Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday 27 September 2006 at 10.30 a.m.
Present:
Mr A S Park, Mr A I MacDonald, Mr R Saxon, Mr J H Green, Mr G M Smith, Mr F R M Keith, Mrs A L Magee (ex officio), Mr D Allan, Mr A Torrance, Mr R W Durham, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr E C Mackinnon, Mrs V MacIver, Mr M M Macmillan, Mr B Barclay, Mr I MacDonald, Mr J Laing, Mr S J Shiels, Mr J MacDonald, Mr R Lyon, Mr A Milne, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J Gray, Mr N A Donald, Mrs K G Matheson, Mr R Wynd, Mr A Gordon, Mr B M S Dunlop, Mr B Clark, Dr M E M Foxley (ex officio)
Non-Members also present:
Mr D Mackay, Mr T Jackson, Mr W N Fernie, Mr W A Mowat, Mr W J Ross, Mr D W Briggs. Mrs I MacCallum, Mr R Balfour
Officials in attendance:
Mr J D Rennilson, Director of Planning and Development
Mr M Greaves, Head of Development and Strategy
Mr R Hartland, Head of Planning and Building Standards
Mr G Robson, Head of Environment
Mr M Macleod, Policy and Information Manager
Mr A McCann, Economy and Europe Manager
Mr G Mooney, Principal Planner
Mr A Brown, Principal Planner
Mr G Summers, Principal European Officer
Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator, Corporate Services
Mrs L Lee, Committee Administrator, Corporate Services
Mr A S Park in the Chair
Business
An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to Council. All decisions with no asterisk in the margin are delegated to the Committee.
Preliminaries
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr W Fulton, Mrs L MacDonald, Mrs O J Macdonald and Mr A R McFarlane Slack.
2. Revenue Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07
There had been circulated and NOTED Report No. PDET-67-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on revenue expenditure within the Planning and Development Service for the period to 31 August 2006 and the projected year-end position.
3. Capital Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07
There had been circulated and NOTED Report No. PDET-68-06 dated 14 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the gross capital expenditure and income for the Planning and Development Service for the period to 31 August 2006.
4. Revised 5-year Capital Programme
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-69-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining a provisional five year Composite Capital Plan for the period 2006/07 to 2010/11.
The Committee AGREED to defer consideration of this matter to a future meeting, to permit the Director of Finance to take a corporate view across all capital programmes.
5. Notice of Review
(06/00036/OUTCA) Erection of Class 1 Retail Food Store, Petrol Filling Station, Associated Car Parking, Landscaping, Access Road and Roundabout, Servicing, Playing Field Provision and Associated Community Facilities and Car Parking in Outline at Pennyland Farm, Thurso, Caithness
Asda Stores/GVA Grimley
At its special meeting on 26 June 2006, the Caithness Planning, Europe, Development and Tourism Committee had refused Planning Permission for the above development proposed by Asda Stores, against the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Development.
The following Notice of Review had been received:
“We wish to rescind the decision of the Caithness Area Planning Committee of 26th June to refuse Outline Planning Permission for the erection of a Class 1 foodstore, petrol filling station, associated car parking, landscaping, access road and roundabout, servicing, playing field provision and associated community facilities at Pennyland Farm, Thurso, Caithness and substitute the recommendation for approval with conditions proposed by the Area Planning Officer.
Signed:
Mr A I MacDonald, Mr W N Fernie, Mr D Flear, Mr R Durham, Mr J H Green, Mr W Fulton, Mr R W Barclay, Mr D Allan.”
At its meeting on 16 August 2006, the Committee had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice following a call for a judicial review relating to the Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) for a recent planning application for a supermarket in Wick. Independent consultants had been engaged to assess the RIA and the Director of Planning and Development had advised the Committee that their report could have implications for the RIA for the Asda application in Thurso. The consultants’ report had now been received, along with further new material that also required to be taken into consideration in the determination of the application.
Accordingly, there had been circulated Addendum Report No. 5 PDET-70-06 dated 18 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development informing Members of additional information to be taken into consideration in the determination of this planning application and recommending that the Committee grant planning permission in the terms set out in the report to the Caithness Planning, Europe, Development and Tourism (PDET) Committee meeting on 26 June 2006, subject to an additional condition limiting the store to a maximum of 2,896 square metres gross floor space, such that the construction of any mezzanine floor would require express planning permission.
