Minutes of Meeting of the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Applications Committee commenced held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 8 December 2009 at 10.00 am.

 

Present:

Mr R A C Balfour
Mr S Black
Mr I Brown
Ms J Campbell
Mr J Crawford
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Finnie
Mr D Henderson
Mr J Holden
Mr D Kerr
Mr A S Park
Mr H Wood
Mr B Wynd
 

Non-Members also present:

 

Mr P Corbett (Item 3.1)
Mrs E McAllister  (Items 3.1 and 3.5)
 

Officials in attendance:


Ms S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr D Polson, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, Planning and Development Service
Ms N Drummond, Planning Team Leader, Planning and Development Service
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Service
Miss K Armstrong, Administrative Assistant, Chief Executive’s Office
Miss E Disney, Clerical Assistant, Chief Executive’s Office

 

Councillor A S Park in the Chair

 

Business

 

Prior to commencement of the agenda items, the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager advised members that appeals in respect of the Committee’s refusal of planning permission for a proposed church in Balloch and for a proposed night club in Nairn had been notified.  As these applications had been refused contrary to officers’ advice, members were invited to consider whether they wished the appeals dealt with by written submissions, by the hearing procedure or by public local inquiry procedure.  It was agreed that DPEA be requested that both appeals be dealt with by written submissions procedure.

 

1. Apologies for Absence

 

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A Christie, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mrs M Davidson


2. Minutes of Planning Applications Committee  

 

There was circulated for approval the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 11 November 2009, the terms of which were APPROVED.

 

3. Planning Applications to be Determined

 

There was circulated Report Numbers PLI-89/09 – PLI-93/09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager as follows:

 

Item 3.1
Erection of 38 Affordable Flats at Anderson Street, Inverness 08/00479/FULIN (PLI-89-09)

 

Mr P Corbett and Mrs E McAllister had requested and been granted a local member vote for this item.

 

This application was determined under the Council’s Hearings Procedure.  The Chairman outlined the Procedure, a copy of which had been circulated with the agenda.

 

The applicant’s representative, Mr Colin Armstrong, Architect, was in attendance together with Mr David Guthrie, the on behalf of the landowner and Mr Murray MacLennan, the objector.

 

The Team Leader, Ms Drummond, outlined the application.

 

Mr Armstrong was then invited to address the Committee.  He clarified that the application was for three blocks of flats and was separate from the Caledonian Partnership application which was for a wider development of the area. He advised that regeneration of the area had been ongoing for some time and this proposed development on a brownfield site would continue that process. The plans for the development had been well received at the Community Open Day which the developers had organised.  Flood engineers, Mott MacDonald, had been employed to carry out a flood risk assessment.  These were the same specialists which the Council had engaged for its flood defences plans. The proposal to upfill the site would contribute to the overall flood defence scheme as it would obviate the need to extend the flood defence wall along this site.  The site was not affected by river flooding.  The risk was of tidal flooding only, and this would be of much shorter duration than river flooding.

 

With regard to the objector’s concerns over loss of parking in the vicinity of the entrance to his premises, Mr Armstrong explained that the entrance to Mr MacLennan’s premises was opposite a proposed junction shown in the outline planning application for the larger application by Caledonian Partnership and this would be altered.  In any event, however, this was not the application before the Committee.  The proposed access for the development before Committee was 30 metres away from the entrance to Mr MacLennan’s premises.

 

Responding to questions by members, Mr Armstrong clarified the following:

  • The flood engineers’ report referred only to tidal flooding, as the site was not subject to river flooding.
  • At the Community Open Day members of the public had not expressed significant concern over potential flooding of the site although flood implications had been fully explained to them.
  • Roads and access to the site would be developed to adoptable standards and maintained to required standards by Albyn.
  • The landscaping of the site would be maintained by Albyn and residents would be charged for this through a factoring arrangement.
  • The buildings would all have lift facilities.
  • The percentage of shared equity housing and rented properties could not be clarified at this early stage but would be discussed with Allan Maguire, Head of Housing Development and Estates. There had been no Community Council objections.
  • Both the wider outline application and the Albyn application which was before Committee had been on display at the public consultation.
  • The details of the Albyn application had not been changed since the public consultation and the drawings before members were the same as those shown at the consultation.
  • The outfall to the River Ness would be constructed and maintained by Albyn.
  • Access from Anderson Street would also be at Albyn’s cost.

