• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 31 January 2007, at 10.30 a.m.

 

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.

 

Business

 

1.           Apologies for Absence

 

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr F R M Keith, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr C L Goodman, Mrs K G Matheson, Mrs O J Macdonald and Mr A R McFarlane Slack (OCD).

 

2.           Scottish Planning Quality Awards Scheme 2006

 

The Council had received an award under the Communities Minister’s 2006 Scottish Planning Quality Awards Scheme for the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy.  Having been advised that the presentation would be held on 8 March 2007 in Edinburgh, the Committee NOTED the award and AGREED that a delegation of up to 4 persons be sent to the ceremony, including consultants Aquatera.

 

3.           Revenue Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-1-07 dated 18 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out the Revenue Monitoring position for the period to 31 December 2006 and the projected year-end position. 

 

Having been advised that, despite additional expenditure incurred as a result of severe weather incidents, it was expected that the expenditure out-turn would be in accordance with the budget, the Committee NOTED the report.

 

4.           Capital Expenditure Monitoring 2006/07

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-2-07 dated 23 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the gross capital expenditure and income to 31 December 2006 and the projected out-turn for the Year 2006/07 Capital Programme.

 

The Committee NOTED the terms of the report and AGREED the allocation of funding for the Invershin Viaduct Footbridge refurbishment from the Core Path Network Development capital allocation, as detailed in the report.

 

5.           Planning Application for Demolition of Existing Buildings and Erection of Foodstore at Morangie Garden Centre, Tain, for Lidl UK GmbH (06/00477/FULRC)

 

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Member had applied for and been granted a local member vote: Mr A Rhind.

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-3-07 dated 22 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that planning permission had been sought for the development of a foodstore of 1,358 sq m (gross) and 1,062 sq m (net) on the site of the existing garden centre at Morangie Road, Tain.  The applicant was Lidl UK GmbH.  The application was a departure from the development plan but no hearing had been requested by any party.  The recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to a separate retail application lodged for the development of an Asda Supermarket (3,902 sq m gross) similarly outwith the town centre, on Knockbreck Road, Tain.  In view of the potential cumulative impact of both developments upon the local community, these applications were both being brought to this meeting for determination (item 6 below refers).

 

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager (Ross and Cromarty) (APBSM) summarised a number of factors concerning the proposed development, including:

 

·        whilst the 4^th largest Town in Ross and Cromarty, Tain’s growth had been less than expected over the previous 10-15 years – if the application were approved, there was potential to attract both new customers to Tain and to generate new businesses nearby

·        the main relevant national and local planning policies, in particular the sequential approach

·        the pros and cons of alternative available sites, in particular that the site earmarked for a supermarket in the existing Local Plan (this Plan to be superseded in the near future by the new Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan) was considered to be divorced from Tain, not visible from the Town Centre, and had poor traffic and disabled access

·        that the proposed site was brownfield, had easy access to the main road and was close to the Town Centre, and so largely satisfied the sequential approach

·        the objections lodged, these being largely on the grounds that the sequential approach had not been followed and that there would be a negative effect on Tain town centre; however, no objections had been received from the business community or the Community Councils

·        that, if the application were approved, TEC Services were of the view that the supermarket junction with the main road should be constructed to a standard capable of accommodating future foreseeable traffic generated by development of additional sites in the vicinity

·        that the appearance of the building was not remarkable; however, it did not impact on Tain’s architecturally sensitive areas.

 

The APBSM concluded that the most important factors for the Committee to bear in mind when coming to a decision were the sequential approach and the impact on Tain town centre.  In his view, the application was acceptable in policy terms in both these respects.

 

The local Member suggested that the application had potential to boost Tain’s growth and create new enterprises within the Town Centre.  He pointed out that the business community and the Community Council had not objected to the application and indicated that he would be supporting it, subject to a number of additional conditions.  Other Members also spoke in support of the application.  In answer to a question raised, the APBSM advised that there were alternative locations for housing that would be acceptable, so long as nothing in the Local Plan prevented their development for this purpose.