There had also been circulated Report No. C-P-154-06 (296kb)dated 30 May 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development, previously submitted to the special meeting of the Caithness PDET Committee on 26 June 2006, together with the Minutes of that meeting. That report had recommended approval of an outline application for a development of a 2,896 square metre food retail store and petrol filling station at the north west edge of Thurso, on agricultural land at Pennyland Farm, and, on adjoining land, the formation of 1.01hectares (2.5acres) of recreational open space, associated community facilities and car parking, to be transferred to the Council, the applicant bearing the annual maintenance cost thereof.
The proposal did not accord with the Caithness Local Plan, which allocated the site for hotel and open space/amenity use or agriculture and to retain the open panoramic views. The site was, however, allocated for development and, since the adoption of the Local Plan in 2002, a proposal for a hotel had not been forthcoming. The application site was located on an edge-of-town site. The report to the Caithness PDET Committee considered that the proposals accorded in broad terms with the key themes and objectives of the Structure Plan and with Government Policy on town centres and retailing.
Subject to conditions, there were no objections from statutory consultees. 72 letters of objection and 1 letter of support had been received. Objections focused on the loss of amenity to local residential properties due to noise, disturbance and increased traffic; the loss of open views; the lack of accord with the Local Plan and the adverse effects on local businesses.
Members were advised that, if the Committee were of a mind to approve the application, it would be necessary to notify the Scottish Executive of this decision, as the application was contrary to the Local Plan and also the Council had an interest in the recreational land, were this to be obtained from the applicant at nil value.
In response to a question as to the status of the Notice of Review and the decision to be taken in light of the new evidence placed before the Committee, including the replacement of the former NPPG6, on which the decision at Area level had relied, with the more recent SPP6, the Director of Planning and Development clarified that it was incumbent on the Committee to determine the application on the basis of the information available and the legislative/guidance framework in place at the time of determination. He further clarified in response to a question that, while it would be open to the Committee to decide to refer the application back to the Caithness PDET Committee for determination in light of the additional information now presented, he recommended that Members hear the full case at this meeting before considering such an option.
The application was subject to a formal Hearings Procedure, which was summarised by the Chairman, who confirmed that all parties understood the process.
Hearings procedure
Introduction
In briefly introducing the application, the Principal Planner made reference to the Auction Mart site under reference in a number of the representations received as a possible alternative location for the development and reminded Members that planning permission for a sizeable development on this site had previously been refused because of traffic congestion concerns. He also advised Members that, since the refusal of the application by the Caithness PDET Committee, further letters of objection and support had been received, including a 3,000 name online petition in support of the application.
Applicants
Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Asda Stores/GVA Grimley, Mr Alex Smith indicated that he had little to add to the comprehensive circulated report. He underlined to Members that the size of development under consideration was smaller than many Asda outlets elsewhere, in order to be appropriate to the size of Thurso.
Speaking in support of the application, Mr George Ross, representing Thurso Community Council, argued that, particularly in view of the imminent opening of a Tesco store in Wick, Thurso needed a counterbalancing supermarket outlet to avoid leakage. This would be good for the local economy. The proposed Pennyland site would be convenient for a wide range of customers from various directions, whereas the Auction Mart site would add to traffic congestion. Mrs Jean Lipa, Secretary, Thurso Community Council, confirmed that numerous Community Council discussions had consistently favoured the current application site.
Also speaking in support of the application, Ms Paula Gent drew attention to the online petition in support of the application, which she had helped to promote following the refusal of the application by the Caithness PDET Committee.
Also speaking in support of the application, Mr Bill Hepburn, representing Pennyland Development Company, drew attention to that company’s joint venture with the landowner, to long-standing negotiations to develop the Thurso West expansion area, to proposals to construct a bypass road and to an application that would shortly come before the Caithness PDET Committee for a major housing development to the west of the proposed supermarket site. He argued that Asda had selected the preferred site after considerable research and that it was considered to be the best site overall, with the potential to reinforce Thurso town centre and the local economy.
