Highland Council INBS PARC Minute

Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Applications and Review Committee held in the Council Chamber, The Town House, Inverness on Tuesday 10 February 2009 at 10.00am.

Present:

Provost J Gray
Mr R Balfour
Mr S Black
Mr I Brown
Miss J Campbell
Mr J Crawford
Mrs M Davidson
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Finnie
Mr D Henderson
Mr J Holden
Mr D Kerr
Ms L MacDonald
Mr S Park
Mr H Wood
Mr B Wynd

Non-Members also present:

Mr P Corbett
Mr N Donald
Ms J Douglas
Mrs B McAllister

Officials in attendance:

Ms S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr D Polson, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Ms N Drummond, Planning Team Leader
Mr A McCracken, Planning Team Leader
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader - Development Management
Mr L Houlker, TEC Manager, TEC Service
Ms C Robertson, Administrative Assistant, Chief Executive’s Office

Business

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A Graham.

2. Minutes of Planning Applications and Review Committee

The Committee APPROVED the minute of the Planning Applications and Review Committee held on 8 December 2008 subject to the following amendments:

Mr D Kerr noted that Mr Polson’s verbal report updating Members on the applications for Ardconnel Terrace (item 3.8 on this agenda) had not been recorded. He requested that such verbal updates be recorded at future meetings. With regard to the minute of the 8 December 2008 meeting, there should be added at the end of the minute:

Verbal Report on applications 08/00387/FULIN and 08/00388/FULIN
Conversion and Extension of 27 and 29 Ardconnel Terrace, Inverness to form 13 Flats

Mr Polson advised members that an appeal against deemed refusal (non-determination) had been lodged by the applicants with DPEA following deferral of determination of the two applications at the meeting of 4 November 2008. He invited members to decide whether they would wish the appeal to be dealt with under the Hearings procedure rather than by written submissions or PLI.

The Committee agreed that DPEA be requested to deal with the appeal under the Hearings procedure.

3. Planning Applications to be Determined

There had been circulated Reports Nos. PLI-003/09 – PLI-014/09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager as follows:-

3.1 Relaxation of requirement to upgrade existing junction with the public road for Cawdor Scottish Discretionary Trustees at West End Cottage, Cawdor, Inverness (08/00111/FULIN (PL-003-09)

Ms Drummond summarised the report recommending that the Committee agree to vary the condition.

Members commented that:-

it would be useful to have kerbing on the footpath to make it more identifiable;
the Community Council still had concerns in the interest of safety and free flow of traffic and it would be useful if the walls could be diverted to make a larger bellmouth;

In response it was clarified that:

the footpath could not be kerbed due to the narrow width of the road;
if the bellmouth was widened the architecture in the area would be affected and a mature tree would be lost.

The Committee thereafter AGREED to vary the condition.

Mr B Wynd had wished to move to refuse this application but had been unable to find a seconder. He accordingly registered his dissent to the decision.

3.2 Remove the Section 75 agreement on proposed holiday cottage for Mrs Susan D Stephens at Drumore of Cantray Farm, Cawdor (08/00341/FULIN) (PL-004-09)

Ms Drummond summarised the report and confirmed that while her recommendation was that the holiday letting unit should be exempt from the restriction on severance from the farm which the proposed s75 agreement would impose on the farm house and farm worker’s cottage, there would be a condition in the consent restricting its occupancy to short-term holiday lets and this could be repeated in the s75 agreement to ensure that any purchaser of the holiday letting unit could not fail to be made aware of the restriction, as the agreement would be recorded against title.

The Committee AGREED to remove the requirement that the holiday letting unit be covered by the s75 agreement insofar as the s75 would restrict severance from the rest of the farm land, but agreed that the planning condition restricting occupancy of the holiday letting unit to short term holiday lets be repeated in the s75 agreement to maximise awareness of this restriction.

3.3 Deletion of a Condition involving Erection of house for Mr A Christian at Drummournie, Cawdor (07/00041/OUTNA) (PL-005-09 )

Mr McCracken summarised the report recommending the deletion of a condition requiring the access road to be reconstructed to adoptable standard.

Local Member, Mr R Balfour advised that this was a roughly constructed road, taken over by the Forestry Commission. It was questionable whether drainage could be installed without the removal of a lot of earth and it might not be possible to properly drain the road. The area in which the drain was situated did not belong to the applicant. It was noted that the applicant wished to bring the area back to farming land. Mr McCracken clarified that there were ditches that required to be cleaned out and the applicant had promised to carry out what was possible. There was a condition that the house was tied to the farm.

The Committee noted Mr R Balfour’s concerns but AGREED to delete the condition requiring that the access road be reconstructed to adoptable standard.

