Invergordon’s controversial House of Rosskeen housing development sparks fresh concerns over ‘significant flaws’ in handling ahead of crunch Highland Council meeting
The ‘rush’ to press ahead with a controversial housing development in Invergordon has sparked alarm among those opposed to the plans.
The move by Capstone Connect and Highland Council to build 66 homes on land to the east of House of Rosskeen was initially approved last summer, despite strong local objections.
But in one of numerous twists and turns that have dogged the application since it was first announced, that approval was pulled back after changes to the local development plan sparked the need for the council to address “new material considerations”.
The application is now set to go back before the north applications committee next week to decide once more whether to award full approval.
But Save Our Green Space (SOGS) is sounding an alarm over the application, arguing that the council’s handling has been less than transparent and littered with red flags.
They say these range from “errors” in Freedom of Information request responses, to initial moves to press on with the planning process despite the land being delisted as a future housing site in the latest local development plan. They also argue that the council - as a landowner involved in the development - has a huge conflict of interest and they fear it cannot handle the issue impartially.
Richard Cross, who leads SOGS, said many locals have long objected to the choice of site for the housing, arguing that it is one of the few large open greenfield and woodland sites where locals from the town can walk and relax, and that the community is full of brownfield sites that are primed for redevelopment and even zoned as such in the local plan.
He also claims that the council is basing its decision making on incorrect claims about the impact of the local freeport on projected housing needs, and also ignores other housing either in the pipeline or otherwise possible on one of the many brownfield sites.
Questioning the need for the housing near House of Rosskeen, he said: “Some [housing] development on other sites is set to expand the population of Invergordon by over 25 per cent. The Highland Council has acquired allocated land for 250 houses with potential for 400 in addition to an ongoing brownfield site at Cromlet.”
He continued: “The case in favour of building on this site is based on unsubstantiated claims relating to the impact of the freeport, and the ‘housing crisis’,” he said. “It does not comply with the local development plan; it doubles up the impact of the freeport on housing; it does not comply with National Planning Framework; it does not comply with the council’s own policies regarding biodiversity; and it does not recognise previous decisions made regarding the specific site.”
And in a letter he sent to councillors ahead of the vote, in which he urged them to reject the proposals, he added; “[Our] concern relates to inconsistent decision-making and non-compliance with the policies, procedures and legislation to which the council is committed; decisions based on unsubstantiated claims, omissions and miscalculations.
“Unless questions are asked and these issues addressed, decisions will continue to be made that should not be and the council risks increased public discontent, wasting of taxpayers’ resources and successful legal challenges.”
He told the Ross-shire Journal that “a Judicial Review will be sought if this development is given full approval. Some are now questioning how this has got to this point and whether it would justify a call for a public enquiry.”
He added that freedom of information requests submitted to Highland Council which could boost the strength of arguments against the planned housing were late coming back, redacted in areas he believes they should not have been and - in the case of a key bat assessment report - provided the wrong information to that requested.
He believes the information missing from one of the FOIs requested had the potential to show strong grounds for dismissing the application.
Top Stories
He explained that earlier reports had shown there was bat activity in trees at the site, and he had requested the full bat survey information relating to 18 trees SOGS believes may be bat maternity trees where young were being raised. If they are he believes that national nature bodies would likely object outright.
But he says the FOI response SOGS was given did not include the data for those trees, but for others instead.
He said this and other matters “beg the question… is this really being clear, open and fair? Is information being withheld that is embarrassing [for the council] and that [might] stop it happening?”
And SOGS is not alone in voicing concerns. The Woodland Trust lodged formal objection at the end of February, saying the plans to fell multiple mature and veteran trees is unacceptable, will impact officially designated ancient woodland, and that the estate will risk encroaching on the root systems of some trees that would otherwise be spared the chainsaw.
Among those which would be felled are veteran oak, sycamore, elm and holly trees.
In its letter, it said: “The Woodland Trust maintains an objection to this planning application due to loss and deterioration of the ecological condition of ancient woodland identified on the Roy Maps and designated on NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory.
“We are also concerned about deterioration of veteran trees. It does not appear that the applicant has addressed our original concerns, and in addition, it is now proposed to fell trees within ancient woodland.”
And as with SOGS, it has also questioned the methodology used to inform the decision-making process.
“The Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment do not specify the methodology that has been used to identify ancient and veteran trees – without this supporting information it is not possible to assess whether all ancient and veteran trees on site are likely to have been identified.
“Our concerns in this respect are compounded by the statement in the Woodland Management Plan that a full survey of veteran trees will be undertaken in the future. In the absence of a full survey it is not possible to assess the feasibility of protecting veteran trees from the intensified use of the site that will arise from a development of this scale.”
A Highland conservation group has also questioned the validity of “Significantly flawed” surveys and assessments at the site.
A spokesperson for the Badenoch & Strathspey Conservation Group, said: “The Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment is significantly flawed. It is not in dispute that the site visit was undertaken out of season and on a day of ice cover. There is no reason provided for this highly inappropriate timing, that inescapably limits the opportunity to properly gather data and arrive at adequately meaningful conclusions.
“We are deeply concerned that if such a poor standard of assessment by a developer is deemed acceptable, this seriously undermines the council's reputation as a responsible and competent planning authority, invites cynicism and lack of trust among the public and sets an unacceptable precedent.”
And they stressed that there were other more suitable sites for housing in Invergordon: “We understand that there are other options for development in Invergordon, and that these comprise substantially higher numbers of houses than the 66 in the present proposal.”
Campaign group Planning Democracy, which advocates for a “fair and inclusive planning system in Scotland”, is another vocal opponent to the scheme. It said any move to approve the building of the homes would “make a mockery” of the planning system.
It argued that planning policies “discourage building on greenfield sites, protect ancient woodland and require significant and meaningful nature enhancements to be carried out by developers.
“This proposal makes a mockery of these policies, and flies in the face of the democratically agreed Local Development Plan.
“Despite strong community opposition to the proposal, the nature enhancements required to be delivered, rely extensively on the establishment of a Community Woodland Group to carry out what will be expensive and onerous work to improve and maintain the ancient woodland. It is hugely disrespectful to the community that despite expectations on them to fulfil the developer's obligations that their valid concerns have been ignored.”
Responding to the various concerns, a Highland Council spokesperson said: “The application was previously considered by the North Planning Applications Committee on April 16, 2024, where full planning permission was granted. However, before the conclusion of the section 75 legal agreement and the issuance of the decision notice, the [new] Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan was adopted on June 27, 2024.
“This adoption introduced changes to the development plan, raising new material considerations in respect of this application that the committee must now review. At this time, it is anticipated the application will be reconsidered by the North Planning Applications Committee on March 12.”
They added: “The planning application status is that it is ‘awaiting decision’. As we are the planning authority, It is not appropriate for the Highland Council to comment on live applications.”