 

The objector, Mr MacLennan, was then invited to address the Committee. He expressed concern that the development would seriously affect his small business, located at the junction between Thornbush Road and Anderson Street.  Access to the development and increased traffic flow would limit the road side parking for his 7 commercial vehicles.  This would curtail his business to the extent that he would have to cease trading.

 

Responding to Mr MacLennan’s concerns, Mr Armstrong clarified that the distance between Mr MacLennan’s business and access to the site would be 30 metres and at the gable end of the business, where the shutter door was, the distance was 70 metres. There had also been no objections from TEC Services.

 

There being no further questions by members, the Chairman asked the applicant’s representative and the objector if they were satisfied with the way in which the hearing had been conducted and they confirmed that they were.

 

The Team Leader then presented her report and recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in her report, and referral to Scottish Ministers

 

During debate, members recognised there was a great demand for affordable housing and redevelopment of brownfield sites in the area.  However, some members shared concerns that the potential flood risks had not been appropriately addressed.  They felt that upfilling the site to raise the buildings to above flood levels would only create an island effect which would be a great risk to residents through lack of access for emergency services.  Concerns were also expressed about the lack of amenity space, car parking facilities and cycle path access.

However a number of members felt the application was in an ideal location, close to the City with excellent facilities in the surrounding community.  The large number of applicants waiting for affordable housing meant that developments such as this should be promoted.

 

Responding to concerns and questions raised, the Team Leader confirmed the following.

 

  • Cycle path access could be added as an additional condition to the application.
  • Although there would be little amenity space on site, the site was in an excellent location with facilities in the surrounding neighbourhood.
  • Highland Council policies promoted regeneration, particularly in this area of the City, and also supported affordable housing developments, so this application met all the policy criteria.
  • The design and layout of the scheme was in keeping with the area.
  • SEPA had maintained their objection because the application did not fully meet the terms of SPP7 – in effect, they wanted no development until the flood defence scheme was implemented.

 

Following debate, Mr J Finnie, seconded by Mr J Holden, MOVED that the planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

As an AMENDMENT Ms J Campbell, seconded by Mr D Kerr, moved that the planning permission be REFUSED due to the unsuitability of the site for the proposed development due to unresolved flooding issues (thus contrary to SPP7) and the lack of residential amenity.

 

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 5 votes and the AMENDMENT received 10 votes.  The AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

 

For the Motion:-

 

Mr J Finnie
Mr I Brown
Mr A S Park
Mr J Holden
Mr D Fallows

 

For the Amendment:-

 

Mr H Wood
Ms J Campbell
Mr D Kerr
Mr D Henderson
Mr R Balfour
Mr B Wynd
Mr J Crawford
Mr S Black
Mr P Corbett
Mrs E MacAllister

 

There were no abstentions.

 

The Committee accordingly agreed to REFUSE planning permission due to the unsuitability of the site for the proposed development due to unresolved flooding issues (thus contrary to SPP7) and the lack of residential amenity.

 

Item 3.2
Extension to house, Carn Eilrig, Nethybridge
09/00244/FULBS (PLI-90-09)

 

Mr S Black declared a financial interest as the applicant for planning permission and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

 

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager outlined the application and report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

The Committee AGREED to GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

Item 3.3
Under section 42 to undertake development without complying with conditions previously imposed, Football Pitch and land adjoining, Seafield Park, Grantown-on-Spey 09/000200/FULBS (PLI-91-09 )

 

This application had been withdrawn by the applicants 2 days prior to the meeting.

 

Item 3.4
A business park to be developed in phases over 50 years, West and South of Inverness Airport, Dalcross, by Inverness 08/00215/OUTIN (PLI-92-09)

 

Mr D Henderson had declared a non-financial in this item as an ex officio Board Member of Inverness Airport Business Park Ltd but remained in the meeting.

 

Mr R Balfour requested that the item be deferred for a site visit, a hearing and further consultation with the local community. He was concerned that the objectors had previously been advised that the application would be determined under the hearings procedure and felt they were prejudiced by the decision now to determine the application without a hearing.