 

In discussion, Members urged that the opportunity be taken to incorporate sustainable design features into the building, such as solar panels, use of grey water, and possibly a wind turbine.  This would flag up to applicants for any other future similar developments that such features were being sought by the Council.   It was explained that the imposition of conditions requiring this would be difficult at this stage of the application process, as such alterations would comprise a material change from the application as advertised.  The Director of Planning and Development advised, however, that discussions in this regard could be held with the developer, with a view to incorporating such sustainable technologies as might be possible, through mutual agreement.  This approach had been successful elsewhere.

 

After discussion, the Committee APPROVED the application, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to additional conditions as follows:

 

·        that the junction be constructed to a standard which would accommodate future adjacent developments

·        that the 30mph speed limit from Tain along the B9174 be extended to the junction with the A9 to the northwest of the proposed supermarket

·        that a footpath be constructed from the junction of the B9174 with the A9 to the supermarket.

 

The Committee also AGREED that options for the inclusion of sustainable design features into the development be further explored with the applicant and NOTED that, as the application did not comply with Scottish Executive guidelines limiting the number of parking spaces provided, it would require to be notified to the Scottish Ministers.

 

6.           Planning Application for Development of Class 1 (Retail) Store, Petrol Filling Station, Creation of a Vehicular Access, Car Parking, Landscaping and Ancillary Works on Development Site enclosed by A9 and Knockbreck Road, Tain, for Asda Ltd. (06/00665/FULRC)

 

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Member had applied for and been refused a local member vote: Mr A Rhind, whose ward covered much of the town of Tain but not the application site itself.  Following discussion, the Committee AGREED that a local member vote be granted to Mr Rhind.

 

The application was subject to a formal hearings procedure.  In attendance in relation to the application were:

 

Representing the Applicants:

Mr G Backovic, Town Planning Manager, Asda Stores Ltd

 

In support of the application:

Mr M Herd, Chairman, Tain Community Council

Ms S Stoten, Resident and Ex-Manager of Sue Ryder Care

Ms J Dundas, Resident of Tain and on behalf of the Red Cross

 

Objectors:

Mrs J Currie

Mrs S Stone, speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Whiteford, Tain, and Mrs B Cohen, Tain and District Tourist Association

Mr I Bannerman

Mr T M Sutherland, Sutherland Arms Garage

Mr G Laing of G L Hearn, on behalf of the Co-operative Group Property Division

 

Prior to the commencement of the hearings process, the Chairman outlined the Hearings Procedure.  He sought and was given an assurance by all parties that they had received a copy of the Procedure and understood the process.  (Click here for Hearing Procedure.)

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-4-07 (click here for PDET-4-07 catchment area) dated 22 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that planning permission was being sought for the development of a new 3,902 sq m Class 1 Retailing Unit (Supermarket) and Petrol Filling Station on a 6.5 ha site on the south eastern edge of Tain.  The applicant was Asda Stores Ltd.  The recommendation was to refuse the application on the grounds as set out in the report.

Members were advised that, on 17 and 19 January 2007, the Council had received substantive new information, supporting arguments, detailed plans and reports from Asda’s agent, Drivers Jonas, but that this information had been made available too late to be properly assessed, consulted upon and incorporated into the written report to Committee.  A note of the range of issues covered in this new information was tabled.

Hearings Procedure

Introduction

The Principal Planner gave a full description of the application as circulated and the additional information recently provided, but advised Members that, given its late arrival and the lack of opportunity to assess it properly, account could not be taken of this new information in reaching their decision.  He drew attention to the planning policies and guidelines which pertained to the application, and to the responses of consultees.

Applicants

Mr G Backovic stated that he was of the view that the new information submitted could properly be considered as part of the application and that to advise Members to the contrary constituted an error in law.  He urged the Committee to take legal advice before proceeding.