3.4 Substitute erection of 10 bungalows with 18 bungalows and 1.5 storey houses for Mackintosh Highland at 51 to 60 Montrose Avenue, Auldearn, Nairn (08/00138/FULNA) (PL-006-09)

Mr D Kerr left the chamber for part of this item and did not participate in the determination.

Mr Polson summarised the report which recommended that detailed planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Members raised concern about lack of play areas in the development but it was clarified by the Convener that the developers had contributed £100k to the community, and some of this could be used towards the development for development or improvement of a play area. It was further clarified by Mr Polson that future phases of the larger development would be brought back to Committee and that he would indicate to the applicants that in these future applications provision for play facilities would be reviewed at the time.

The Committee AGREED to grant detailed planning permission subject to conditions as detailed in the report.

3.5 Use of land for market stalls for Robert and Jane Adams at The Square, Grantown-on-Spey (08/00265/FULBS) (PL-007-09 )

Mr McCracken summarised the report recommending that planning permission be granted on a temporary basis for 3 years.

Members expressed concern that the market:-

was too frequent which would damage the grass as it would not have time to recover, particularly if it was wet, and there would be no control over the number of stalls allowed;
could have an impact on community events;
had no local connection or local traders;
was not in accordance with the ambiance of the square which lay in a conservation area;
could undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre; and
could set a precedent encouraging further markets of this type.

Mr D Fallows, seconded by Ms J Douglas, MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds that, in terms of loss of visual amenity, risk of damage to the town square policies and lack of cohesive relationship with local trade, there was a clear likelihood that the vitality and viability of the town centre would be damaged.

The Committee thereafter agreed to REFUSE the application for the reasons put forward in the motion, these also being the reasons for going against officer advice.

3.6 Erection of house for Patrick Grant and Alasdair Fraser Grant at Junction of A82 and Kilmore Road, Drumnadrochit (08/00946/OUTIN) (PL-008-09)

Members agreed that this application be DEFERRED to allow a site visit to take place.

3.7 Build 22 Lodges and Managers house including servicing and leisure facilities for Loch Ness Lodges Ltd (08/00884/FULIN) (PL-009-09 )

Further to a request from the local Member, Mrs M Davidson, the Committee agreed to DEFER this application to a future meeting to give time for further consultation between the applicants and the community to allow the applicants the opportunity to alleviate some of the community concerns.

3.8 Convert and Extend Office to Six Flats at 27 Ardconnel Terrace, Inverness and to Seven Flats at 29 Ardconnel Terrace, Inverness for MacIver Properties (08/00387/FULIN) and Eildon Ltd (08/00388/FULIN) (PL-010-09 )

The Chair reminded Members that only those present at the site visit on 4 November 2008 were eligible to take part in this item. These Members were:

Provost J Gray
Mr R Balfour
Mr S Black
Mr I Brown
Miss J Campbell
Mr P Corbett
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Finnie
Mr D Henderson
Mr J Holden
Mr D Kerr
Mrs B McAllister
Mr H Wood
Mr B Wynd

Mr R Balfour having left the meeting before this item commenced, only the remaining members who had been present at the site visit participated.

Mr Polson summarised the report and reminded Members that they had previously agreed on 13 January 2009 that the Council request that the appeal be determined under the appeal hearing procedure. As the non-determination (deemed refusal) of the application on 4 November 2008 had been contrary to the planning service’s recommendation, the Council’s would be represented in the appeal by its legal department. The Committee’s views on the applications, had it been required to determine them, were requested, however, to enable the Council’s legal department to prepare for the hearing. These views would form the basis of the Council’s defence to the appeal to be set out in the appeal statement.

Miss J Campbell offered the following considerations and views as the basis for inviting the Reporter to refuse the applications.

The proposed development had attracted a high level of objection, with 75 letters of representation (albeit with some duplicated for each building) and objections from Crown Community Council.
Members shared the objectors’ principle concerns in relation to overdevelopment and the impact this proposal (in its current form) would have on the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings, with the planned extensions having the potential to dominate nearby neighbours.
The development of a high density 13 flat development in this small 22 dwelling Terrace was disproportionate, not in keeping with the locality, and would not enhance the character or appearance of this Conservation Area.
The size and design of the development as currently proposed were inappropriate and not in keeping with the area.
Members might have been more receptive to a smaller development and an improved design, but the applicants had chosen not to reconsider their applications.

The Committee AGREED that the considerations and views expressed by Miss J Campbell be used as the basis for the Council’s appeal statement.