In response to questions asked, Mr Smith and/or Mr Hepburn advised that:
- both the applicants and Pennyland Development Company supported the application site as best located to serve the residents of Thurso, including allowing for future expansion, and to provide ease of access
- the application site, being edge-of-town, was also preferable to a third mooted potential site at the Thurso Business Park, which would classify as out-of-town and be contrary to policy.
Third Party Objectors
The Director of Planning and Development drew attention to two requests to speak from objectors who were both non-timeous:
i. James Barr Limited, on behalf of the Co-operative Society, had submitted a non-timeous objection prior to the earlier Hearing in Caithness. While the company had not spoken at that Hearing, its views had been relayed to that Committee. In view of the length of time since that objection had been lodged, and given that the Caithness PDET Committee had been aware of the company’s views, the Committee AGREED that the representative of James Barr Limited be permitted to speak.
ii. Miller Developments had submitted a non-timeous request to speak less than a week prior to this meeting. The Committee AGREED that, under these circumstances, Miller Developments not be allowed to speak.
Mrs Amy Walker, also speaking on behalf of Mr David Doohan and Mrs Lorna Mascall, both timeous objectors, raised a number of concerns, including:
· the application was contrary to the Local Plan and would encroach on the green wedge/open space/amenity land which the Plan sought to protect, whose preservation would accord with Scottish Executive policy and whose development had been resisted for a long time
· the case for granting approval contrary to the Local Plan had not been adequately made
· SPP8 provided for a sequential approach to site selection for such a development and this had not been properly applied in this case
· alternative sites were available that accorded better with policy
· development of this site as proposed would unlock the opportunity for further development on the green wedge, destroying the character of the open space, and was motivated by financial gain for the parties involved rather than the good of the Thurso community
· the proposed recreational facility, a football pitch, would involve an unsightly high wire fence and would lead to noise and light pollution
· the development would be disadvantageous for tourism, not only because of the visual impact on the western approaches to Thurso, but because the proposed filling station would threaten the viability of small filling stations along the north coast road
· Asda’s figures on petrol trading were flawed, at times referring to overtrading and at others to leakage
· the Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) was not fit for purpose
· Asda held an option on the alternative town centre brownfield auction mart site and had been less than transparent in its handling of the different locations.
Speaking on behalf of James Barr Limited, and thus the Co-operative Society, Ms Ruth McCarey argued that the proposed development would damage the viability of Thurso town centre and in particular that of the Co-operative outlet there. The RIA had not identified sufficient surplus retail capacity. The proposal was contrary to the Development Plan and national guidance and there were no material considerations to justify breaching policy.
In response to questions asked, Mrs Walker clarified that the objectors were not opposed in principle to the development of an Asda store in Thurso, but rather objected to its location at the Pennyland site and the threat this presented to the preservation of the green wedge. Ms McCarey suggested that Asda had not provided any evidence for an assertion that the Co-operative store in Thurso was overtrading. She also indicated her expectation that other businesses currently in Thurso would also be adversely affected.
Applicants' Response to Points Raised
The Chairman having ascertained that there were no further parties wishing to speak, the applicants and their supporters were invited to respond to the points made.
Mr Hepburn, speaking on behalf of Pennyland Development Company and the wider Tulloch Homes’ interest, referred to the suggestion that there was an underlying intention to develop the rest of the green wedge and stated that he had no information to suggest that Tulloch Homes aspired to any development within the Thurso West expansion area other than in accordance with the Local Plan. In response to the criticism that the site was not currently zoned for a foodstore, he pointed out that no site in Thurso was so zoned nor would accord better with the Local Plan. In response to criticism that the town centre would suffer, he suggested that, given the pending opening of a Tesco store in Wick, Thurso would suffer more without its own counterbalancing supermarket development.
Mr A Smith, for Asda Stores/GVA Grimley, expressed the hope that any misunderstandings on Asda’s position in relation to the different sites apparently worthy of consideration had now been clarified.
In accordance with procedure, the Chairman sought confirmation from the objectors and applicants that they were satisfied with the way the hearing had been conducted. This was given.
Summing-up and Discussion
The Principal Planner summarised the main points of the application, making reference to the pertinent Policies as detailed in the report.