 

Mr M Herd and Ms J Dundas then spoke in support of the application, drawing attention in particular to local community support for the development.

 

At this point, and prior to the conclusion of the applicants’ submission, Members sought clarification of the assertion made that the advice given constituted an error in law.  The Director of Planning and Development explained that as the application had been with the Service for some time, it had been considered important that every effort be made to avoid further delay.  It would also be useful, in the interests of fairness, to determine the two applications for supermarkets in Tain on the same day.  It had therefore been deemed appropriate to continue to invite Members to consider this application at this meeting.  At the same time, given that the new information comprised material changes to the application, it was his view that the Committee should be apprised of its existence and made aware that, due to the lateness of the submission by the applicants, there had not been time for a full assessment of it, nor for any necessary consultations to take place.  He therefore further advised Members that, while it would be competent for the Committee to refuse the application at this meeting, should Members be minded to approve it, they could not do so until the additional information had been fully assessed.  

 

After discussion, in which Members commented that the difficulties had arisen from the lateness of the applicants’ submission, the Committee AGREED that the application be DEFERRED to allow full consideration of the new material by Planning Officers and for consultations with the public and other bodies as appropriate to take place, including advertisement if necessary.

 

7.           Audit Commission and Internal Performance Indicators

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-5-07 dated 24 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development advising Members on the delivery of the Development Control and Building Standards services for the third quarter of 2006/07, with reference to the Audit Commission and internal performance targets.  The figures for those indicators were also reported on the basis of “year to date”.

 

Having heard the Head of Planning and Building Standards advise that there was a continuing steady improvement in performance across the board, the Committee NOTED the report and thanked staff for their efforts in achieving the improvements.

 

8.           Restructuring

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-6-07  dated 23 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out proposals for organisational change following the Council’s decisions in relation to “The Highland Council Beyond 2007” and making specific recommendations in relation to senior management arrangements at Headquarters and to operational changes at Area level.

 

The Director of Planning and Development spoke to the report and gave a short presentation illustrating the proposed changes to the management structure, including that:

 

·        the current structure at HQ of: Director, 3 Section Heads (Head of Planning and Building Standards, Head of Environment, Head of Development and Strategy), plus Principal Administrator would be replaced by: Director, 2 Section Heads (Head of Planning and Building Standards and Head of Environment and Development), plus a Business Support post covering administration, finance and IT

·        the role of Head of Planning and Building Standards would include, in addition to the Planning Application and Building Standards activities, the Development Plan and Policy and Information activities

·        the role of Head of Environment and Development would include the Countryside (including Heritage, Natural Resources, the Ranger Service, Access, Conservation, Agriculture and Archaeology) and Economy and Regeneration (including Highland Opportunity Ltd, Tourism, Joint Ventures and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)) activities

·        European activities would be passed to the Chief Executive’s department

·        the current Area structure of 7 Area Planning and Building Standards Managers would be replaced by 3 Operational Managers, who would each report directly to a Planning Review Committee.

The Director stressed that there would be no change to front line service delivery, although there would be some reallocation of workloads to address current imbalances.  He anticipated that the reorganisation would result in the Service becoming more efficient and accessible.

 

A number of points were made during discussion, including:

 

·        there was a need for a planning officer to be present in Kyle of Lochalsh on a pre-planned basis to assist the public with inquiries, as happened at Ullapool, where use was made of the Service Point

·        recent and forthcoming loss of expertise would have a significant impact on the Service, with particular concerns as to (i) that there would be no Head of Strategy post and (ii) the ability of the new structure to fully deliver the Service, as the required level of Service provision had previously only been achieved because there was a reservoir of expertise and a willingness to work long hours; an assessment of what was going to be required of staff should be carried out

·        an enforcement section was required, particularly for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

 

In response, the Director (i) affirmed that arrangements for an officer to be present in Kyle on a pre-planned basis could be made; (ii) individual senior staff would be responsible for taking the lead on specific projects such as the A96 or the Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy; (iii) that it was hoped that, as staff would be spending less time on preparation of Committee reports, this would enable them to concentrate on applications; and (iv) all staff, when in the locality of a development, would be expected to monitor progress and compliance with the terms of planning conditions.

