Black Isle vs Tulloch Homes
Two contrasting stories about property development on the BBC website over this week.
The first, Fortrose fights a Tulloch Homes development by the town, arguing that it gives no consideration to the character of the village (a seemingly similar sentiment was raised about Sandown here).
Meanwhile, the village of Gearranan on the Isle of Lewis is seeking protection status to prevent “black houses” from being demolished.
I found this quote caught my eye:
Black houses were once found across the isles, Highlands and Perthshire.
The thatch was made from grass, heather, straw or rushes.
According to Gaelic culture website, Am Baile, families believed in never locking the house door and that they had an obligation to welcome strangers.
When you look at the photo on the BBC website (copyrighted, so not republished here), that’s pretty much how people outside of the Highlands look at the region – a place of remoteness, stunning views, but a sometimes harshness that leaves people huddling for comfort in what warmth they can make.
Contrast this with the vision of recent developments here, and it’s obvious that somehow the image of the Highlands is lost on some people in the council and among developers.
A lot of development in the region has been relatively muted – I was under the impression here that there are restrictions on the height of new properties, hence why many of the Lochloy buildings are no higher than one-and-a-half-storey.
It’s a policy that seems generally applied across much of the Highlands, with the unfortunate exception of blocks of flats that seem to be built where developers (and the Scottish Government!) think they can get away with it!
Whilst modern low buildings don’t exactly come anywhere near replicating the look of thatched black houses, it can only be preferable to the two and three-storey buildings regularly built across central and southern Scotland, which if not careful can damage local character by offering a view of urban sprawl. Not something you’d imagine tourists from the Highlands travelling hundreds or thousands of miles to see.
Such as the Milton of Leys development. Despite the variation in building styles, I can’t help but want to escape from the place whenever I find myself driving through. (Perhaps it’s actually just built over an ancient burial ground, or similar. 
).
Which is why the entire subject of objections at Fortrose is such a pertinent subject – there remains pressure to de-characterise the Highlands with multi-storey developments, which offer developers a higher profit margins on the fact that the cost of land – the biggest necessary expenditure – is very much reduced.
When you look at more recent larger development plans for the A96 corridor, the unfortunate emphasis seems to be on more modern building style used down south, without any consideration of the lower styles that characterise many Highland town suburbs now.
This is especially marked by the plans for Tornagrain New Town, which were originally mooted as being based on a subject English town development, with no obvious assertion that such building designs would fit the general character of the Highlands itself.
As many people point out – from varying perspectives and varying degrees of concern – there remains a very acute danger of development that is done with little concern for context, and especially without due consideration for intelligent and joined-up planning.
The Fortose campaign highlights a potential microcosm of a macroscopic problem.
Accusations (real or imagined) about NIMBY’ism aside, there’s a point underlined across all of the Nairn blogs: that while there remains opportunity for positive construction development work, attempts to push anything else faces stiff local opposition.
Perhaps that opposition should be regarded with far more consideration than some within the Highland Council might otherwise give – after all, local communities, no matter their objections, often have a very good idea of what they want for their community. And it’s fair to say what the Highland Council planners seek to approve may not necessarily reflect those interests at all.
It remains a struggle across the Highlands – blind modernisation, or sensible development. Perhaps it’s time both the HC planning department and developers listened a little more carefully.
Comments
2 Responses to “Black Isle vs Tulloch Homes”
Leave a Reply
Visited 2410 times, 3 so far today
This is an interesting post which should prompt some thoughtful debate.
Why is it that so much of urban Scotland (and some, but not all, of the rest of Britain) is characterised by vast areas of identikit boxy estate-housing and anonymous, soulless blocks of flats? In Scotland, so many have that grey harled finish that seems to reflect grey skies, grey pavements… and grey people. Much of it is state (ie council) housing, Eastern-Europe style. But most recent housing is developer-designed and built.
Part of the problem must be the preoccupation with “affordable” housing: a concept which forces development to the lowest-common denominator. This drives a type of construction in which price becomes more important than design, and quantity more important than quality. Developers are not solely to be blamed for this: they are in business, and have to make a profit within the planning rules that are laid down.
Another part of the problem is scale. When large plots of land are sold to a single developer, the basic principles of mass-production start to apply. It’s cheap, easy, quick and profitable, as Henry Ford found out, to churn out lots of identical houses (or cars). Builders might make cosmetic tweaks to gables or windows, but the net effect is still acres of identikit little boxes (look at the estates around Inverness for examples).
The responsibility, and the solution, lies largely with planners. Give Sandown, or Tornagrain, to a single developer, and you will get vast numbers of near-identical “housing units”. Sell off the land in parcels to a larger number of small builders/developers – or even individuals – and you will get diversity of design and variety of building.
It is still necessary to set criteria and limits in terms of planning permission. But those who are concerned with planning should look not just at the process and the numbers, but also at the substance and the design. This is difficult. Architecture, like art, is subjective. What one person sees as an attractive traditional house might be seen by another as unimaginative or twee nostalgia. But as noted in the original post, most local communities instinctively know what is acceptable and appropriate for their own areas.
At present there’s a vast divide between listed buildings and conservation areas (where almost no change is permissible) and all other urban development (where almost anything goes and the design is often driven simply by affordability and profit).
The basic principle should always be that new construction has to be in sympathy with local tradition and style. Prince Charles’ Poundbury is just as inappropriate a model for the Highlands as the multi-storey apartment blocks of the Central Belt towns. More new “black houses” of stone and thatch is perhaps not a realistic vision. But local communities, and the officials who serve them, have the right to expect developers and their architects to come up with proposals which are compatible with the surroundings and in harmony with local style.
Equally important in these cash-strapped times, planners should perhaps encourage the refurbishment and revival of decent older existing buildings, rather than favouring the “knock-it-down-and-redevelop” approach illustrated by the Nairn Somerfield/Co-op site, or the “build-on-green-farmland” proposal for Tornagrain.
I think developers – certainly around here – are doing a far better job or trying to vary the look and styles of the houses on their developments.
You only have to look at the developments from the 70′s and 80′s to see how every house pretty much looked the same.
Even still, I hear plenty of accusations of new developments looking like “Lego land” no matter how they try and vary.
I notice they did parcel off different parts of Milton of Leys to different developers, but perhaps because the areas covered were so big it doesn’t allow for much variation in a small area.
Would definitely be recommended to see attempts at traditional styles attempted – or at least, styles which aim to fit into the character of existing properties close by.
Developers may look to maximise profits, but excepting for the financial crisis hitting them hard, the big developers were extremely profitable in the first place.
However, I’m pretty sure there must be conservation areas across the UK which force higher standards of development, which are also pretty profitable.
Therefore the question becomes one of what boundaries the HC planning department set up. Would multi-storey suburban property really match the character of Highland towns?