The Chairman of the Caithness PDET Committee, while indicating his support for the Area decision, made it clear that it had been based on site-specific considerations and did not in any way reflect opposition to the principle of an Asda store in Thurso. On the other hand, many of the arguments in favour of approval were concerned with this general principle, rather than focussed on the issues affecting this particular site. He also made it clear that he himself had not been influenced by the fact that he represented a ward in Wick. He drew attention to the relevant provisions of the Local Plan and highlighted its references to the potential for a discreet development of high amenity value and to the concept of a parkland gateway to Thurso. He had not been able to reconcile the Plan’s provisions with the recommendation in the circulated report, which did not identify sufficient material considerations to justify breaching the Local Plan; nor did he believe that a sequential approach to site selection had been taken.
A number of Members supported these views, underlining the importance of preserving the green wedge open space and questioning the adequacy and accuracy of the Retail Impact Assessment and its interpretation.
Other Members expressed support for the application, arguing that the need for such a development in Thurso was well-established. The application was supported by the Community Council. The proposed site was convenient for access and was edge-of-town rather than out-of-town, so conformed with government policy. It was zoned for some degree of development and the current proposal, being in outline only at this stage, could be designed to be less obtrusive than some feared. The development would halt retail leakage to Inverness and Wick.
After discussion, Mr G Smith, seconded by Mr R Saxon, MOVED that the Committee uphold the decision of the Caithness PDET Committee to refuse the application.
Mr A I MacDonald, seconded by Mr J Laing, moved as an AMENDMENT that the Committee grant planning permission in the terms set out in the report to the Caithness Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee meeting on 26 June 2006, subject to:
i. an additional condition limiting the proposed store to a maximum of 2,896 square metres gross floor space, such that the construction of any mezzanine floor would require express planning permission, as set out in the addendum report to this Committee; and
ii. referral of the Committee’s decision to the Scottish Executive as contrary to the Development Plan and also given the Council’s interest in the proposed transfer of recreational land at nil cost.
On a vote being taken the outcome was as follows:-
For the Motion:-
Mr R Saxon, Mr G M Smith, Mr F R M Keith, Mr M Macmillan, Mr S J Shiels, Mr A Milne, Mr R Wynd, Mr B M S Dunlop,
For the Amendment:-
Mr A I MacDonald, Mr J H Green, Mr D Allan, Mr A Torrance, Mr R Durham, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr E Mackinnon, Mrs V MacIver, Mr B Barclay, Mr I MacDonald, Mr J Laing, Mr J McDonald, Mr R J Lyon, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J S Gray, Mr N A Donald, Mr A S Park, Mr A Gordon
The Amendment was CARRIED by 18 votes to 8.
6. Proposed Extension of Glensanda Quarry, Morvern (05/00334/FULLO)
Town And Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999
Foster Yeoman Ltd
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-71-06 dated 18 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that planning permission was being sought for the extension of the extraction area at Glensanda Quarry by 81 hectares.
The proposed quarry extension would release an additional 400 million tonnes or so of reserves. Although substantial reserves existed within the present consented site, the company was seeking permission to work into the application area in the shorter-term while the Glory Hole and primary crusher were still at the higher level. The enlarged total area would result in the Glory Hole being more centrally positioned, but there would be a switch in working procedure to the use of a mobile rather than a fixed primary crusher.
The principal issues to be considered in respect of the application were visual impact, water quality and compliance long-term with the EC Water Framework Directive (WFD). In terms of visual impact, the effect of working upper extended faces would be, until they were restored, to increase impact in the short-term, especially from the south-west. However, a proportion of the extended area would be screened visually by Meall Mhic Artair. In terms of water quality and the WFD, a series of mitigation measures were proposed to limit sedimentation, maintain a level of water flow and enhance the habitat value of a watercourse. These had been accepted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Earlier objections lodged by SEPA and by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) had been withdrawn. The application was supported by an Environmental Statement (including Addendum) which had been available for inspection in the Planning and Development Service at Council Headquarters.
Fifteen objections had been received from local residents and others, with concerns including visual impact, noise and dust nuisance, light pollution, risk to wildlife habitats, in particular for protected species, hydrological impact, lack of economic justification and negative impact on tourism. Concerns had been expressed by Morvern Community Council. Ardgour Community Council had made no objection and Argyll and Bute Council had expressed qualified support.
