact too much on residents living in the vicinity.
Councillor Bill Lobban told the committee: "I have seen fewer objections for a wind farm than we have seen today.
"I am concerned about the outside space, about the patios, etc and the impact they will have on the amenity of local residents...
"Quite clearly the cumulative impact of these two properties will be very, very substantial in the local community.
"If we were asked to approve a 20 apartment building in a residential street would we even be considering it and I would suggest we probably wouldn't be.
"I would think the previous guest house never ever had the level of occupancy being mentioned in the report.
"I have problems with the design, the cumulative impact but especially the impact it will have on local people. This is not in the middle of the town of Aviemore. It is predominantly a residential street."
He added: "Between this one and the one next door you'll have 20 rooms available albeit in two separate buildings but just a couple of metres apart.
"What we are talking about here is a very substantial development in the end."
His amendment to refuse was backed by fellow Badenoch and Strathspey councillor Russell Jones who was not satisfied with the proposed management arrangements of the holiday property.
He had asked planners: "You could have squads of people staying in the room paying for two people – how will they know if there is no manager on site?"
Councillor Jones was also worried about late night noise and quizzed planners: "What do you see the difference between people sitting in a hot tub and people sitting out on these balconies on a residential street?
"Would this not also be a noise problem for neighbours?"
They were backed by Inverness councillor Andrew MacKintosh in the debate.
He said: "This is changing the character of the whole residential area. We have seen this time and time again with developments such as when a small wind farm becomes a big one."
The initial proposal had been for 11 apartments and parking spaces but this was reduced by the applicant following concerns over the lack of room at the rear of the building for vehicles to manoeuvre.
The rooms were to feature mini kitchettes and en-suite bathrooms.
Highland Council planning officer Roddy Dowell had recommended approval of the application.
On noise concerns, he said: "While these are legitimate concerns members will be well aware that police Scotland and/or environmental health should be the relevant authority should this become a statutory nuisance.
"Members will be well aware that there have been cases and use of properties creating nuisance to neighbours within the Cairngorms area particularly in relation to larger single let properties – so called party houses.
"Again using the example of Vermont next door... the property will mainly be aimed at couples and there is no shared communal area. The lay-out and function of the building would not lend itself to larger groups travelling together."
He added: "All booking and check-ins will be remotely controlled by the management company and there will be 24 hour access by phone, email or text.
"The applicant has confirmed there will is emergency staff and call-out capability if there are customers issues or emergency situations if required and there will be cleaning and maintenance staff on the premises once or twice a day."
Mr Dowell added that the council's environmental health team had been consulted and not raised any objection.
However, planning committee members went against his advice.
The application was refused as:
• the cumulative impact on residential street was deemed not acceptable;
• the site is not in located in an area identified for commercial development and not compatible with existing use of the locality; and
• the loss of garden and lack of on-site management would all change the character of the area.
The Strathy contacted The Sweeney Group for comment and to see if they planned to appeal but they did not wish to comment.
Why was Vermont application allowed when neighbouring property bid was refused?
Committee chairman Thomas MacLennan had said during the meeting he was 'curious with what happened to the guest house next door'.
Mr Dowell told him the proposal was granted by Highland Council planners under delegated powers last year and there had been 'just one or two objections and no community council objection'.
He said it was a planning colleague who dealt with the application but added: "I think it was maybe a case that residents are more aware of this application than they were the previous one for Vermont but both were advertised and neighbours notified in the usual statutory process."
Local councillor Bill Lobban pointed out the original application came forward as a 'simple change of use' and observed: "The simple fact of life is the community did not notice and hence this one is far more prominent..."
The background planning paper for the Dunroamin application can be read here