 

During discussion, the following points were raised by some of the members:

 

  • The last site visit had been made in 2000 when the Planning Committee comprised different members.  
  • The application was for a large site which was difficult to visualise from the circulated documents.
  • A site visit would allow members to see how the development would comply with the A96 development plan.

 

The Principal Planner was then invited to address the Committee’s concerns and noted the following.

 

  • This application was a long standing concept which had been consulted on both as part of the Structure Plan consultations in 2001 and as part of the Local Plan consultations in 2006.   Through the Development Plan planning process there had therefore already been significant public consultation.
  • The application had been lodged prior to the entry in to force of the statutory pre-application consultation requirements in August 2009.  However, the applicants had pre-empted these changes and had undertaken consultation on a par with that required for a post-August 2009 major application.  Were the application to have been lodged after 3 August 2009, the consultation which the applicants had undertaken would have met the statutory requirements.
  • The consultations had included a 2-day public event held at the airport.  Local Councillors and Community Councils had been invited to this. 
  • The public had been given the usual 28 days to submit representations  when the application was first advertised under s34 and EIA regulations and, due to subsequent additional advertisement as a potential departure from policy, this response period had been extended by an additional 21 days.
  • Objectors had not been given an unequivocal offer of a hearing.  They had been told that a hearing would be offered if, following assessment, the application was found to be a departure from policy.  In the event, however, following full assessment, the application had been found to comply with policy and therefore did not trigger any requirement for a hearing.  Objecting community groups and individual members of the public had expressed their views fully in their written representations.  If a hearing were held, these groups and people would be raising exactly the same issues they had already raised in their written representations and these issues were already considered and taken into account in the recommendation before Committee.

 

Mr A S Park, seconded by Mr J Finnie, then MOVED that the Committee proceed to determine the application that day as sufficient community consultation had been undertaken and neither a site visit nor a hearing was considered necessary.

 

Mr D Kerr suggested that, while public consultation had been more than adequate and a hearing would not add anything to the process, a site visit would be useful since some of the current Committee members had not been Council members at the time of the earlier site visit.

 

Having heard the Principal Planner’s account of the consultation process which had been undertaken, Mr R Balfour agreed that further consultation and a hearing were unnecessary. 

 

Mr R Balfour, seconded by Mr J Holden, then moved as an AMENDMENT that the application be deferred for a site visit.

 

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 6 votes and the AMENDMENT received 7 votes.  The AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

 

For the Motion:-

 

Mr J Finnie
Mr D Henderson
Mr I Brown
Mr B Wynd
Mr A S Park
Mr S Black

 

For the Amendment:-

 

Mr H Wood
Ms J Campbell
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Balfour
Mr J Crawford
Mr J Holden
Mr D Fallows

 

There were no abstentions.

 

The Committee accordingly decided to DEFER determination of the application until a site visit could be completed.

 

Item 3.5
Flood Defences, downstream from Ness Bridge, Inverness 08/00862/FULIN   (PLI-93-09)

 

Mrs E McAllister had requested and been granted a local member vote for this item.

 

The Principal Planner outlined the application and the recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

During debate, members agreed that the area proposed for development was a vital area of the City which greatly impacted on the vibrancy of the City. The proposal was agreed to integrate well with the landscaping of the area whilst also serving a purpose to alleviate flooding risk. Responding to questions, the Principal Planner gave the following points of clarification.

  • The bridges over the river had been built at a level designed to withstand a 1: 200 year flood risk.
  • The Council’s Forestry Officer had been consulted throughout all the stages of the application and would continue to be involved throughout the project. This was a revised application giving first priority to downstream flood defences.  There were currently no proposals for upstream.
  • It was intended that the flood defence wall become a feature along the river side, with large access steps cut into the stone to allow access to the water.
  • A flooding event in Inverness would be different from the recent floods in other areas of the country as Loch Ness would act as a massive dam and alleviate flooding levels;
  • Condition 12 provided a mechanism for minimising tree damage and ensuring tree replacement where required. The trees would not need a Preservation Order as they already belonged to the Council and would be protected through Condition 12.

 

The Committee accordingly AGREED to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

4. Delegated Decisions

 

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

 

The meeting closed at 12.25 pm.