The Committee was asked to approve the application, subject to the legal agreement already in place covering the financial guarantee for restoration of the site being satisfactorily increased to allow for the expanded area, and to conditions as set out in the report, subject to a tabled addition to Condition 1:
“... and also subject to the following further conditions –
i. conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission reference LO/1986/167 are hereby deleted and shall no longer have effect;
ii. the precise extent of the area from which granite shall be won as part of the quarry operation is as coloured grey and pink on drawing number YM-QP-05-100 A, and quarrying shall not take place outside that area;
iii. the quarry area as coloured grey and pink on the said plan shall be enclosed inside a secure stockproof fence at the outset of quarry operations.”
The application was subject to a formal Hearings Procedure, which was summarised by the Chairman, who confirmed that all parties understood the process.
Hearings Procedure
Applicants
Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Foster Yeoman Ltd, Mr Hugh Lucas indicated that he had little to add to the comprehensive circulated report. He reminded Members that the Glensanda operation had been in place for almost 25 years, enjoyed a good working relationship with the Council and was a development of national and international significance, with around 50% of output going to European markets. He contended that the proposed extension to the workings would have a modest impact on the environment, would be carried out in accordance with best practice and that the opportunity would be taken to renew aspects of the existing operation where standards could be improved. The planning permission would be subject to strong controls, through conditions and a monitoring scheme. With regard to comments received as to why this application was coming forward now, when there were currently significant reserves, Mr Lucas indicated that the company was taking into account long-term demand in potential markets.
In response to questions asked, Mr Lucas advised that:
· replacement of the current high impact orange sodium lighting had been delayed because the older lighting fitments had taken longer than expected to wear out; it was expected that all would be changed within a further 12 month period
· the fitting of low level lighting to the towers on the foreshore would be expedited
· deer fencing around the site had not been required.
Third Party Objectors
There being no representative from Morven Community Council present, the objectors were given the opportunity to put forward their views. Mr K Robertson, Rev Ann Winning and Mr Simon Lewis expressed a number of concerns:
· given granite extraction’s deep carbon footprint, it was inappropriate to expand a granite quarry at a time of climatic warming, particularly as the currently permitted area had some 36 years further years of working life; any decision on extension should be postponed, as demand could change in the light of global developments
· assurances given in the early years of the development that the primary crusher would be removed from sight after a few years, the main ridge would be kept intact, the watershed would not be breached and the lochan would remain were being undermined; the primary crusher was still in place after 20 years and being proposed for further retention at the upper level; promises had been and were being broken and this did not bode well for the reassurances being given now
· the motivation driving the company was financial; there was no justification proved for granting an extension at this time and, unless national necessity could be demonstrated, the Council should enforce the working through the existing permission and reserves first
· the proposed extension and increased scarring of the landscape would discourage tourists, who were essential to the fragile local economy; environmental tourism should be encouraged and a tourism survey carried out
· the figures presented on noise levels understated the cross-water impact on locations such as the island of Lismore, particularly during calm weather, and the Council should insist on a full noise assessment before taking a decision.
The Clerk read out a statement from Dr R Stebbings expressing his concerns that a number of important protected species could be threatened by the proposals, including pearl mussels, water voles and reptiles; that adequate surveys should be carried out to inform the applicants’ Environmental Statement; and that appropriate mitigation plans should be drawn up.
In response to questions asked, the objectors clarified their own positions as private individuals. Rev Winning had previously been a member of Morvern Community Council and was aware of local views. Mr Lewis advised that noise levels varied according to weather conditions and operational circumstances and reiterated that the reported figures understated the position. He indicated his intention to seek redress through European legislation on these matters should the application be granted.
Applicants' Response to Points Raised
The Chairman having ascertained that there were no further parties wishing to speak, Mr Lucas responded on behalf of the applicants to points made, stating that:
· the company had submitted an Environmental Statement prepared in accordance with objective criteria
· the extension if granted would provide a longer-term reserve and would permit a different way of working the upper levels of the quarry in the short to medium-term
· levels of activity at the top of the quarry workings were not directly linked to output
· the company had complied with its planning conditions, which had been modified to some extent over the years, and would honour its commitments.
