By Eric Nicolson

COUNCILLORS WOULD be setting a “dangerous precedent” if they took pity on a Highland Perthshire developer in his hour of need, Perth and Kinross Council’s planning chief has warned.

Robin Menzies, of Taymouth Holiday Centre, Kenmore, has pleaded with members of the local authority’s development control committee to help him overcome problems caused by the credit crunch.

The council previously gave permission for 58 residential units and recreation facilities, including a play area and tennis courts, but Mr Menzies came back in July to ask them to lift a condition of that consent.

To protect the future use of the project the council had stated, “the approved houses shall be used solely for holiday accommodation and shall not be occupied as the sole or main residence.”

Mr Menzies said he still intended the houses to be for holiday lets but the financial climate had brought him back to ask to have the condition dropped, as it was causing issues with newly-cautious banks, making it virtually impossible for investors to secure mortgages with a holiday sole use restriction imposed.

Councillors expressed sympathy with his plight, saying they thought it to be a “unique” situation, and therefore deferred to allow all avenues to be explored.

The issue is set to be revisited again at Wednesday’s committee meeting, and the council’s development quality manager, Nick Brian, will ask councillors to refuse the application.

His staff have sought the opinion of other councils to ascertain how this issue is dealt with elsewhere and have also met with the applicant’s bank, as well as consulting their own legal department

In his report Mr Brian explained, “It is clear that under the current economic circumstances banks are unlikely to lend money to individuals seeking to buy a holiday home with a restriction of use on it, as they are not convinced about the rental return to support the mortgage and do not want to be encumbered in the event of having to sell the property.

“It was also clear that even a modified condition, or any legal agreement, would have the same effect in terms of the availability of funding.

“It is evident therefore that there is no scope to amend the condition in a way that would help the applicant with his funding problem.

“I cannot recommend that the condition be removed since this would significantly affect the council’s ability to control this development and set a precedent for similar requests on other tourist developments which have been permitted in both form and location inappropriate for mainstream housing.

“It would also impact on the council’s Housing in the Countryside policy which the enterprise and infrastructure committee has recently amended to be less flexible.”

Mr Brian pointed out that there are other ways the applicant could fund the development.

He noted, “I understand the first phase of the development which has recently been constructed was funded by the applicant by more conventional means—rented out directly.

“There are also considered to be other ways in which a potential purchaser of a holiday unit can fund the purchase other than a mortgage against the holiday unit.

“The problem is essentially a fiscal rather than a planning issue and, whilst the planning authority should be sympathetic to the needs of developers during the current economic crisis, this should not be at the expense of undermining key planning policies in respect of tourism and housing in the countryside.”