Caithness engineering boss issues warning over local jobs after planning refusal
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
The boss of a Caithness engineering firm has accused Highland Council of standing in the way of local jobs by rejecting his plans for a new base outside Wick.
Donald Gow, managing director of Lochshell Engineering, sought planning permission to construct a £1.6 million fabrication and storage building on farmland he owns south of the town. He says having a new hub for his business would allow it to expand into marine renewables and could add as many as 20 new posts to the existing 17-strong workforce.
The application was turned down as the site – just off the A99 at Charity Farm, a mile from Wick – was deemed unsuitable for industrial development and the building was felt to be too dominant in a rural setting. Mr Gow is appealing against the decision.
"They’re actually stopping local employment," he insisted, claiming he had been unable to secure a site closer to the existing Lochshell workshop at the B874/A99 junction north of Wick. The firm also has an office in Wick.
He added: “Given the Covid situation, and even before that, we were actually told that the council would be trying to help, not hinder, the development of business. It is anything but.”
Lochshell Engineering was founded in 1975 and Mr Gow took it over in 2002. Almost all its contracts are outwith Caithness, with projects in recent years ranging from the west of Scotland to the Yorkshire coast and as far away as Italy and Sweden.
A three-page letter forming the basis of the planning appeal says the company needs bigger premises to pursue more maritime work, including in the marine renewables sector. This would lead to an estimated 12 extra jobs, according to the letter, although Mr Gow believes this figure could rise to 20.
He says he was denied the opportunity to buy land at Wick Business Park, at Lochshell, and he ruled out sites at the nearby Wick Airport Industrial Estate as they didn't meet his needs.
“I wanted to go to the Lochshell business park," Mr Gow said. "I asked three times to go there. I even offered to buy one of the buildings that had been lying empty since the time they put it up. They wouldn’t sell it to me because I was classed as a ‘dirty’ business.
“I offered to buy the building for an office block, and I offered to buy two plots of ground to relocate there, and I was told no.”
Mr Gow (50), who bought Charity Farm in August 2019, instead identified a site close to the farm buildings and several hundred metres from housing on higher ground at Newton. The new base would have a floorspace of 43m x 36.2m with a lean-to adding a further 6m x 30m, while the height would be 14.5m to the eaves and 18.5m to the apex.
The only public comment on the application came from local resident Roger Bamfield, who felt that the development would be "extremely dominant" and "not in keeping with the landscape". He also argued there would be a risk of accidents with lorries using the access road.
Planning permission was refused as the application was said to contravene the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) in three respects. The ruling said the location was "outwith any existing or allocated industrial site" and the development "would introduce a substantially scaled industrial building into an area characterised by rural housing and small-scale farm buildings", creating "a new and dominant focus into the landscape to the detriment of visual amenity". An issue with foul drainage was also highlighted.
Mr Gow is adamant that Charity Farm is a suitable site and points out that several other well-established engineering workshops in Caithness are in rural locations. “This stops the transportation going through the town and it doesn’t cause any problems with the locals,” he said.
He claims that the visual impact would be "minimal", and says the question of foul drainage would be dealt with as part of a building warrant application.
“It cost £10,000 to apply for planning permission," Mr Gow said. "I’ve been trying to do this for four years.
"There’s nothing suitable at the airport. I tried to buy ground locally but couldn’t get it, so I ended up buying the farm. I spent a lot of time trying to research it to make sure it was the right location. I’ve done everything by the book, and I’m a bit annoyed now."
The council questioned why "a building of this scale is required" and suggested there may be scope for it to be re-sited closer to the farm, allowing some partial screening. Mr Gow said: “They were only talking about moving it 100 yards down the road. It’s nonsense. If I’d needed it smaller, I wouldn’t have put it at that height to start with.
“From where the building would be to the closest house it would be 464 metres away. We have a photomontage of the building – we got that done for the council. The lowest house in Newton would oversee the top of the building by nine metres.
"And going by the planning regulations, you’re not even entitled to a view now – you don’t buy a view, you buy a house.”
Mr Gow also insists there would be "no problem with road access", estimating an average of two lorries a week using his farm track. The track, which Mr Gow has upgraded and resurfaced, forms part of a path linking the A99 and Newton Row that is popular with walkers.
He says Transport Scotland, which was consulted during the planning application, had no concerns with the proposed access or planned vehicle movements.
Mr Gow is dismayed at what he sees as a lack of support from the local authority for a thriving business which is looking to expand and create new employment. The firm has three apprentices studying at North Highland College and supports around a dozen local subcontractors.
“Ninety-eight per cent of our work comes from outwith Caithness, and all the people who work for us are in Caithness, so we’re taking a lot of work into the county and the money is then spent in the county," he said.
The council planning documents take issue with an “unauthorised” area of hard standing. Mr Gow says this was created to accommodate two agricultural buildings relating to Charity Farm, one of which is partially constructed. He understood this to be within permitted development, but is now seeking further dialogue with the council after being told to stop the work.
Asked whether he felt the planning refusal could be overturned, Mr Gow replied: “Absolutely, because they’ve got no real substantiation. There is no logical reason.
“First they said they didn’t like the colour of the building, so we changed that. They wanted a photomontage done, so we took professionals out to do that. Then they said they wanted us to reduce the height of the building – we told them we can’t do that.
“We’re now being pushed out to the winter to try to erect a building. It’s absolutely frustrating.
“I’ve been trading for 18 years and we’ve been steadily growing. You’d think they would try to help us. We’re now being asked to price for bigger jobs.
“The whole point the council is missing here is that we’re actually taking work into the county which would never be here. They are missing a trick and they’re actually stopping local employment.
“I’m that frustrated with them, I’d very nearly sell up and shift down south where I’d be welcomed with open arms. I could do this job anywhere. They are missing the whole point."
A council spokesperson said: “Mr Gow’s application was for the erection of a large fabrication building. The council’s policies for such development as set out in the Highland-wide Local Development Plan are that they should be directed to existing or allocated industrial sites. However, Mr Gow did not supply sufficient information to demonstrate why he was unable to do so.
"There are at least two sites available currently. As such the proposal was assessed as being contrary to policy.
"Furthermore the proposal raised concerns visually due to the possible introduction of an 18m tall building within a rural context on elevated land in a gateway location into Wick.
“The planning authority was willing to work with the applicant to secure a less visually intrusive site and suggested the building could be moved further to the existing farm buildings, still on Mr Gow’s land, to enable them to provide some screening. It is therefore disappointing that Mr Gow suggests we ‘hindered and not helped’ given a possible solution was presented to him.
"The applicant did not take up this option despite an offer from the planning authority to waive the planning fee.
"We note an appeal has been lodged with the local review body and this will likely be determined within the next three months.
“In the intervening period, however, Mr Gow has begun erecting a large steel shed on his land without any planning permission. This is now subject to enforcement action, with a planning enforcement notice having been served in the last few weeks.”