In accordance with procedure, the Chairman sought confirmation from the objectors and applicants that they were satisfied with the way the hearing had been conducted. This was given.
Summing-up and Discussion
The Principal Planner gave a full summary of the main points of the application, illustrated by photographs and graphics, making reference to the pertinent Policies as detailed in the report and to the responses from key consultees. He outlined the main determining issues, including visual impact, water quality and impact on water bodies, need, nature conservation, quarrying impacts (noise, dust, blasting and lighting) and recreational access. He also referred Members to the tabled recommended addition to Condition 1 in the circulated report.
The local Member generally welcomed the company’s operating record and contribution to the Highland economy, but, in the interests of providing some reassurance to the community, requested a number of amendments to the proposed conditions as follows:
· that the lighting review and replacement scheme be completed within one year
· the removal from Conditions 7 and 8 of the words “or such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority”
· the addition to Condition 11 of a requirement for the monitoring and auditing of noise levels
· the clarification of Condition 13 to specify implementation within a set time in order to address the prevention of run-off of silt.
During discussion, a number of Members commented favourably on the company’s operating record and its status as the employer of a skilled labour force. It was hoped that the recent sale of the company would mean the establishment of the same good working relationship with the new owners. It was noted that the statutory consultees had withdrawn their objections and that mitigating conditions were being proposed.
After discussion, the Committee AGREED to grant planning permission for the proposed quarry extension, subject to the legal agreement already in place covering the financial guarantee for restoration of the site being satisfactorily increased to allow for the expanded area, and to conditions as set out in the report, amended and/or supplemented as tabled and as proposed during discussion.
7. Beauly-Denny Gridline – Route Adjustments
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-72-06 dated 18 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on applications submitted by Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) to Scottish Ministers under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 for minor deviations to small sections of the existing 132 kV and 33 kV overhead lines, to enable works associated with the proposed 400 kV Beauly to Denny power line to take place, if approved. In Highland, these were at Dundreggan Forest and by Auchteraw sub-station, Fort Augustus. Neither of these sites was associated with the sections of the proposed 400 kV line where the Council had lodged an objection with the Scottish Executive in April 2006.
The report also advised that SSE proposed to submit to Scottish Ministers in October 2006 an Environmental Statement Second Addendum. The Council and the public would have the opportunity to consider and make representations on the contents of the document.
The Committee AGREED that:
i. no objection be lodged to the two minor proposed deviations works specified, subject to various conditions as set out in the report, in particular that any consents granted by Scottish Ministers should be conditional and contingent upon any approval for the upgrading of the Beauly-Denny line, and should not proceed otherwise; and
ii. the Director of Planning & Development, following consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Local Members representing those wards through which the proposed line was to be routed, be authorised to respond on behalf of the Council in relation to:
the proposed Environmental Statement Second Addendum
any Heads of Agreement identified prior to commencement of the forthcoming Public Inquiry between the Council and the applicants on those matters not disputed
the Council’s recommendations as to conditions to be attached to any Section 37 consent which Scottish Ministers were minded to grant.
8. Consultation on Scottish Environment Protection Agency Draft Revised Enforcement Policy
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-73-06 dated 7 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had consulted Scottish local authorities on a revised Enforcement Policy for the implementation of protective environmental legislation, with comments sought by 31 October 2006. The proposed revision of the Policy gave an opportunity to address the perceived, and in many instances real, failings to respond effectively to unauthorised activity, which had serious environmental consequences.
The Committee AGREED:
i. that the Council welcome the consultation;
ii. to respond to the eight questions contained in the consultation on the basis set out in the report, subject to clarification that references to the Procurator Fiscal in section 10 of the report be taken to mean the Regional Procurator Fiscal; and
iii. that a meeting be sought with SEPA to develop a protocol or understanding in respect of a joint approach for action to maximise resources, knowledge, experience and effectiveness for environmental protection.
9. Consultation on Draft Planning Advice Note (PAN) on Community Engagement: “Planning with People”
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-74-06 dated 14 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on a Scottish Executive consultation on a draft Planning Advice Note (PAN) on Community Engagement in the Planning System with comments sought by 13 October 2006. Such engagement or participation was to be promoted at national level and with local authorities’ development plan and development management processes. The PAN had been produced to give practical guidance and support on one of the main thrusts of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, which was to promote more realistic and effective engagement with communities in the planning system.