3.9 Install 9m tall replica telegraph pole and telecommunication base for Vodafone UK Ltd at Junction of St Ninians Drive and St Johns Avenue, Inverness (08/00819/FULIN) (PL-011-09 )

Mr Polson summarised the report recommending that planning permission be granted. He advised that since the report had been written, further letters of objection had been received and a large petition from Dalneigh residents objecting to the proposal had been presented on the morning of the Committee meeting. These raised no issues not previously raised in the timeous letters of objection referred to and summarised in the Report.

He further advised that the principal concern expressed in the objections related to perceived health risks. While he did consider risk to health to be a material planning consideration, in this case the necessary certification had been submitted confirming that the mast would meet the standards required. Impact on amenity was also a major concern expressed in the objections. However, the planning assessment was that the impact on amenity would not be significant.

Members expressed the following concerns regarding the development:-

It appeared contrary to policy G2 as it would have significant adverse impact on the community’s residential amenity
It also appeared contrary to policy U5, in that it was next to a sensitive site – the school - and was in fact close enough for a school pupil to clench the antenna,
It had not been sensitively sited, as required by NPPG19 on radio telecommunications, paragraph 2
A precautionary approach to siting such masts until more research was carried out on health risks and due to the degree of public concern there should be sensitive siting and design;
It would impede maintenance of the school fence;
The level of public objection and concern was extremely high, including a number of letters of concern from community groups and the petition contained around 1,000 names. A letter of concern had also been received from a young girl who chaired the Dalneigh School Pupil Council;
The developer did not appear to have justified why the other sites suggested were not suitable;
Siting the mast in this location would prevent the development of a drop off/pick up point for the school;
It would also be very close to residential properties;
There was a widely held fear that the mast could bring health problems to school children and the local people in the area;
The developer had ignored the concerns of the local people and there was no consultation, and
The proposal had caused people to consider removing their children from the school and this would impact on the community.

Following debate, Mr D Kerr, seconded by Miss J Campbell, MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds

that it did not comply with policy G2 in that it would have significant adverse impact on community residential amenity and did not demonstrate sensitive siting, insufficient concern and sensitivity having been shown in the selection of the site;
that it did not comply with policy U5 in that it was too close to one of the Council’s sensitive properties, i.e. the primary school - so close in fact that a child standing in the school playground could actually touch the mast and associated equipment contained in the adjoining cabinet;
in addition, other sites in the area had been put forward but were rejected by the applicants on insufficient justification, and
the development would also have adverse impact on visual amenity in the immediate area.

The Committee thereafter agreed to REFUSE the application for the reasons proposed in Mr Kerr’s motion these also being the reasons for going against officer advice.

3.10 Erection of hotel and associated car parking for European Development Co. (Hotels) Ltd at Glebe Street, Inverness (08/00353/FULIN) (PL-012-09)

Ms Drummond summarised the report which recommended that detailed planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Members commented in favour of the development that:-

development on this site was long overdue;
it was a high profile site by the river;
additional accommodation for visitors was required in the City;
the City needed to move on and this would bring development to the area;
the views on design of the building were a matter of personal taste;
it would improve the amenity of the area; and
the City should aspire to be like other cities in Scotland and public transport should be promoted.

Members commented against the development that:-

the style of the building could be improved;
any new development must respect and enhance the character of the area;
the Civic Trust had major concerns about the design and impact on the conservation area;
it would mean the loss of a current footpath and cycle path;
a traffic impact assessment was required;
Rose Street car park could become a car park for hotels in the City;
there was a row of 17th century gravestones set into the wall on the site and no information has been supplied about what would happen to them;
there was no information from Historic Scotland;
detailed questions needed to be answered such as were the materials durable;
it was the wrong design for a City centre hotel but it was an ideal place for a Museum and Art Gallery;
it was overdevelopment of the site and out of character with the local area;
the percentage of people using public transport would be low and therefore the lack of car park spaces would cause a problem;
people living in the area and local businesses would be affected; and
it would have been useful to have an updated view from Architecture and Design Scotland.

Following debate, Miss J Campbell, seconded by Mr D Kerr, MOVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and inappropriate design which would not respect or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and did not accord with the written statement on the Riverfront revitalisation outlined in the Local Plan.

The Chair, seconded by Mr R Wynd, moved as an AMENDMENT that the planning permission be granted as recommended in the report.

On a vote being taken by roll call on MOTION received 7 votes and the AMENDMENT received 9 votes. The AMENDMENT was therefore carried, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the Motion:

Miss J Campbell
Mr J Crawford
Mr J Holden
Mr D Kerr
Mr H Wood
Mr P Corbett
Mrs B McAllister

For the Amendment:

Provost J Gray
Mr S Black
Mr I Brown
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Finnie
Mr D Henderson
Ms L MacDonald
Mr S Park
Mr R Wynd

It was confirmed that a condition would be added in relation to the existing gravestones if necessary, and not already covered by the archaeological condition.

