Seven detached homes at Plot Trondra

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for seven detached homes, with associated drainage and road infrastructure.

“2025/257/PPP - To Erect 7 Detached Dwellinghouses; Install Associated Drainage and Road Infrastructure (Planning Permission in Principle) - Plot, Trondra, Shetland The Committee considered a report by the Planning Officer (R Gillies) (PL-01- 26) that presented an application for planning permission in principle for the erection of seven dwellinghouses, install associated drainage and road infrastructure, to the south west of the existing cluster of dwellinghouses forming the…”

“The site is to be divided into seven individual plots, each hosting a single detached dwellinghouse, with an access road connection to the northeast of the site.”

Minutes

The site and its setting

The site lies south of the existing settlement cluster, with seven plots and an access road connected to the northeast.

“This is the application site, which is located to the south of the existing hammerhead at Trondra, with seven plots contained within the red line boundary, and from this plan, you can see the wider settlement pattern of the area.”

Minutes

Planning history and policy status

The site was not allocated in the local development plan, although development on unallocated windfall sites could be assessed on its merits.

“Turning first to the principle of development, the main issue for consideration is whether this site represents an appropriate location for housing. A number of representations have raised concerns that the site is not identified as an Area of Best Fit or a Site with Development Potential within the Shetland Local Development Plan. However, while the site is not formally allocated, this does not preclude development.”

“The indicative layout demonstrates how the site could be developed by extending the existing access road beyond the current hammerhead, with dwellings arranged along it in a manner consistent with the established pattern of development in the area. While there is some variation in plot size, this reflects the wider character of Trondra, which is not uniform in form or density.”

Minutes

What consultees said

Roads and drainage consultees accepted the proposal in principle, subject to detailed design and conditions at a later stage.

“However, it is important to note that the Roads Service, as the Council’s technical authority on these matters, has not objected to the proposal. They are satisfied that, subject to detailed design and appropriate conditions at a later stage, a safe and workable solution can be delivered on this site. Overall, it is therefore considered that the proposal complies with the relevant policy requirements in terms of roads and access.”

Minutes

Concerns from residents

Objectors opposed the proposal because of access, road safety, drainage, lighting, privacy, ecological and construction concerns.

“Firstly, we have serious concerns about the impact that increased construction and future traffic would have on the existing road and its already constrained junction to the B9074. The construction of the current Cauldhame Road is not to a standard capable of sustaining heavy traffic.”

“We also have serious concerns about the safety and suitability of the proposed access arrangements. The proposed narrow access point is fundamentally unsafe due to its width and location. As you can see from the photograph (previously circulated), the approach to the access point at the end of the Cauldhame road would fundamentally change the turning head into a blind left- hand bend where two vehicles will meet head on.”

Minutes

Who addressed the committee

An objector representative and another objector spoke against the proposal, while the applicant’s agent supported it.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the scale, access, drainage, lighting, ecology, infrastructure, housing need and lack of detail about pedestrian safety.

“It was noted the significant number of issues and areas of concern raised by the objectors, with the biggest concerns being that of overdevelopment within a pattern of development that the proposals would not fit well into. There were also concerns regarding the access arrangements into the site and that it would impede to an extent on the existing turning head and access to houses at that point.”

“The Chair noted the similar mindset amongst Members regarding the proposals as presented. He referred to the significant concerns raised as to whether the proposals meet Policy, on the grounds of overdevelopment, being outwith the character of the existing development pattern of the area and not having sufficient capability to integrate into the existing infrastructure, for example, the road, sewage systems and the lack of services in general.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee unanimously refused the application after a motion to refuse was proposed and seconded.

“The Planning Committee unanimously REFUSED the application, for the reasons as given during debate.”

Minutes