In speaking to the report, the Head of Planning and Building Standards highlighted the importance attached to community engagement by Scottish Ministers and their determination to make the planning system more accessible and inclusive at all its stages. He commented that, while generally welcoming the openness and accountability being promoted, the circulated draft response did contain some criticisms. He also drew attention to the additional cost burden that would be imposed by the proposals that planning authorities become responsible for neighbour notification of planning applications and questioned whether authorities should in addition bear the cost of local newspaper advertisement of applications. The Director of Planning and Development advised that a bid had been made to the Budget Working Group in relation to funding in recognition of these new costs.
During discussion, a number of issues were raised, including:
· the importance of effective engagement with landowners and with Community Councils
· the possible use of mail delivered flyers
· the future role in easing matters of e-planning and web advertising.
After discussion, the Committee AGREED to respond to the consultation draft in terms of the observations set out in the report.
10. Consultation on Draft SPP10 on Waste Management
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-75-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on a Scottish Executive consultation on a draft Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) on Waste Management, intended to provide guidance to planning authorities on their role in helping to further the National Waste Plan's objectives in relation to sustainable waste management, to help achieve compliance with environmental legislation on waste management and to ensure compliance with EC Directives, with comments sought by 6 November 2006.
The Committee AGREED to respond to the consultation draft in terms of the observations set out in the report.
11. Consultation on a Social Enterprise Strategy for Scotland
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-76-06 dated 19 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out a response submitted to a Communities Scotland consultation on proposals for a Social Enterprise Strategy for Scotland, on which comments had been sought by 8 September 2006.
The Committee AGREED to homologate the response submitted.
12. A96 Corridor – Update
As agreed at the meeting of the Committee held on 16 August 2006, the Head of Development and Strategy provided an update to Members on the preferred Development Framework for the A96 Corridor. He reminded Members that investigations for Stage 2 of the A96 Corridor Masterplan had begun in May 2006; that the relevant stakeholder groups and Halcrow had brought forward Development Framework options for East Inverness and South Nairn in July 2006; and that the appropriate Area Committees and this Committee, at its meeting held on 16 August 2006, had agreed publicity and a consultations programme. The Development Framework had set out objectives including the “polar” growth of the two main centres of Inverness and Nairn and had identified capacity for population growth of approximately 12-18,000. The Framework envisaged integral A96 bypasses, improved community facilities/parks and major new employment opportunities, including a new Inverness College/University of the Highlands and Islands campus. Five options had been prepared for discussion in each community, including a “green” framework for the wider corridor.
In relation to the consultation exercise, which had closed on 25 September 2006, the Head of Development and Strategy explained that development options had been advertised and placed on local deposit; there had been various press/media items; the relevant documents had been circulated electronically to statutory and other consultees; manned exhibitions had been held at Inshes, Inverness, at Culloden and at Nairn, with attendance of more than 400; and leaflets setting out the various options had been distributed. Separate Stakeholder evaluations/Halcrow workshops had been held on 20/21 September 2006.
Interim results indicated that, at Nairn, where there had been an excellent public response, it had been recognised that the town was at a crossroads and there had been a general appetite for growth. Of the options presented in the consultation exercise, stakeholders had indicated a preference for options A, B and C, but with the floodplain avoided. Overall, to date, the Nairn public response favoured option B.
In Inverness, stakeholders had indicated a preference for options A, B and D. The Balloch community had not favoured expansion. There had been general support for a campus development at Beechwood and for better parks provision, particularly at the Inverness gateway. Overall, to date, the Inverness public response favoured options A, C and D.
The next steps would be to collate all consultation responses, have the consultants carry out a technical evaluation, make informal presentations to the Areas, identify the main features of the preferred options, feed the results into the overall traffic and infrastructure modelling, refine the overall strategy and identify the phasing and cost-sharing. An interim report would be brought to this Committee in November 2006, with the final report in early 2007.
The Committee NOTED the position.
13. Scottish Water
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-77-06 dated 18 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out the outcomes of recent discussions with Scottish Water and providing further details on the list of schemes put forward by Scottish Water and reported to the Council meeting on 7 September 2006. The Policy and Information Manager provided a verbal update on discussions with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Communities Scotland.