3.11 Residential Development (189 Houses) with associated infrastructure for Trustees of Richard Tyser’s Overseas Settlement at Ness Castle, Dores Road, Inverness (08/00070/FULIN) (PL-013-09(report) | Site Layout Plan | Site Plan ) and 3.12 Residential Development with associated infrastructure for Trustees of Richard Tyser’s Overseas Settlement and Mssrs H Macrae, Mr A Rapson and Academy Street Restorations Ltd at Ness Castle, Dores Road, Inverness (04/00585/OUTIN) and (07/01043/OUTIN) ( PL-014-09 (report) | Master Plan | Master Plan 2 | Location Plan)

The Committee AGREED to consider these items together.

Mr Mudie summarised the reports which recommended that the applications be granted subject to conditions. It was clarified that the development was for up to 984 houses overall.

Members commented that:

there were concerns about the bridge - assurance was needed that it was safe and the designs of the new bridge should be shown to Members;
it would be useful to have a cycle path at either side of the bridge
there were concerns about public road safety;
a traffic assessment of Dores Road and Island Bank Road was needed;
there was only a single access to the site which was not ideal in the case of an emergency;
Torbreck Road was a country lane and traffic flows could be hazardous – blocked access would be useful;
a safe route to school was required – possibly a footbridge to link to Home Dell;
community facilities were needed and this should be set in the conditions;
house designs needed to be shown to Members at an appropriate time;
traffic calming was needed;
a detailed plan for water and sewerage was required;
it might be too many houses for a woodland setting;
it was hoped that a road upgrade would come with the development;
the City could not support this development at the current time but the project would be phased over the next 10-15 years;
affordable housing was needed in the area and this application should be supported; and
the travel plan for the site needed to encompass the construction vehicles.

Officials clarified that:

the design of the new bridge was dependant on flood relief plans and the Council and developer were working to get a design solution;
the developer had secured adequate land to accommodate a footpath on one side of the bridge.
in terms of the full application at 3.11, it was the layout, road design and access issues that were the priority. No detailed house designs had been brought forward at this stage. Consideration was still being given to which house design was most appropriate but this would be conditioned as a reserved matter on which the Committee would have an opportunity to comment in due course;
in terms of affordable housing, Housing and Property Service would engage with the developers and there was a clear policy on affordable housing;
in terms of the plans for a footpath, consultation with the community was ongoing about what they wanted in the area;
with regards to Torbreck Lane, work would commence on a new secondary access after the 600th house was completed;
the application at 3.12 was only outline at present to allow discussion with the developer.

Following debate, Mr J Finnie, seconded by Mr D Henderson, MOVED that both applications be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the reports, and, in the case of application 08/00070/FULIN subject to details of the house designs being included as a reserved matter which would require to be brought back to Committee for approval. The Committee thereafter AGREED Mr Finnie’s motion.

4. Decisions of Appeals to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

The Committee NOTED the outcomes of the Appeals, as listed below.

i. Planning Appeal (08/00095/OUTNA)- Barn Cottage, Sandown Farm Lane, Nairn, IV12 5NE
Appeal against the decision of the Highland Council to refuse Planning Permission.
Appeal dismissed

ii. Planning Appeal (07/00863/FULIN, P/PPA/270/554)- No. 14 Loaneckheim, Kiltarlity, by Beauly IV4 7JQ
Appeal against the decision of the Highland Council to refuse Planning Permission.
Appeal allowed in part

iii. Planning Appeal (P/ENA/270/52)- No. 14 Loaneckheim, Kiltarlity, by Beauly IV4 7JQ
Appeal against the decision of the Highland Council to refuse Planning Permission.
Appeal allowed in part

iv. Planning Appeal (P/ENA/270/53) - No. 14 Loaneckheim, Kiltarlity, by Beauly IV4 7JQ
Appeal against the decision of the Highland Council to refuse Planning Permission.
Appeal dismissed

v. Planning Appeal (08/00160/FULBS) – Allt Beag, Dalrachney Road, Carrbridge
Appeal against the decision of the Highland Council to refuse Planning Permission.
Appeal withdrawn

vi. Planning Appeal (08/00148/FULBS) – Land s.w of 1-4 Suidhe Brae, Kincraig
Appeal against the decision of the Highland Council to refuse Planning Permission.
Intimation of appeal

5. Delegated Decisions

The Committee NOTED that the list of delegated decisions of planning applications was available via The Highland Council Website.

The meeting ended at 1.05pm