Guest house/hostel conversion at 11 Victoria Street, Kirkwall

“Item: Planning Committee: March 2026. Proposed Change of Use from Retail to Guest House/Hostel and Associated Works at 11 Victoria Street, Kirkwall. Report by Director of Infrastructure and Organisational Development.”

“If the proposal does not accord with the development plan, it should be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted.” 7.3.Annex A continues as follows: • The House of Lords’ judgement also set out the following approach to deciding an application: oIdentify any provisions of the development plan which are relevant to the decision.”

“Page 5. oAssess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the development plan. • There are two main tests in deciding whether a consideration is material and relevant: oIt should serve or be related to the purpose of planning. It should therefore relate to the development and use of land. oIt should relate to the particular application. • The decision maker will have to decide what considerations it considers are material to the determination of the application.”

“Whilst giving recognition to NPF4, Policy 13 Sustainable Transport, it must also to be recognised that the cumulative effect of developments being granted planning permission with either no parking, or a reduced level of parking within the town centre area is already having a negative impact on the surrounding streets.” Engineering Services 3.2.“Flood Risk We provided advice on this proposal in September when we advised a flood risk assessment would not be required alongside…”

“Page 3. The access to Junction Road which is within the redline application boundary is at risk of surface water flooding, but as the primary access appears to be from Victoria Street which at this section is indicated to be clear of flood risk, this is not considered to be a significant issue.”

“25/238/PP Proposed Change of Use from Retail to Guest House/Hostel and Associated Works at 11 Victoria Street, Kirkwall After consideration of a report by the Director of Infrastructure and Organisational Development, copies of which had been circulated, and after hearing a report from the Service Manager (Development Management), the Committee: Noted: 2.1.”

“Page 2751. The Committee resolved, in terms of delegated powers: That the concerns of the objector had been considered in the assessment of the proposal but were of insufficient weight to warrant refusal. That the proposed development had been fully assessed and was in accordance with the undernoted policies: • National Planning Framework 4: o Policy 7 – Historic assets and places. o Policy 13 – Sustainable transport. o Policy 22 – Flood risk and water management.”