The Committee NOTED the recent progress in discussions with Scottish Water and AGREED:
i. to continue to press very strongly for further details of the delivery dates for all the Council’s growth priorities; and
ii. that officers continue dialogue with Scottish Water and other agencies such as SEPA, SNH and Communities Scotland to ensure a shared agenda for the removal of key development constraints.
14. Core Paths Planning
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-78-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development detailing the progress being made on the six Core Path Plans to be produced in Highland for adoption by the Council prior to submission to Scottish Ministers by February 2008 for formal approval.
In speaking to the report, the Head of Environment drew attention to indications that a more equitable distribution of Scottish Executive monies paid to local authorities for access costs, i.e. taking geographical factors into account and not simply population, might be forthcoming from financial year 20089/09, to the advantage of this Council. During discussion, it was suggested that a prioritised hierarchical structure be applied to the path network, to guide levels of expenditure.
The Committee NOTED the terms of the report and APPROVED the Core Path selection criteria as set out in its Appendix.
15. EU Regional Policy Post-2006
At its meeting held on 24 March 2004 the Committee had agreed that a report on the development of the EU Regional Policy post-2006, and in particular the case for Objective 1B status for the Highlands and Islands, be brought to each future meeting of the Committee.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-79-06 dated 20 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on the process being followed by the Scottish Executive in developing the Structural Fund Programmes which would deliver the EU’s Regional Policy in the Highlands and Islands during the 2007-13 budgetary period. While much detail was awaited, it was apparent that four programmes would apply within the Highlands and Islands: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), the European Agricultural Fund for Regional Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). An invitation was extended to Members to give officers their views on priorities for future projects under these Funds.
The Committee NOTED the recent developments in the preparation of ERDF and ESF programmes for the region, the measures in hand to identify the Council’s priorities for these programmes and how the Council would engage in the delivery and administration of the programmes; and AGREED to press the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) concerning progress regarding the EAFRD and the EFF programmes and the role of the Council in their development and delivery.
16. Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-80-06 dated 12 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development referring to objections and representations received following advertisement of the Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan Deposit Draft with Modifications (2), including modifications agreed subsequent to Committee consideration of the report of the Public Local Inquiry.
There had also been circulated Report No. RP164/06 dated 11 September by the Director of Planning and Development on those matters submitted to the Ross and Cromarty Area Planning Committee for consideration at its meeting on 19 September 2006.
Having heard the Chairman of the Area Planning Committee express her thanks to the Policy and Information Manager and his staff for their efforts in the preparation of the Plan, the Committee AGREED:
i. to authorise advertisement of the Notice of Intention to Adopt the Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan and referral of the Plan and accompanying Statement prepared under Regulations 35, 36 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 to Scottish Ministers;
ii. subject to Ministers’ consideration of the Plan, to complete statutory procedures leading to the adoption of the Local Plan;
iii. to recognise the latest version of the Plan as a material consideration to be taken into account in conjunction with the Adopted Local Plans for the Purpose of development control within the Ross and Cromarty East area; and
iv. as soon as practicable, to draw up an action plan for implementation of the principles of the new Plan.
17. Scottish Screen Reorganisation
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-81-06 dated 18 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that, in view of the forthcoming restructuring of Scottish Screen, the national film office for Scotland, through its merger with the Arts Council for Scotland to form a new agency Creative Scotland, agreement was sought for representations to be made to the Scottish Executive regarding the key role that the Scottish Highlands and Islands Film Commission (SHIFC) had in creating inward investment opportunities through attracting film and television production, as well as support for taking special consideration in the Lottery guidelines of the economic impact of filming in economically fragile areas.
The Committee AGREED:
i. to support SHIFC participation in the joint lobby by COSLA and the partnership of Scottish Film Offices for closer involvement in the shaping of the new structure and recognition of the value of the work undertaken by both the Locations department of Scottish Screen and all the area Film Offices; and
ii. that representation be made via COSLA and the partnership of Scottish Film Offices for more consideration to be given for fragile rural economies in the assessment of Lottery funding applications to support film and TV production.
The meeting ended at 4.05 p.m.