 

Having heard the Director also advise that the changes would be monitored and that a further report, detailing changes to less senior posts, would be brought to the Committee on 14 March 2007, the Committee APPROVED the changes detailed in the report.

 

9.           Development Plans – Implications of the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET- 7-07  dated 22 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development setting out the requirements for Development Plans arising from the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and identifying the key challenges for the Council in seeking to deliver them.  The report recommended that work be progressed during 2007 on a Highland-Wide Local Development Plan to replace parts of the Highland Structure Plan, as well as to inform the next Scottish Executive National Planning Framework, which was expected to be published in 2008.  The report also recommended that, below this strategic level, there should be three Local Development Plans for Highland, with the current work programme rearranged to accommodate this.

 

The Policy and Information Manager explained that, although some of the requirements of the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act would not come into force until secondary legislation was implemented, there was a need to make changes now to current working practices in preparation for this.  He gave a brief presentation on the implications for the Service of the introduction of Development Plans as required by the Act and advised that the Development Plans must: (i) be fit for purpose, (ii) have a consistent policy base, and (iii) be prepared to tight timescales.  There would be an increased requirement for public participation, and action programmes required to be drawn up to ensure that the Plan was fully implemented.  

 

The Development Plan would be produced in six stages:  the Development Plan Scheme, the Main Issues Report, the Proposed Plan, the Amended Proposed Plan (following public consultation), the Adopted Plan and the Action Programme – there would be no consultative or draft Plan as at present.  Supplementary Planning Guidance would continue to play a role in the planning process.  The key challenges arising from the introduction of the Development Plans process, for which preparation should start now, included:

 

·        preparation of a Development Plan Scheme, which would require clear timescales to deliver the various strands of the Development Plan, to meet and maintain the five-year cycle timescales, with the Plan requiring to be submitted to the Scottish Executive for approval

·        provision of strategic guidance for land use in the Highlands, which would inform the National Planning Framework 2

·        delivery of three evidence-based Local Development Plans, consistent in format and content

·        preparation of supplementary planning guidance where appropriate

·        establishing monitoring and review procedures for the Development Plan, the Plan to be reviewed annually

·        development and delivery of Activity Programmes closely related to budgets and with the commitment of implementation partners

·        introduction of e-planning

·        effective integration of the core path plans with existing and proposed marine and coastal planning guidance

·        improved community participation in the plan preparation and implementation process, with a consultation statement requiring to be drawn up.

 

Various points were made in discussion, including that:

 

·        the three Local Development Plans should not necessarily mirror the Council’s three Operational Areas – an East-West split could make better sense in planning terms than North-South

·        local chapters should be included in the plans to adequately reflect the geographic and economic profile of each area – local plans had to be seen to be local

·        the plans had to be flexible to enable them to respond to change and the annual review was welcomed

·        the Strategic Plan should link with other organisations such as Scottish Water and Housing; its scope should be wider and include economic development

·        local Members should be involved in the early stages of the plans’ development, prior to information being provided to communities

·        there should be training for local Members

·        it was difficult to implement Planning Briefs at a local level

·        there was a lack of guidance regarding housing design and urban street layouts which had resulted in unattractive urban sprawl.

 

In response, the Policy and Information Officer advised that:

 

·        the Strategic Document would contain policies pertinent to all areas (e.g. flooding, retail strategy etc.), which would allow local plans to focus on detail specific to the locality

·        the Strategic Plan would be reviewed every 5 years – the size of Highland was challenging and there was a need to focus on areas where planning added value

·        boundaries for the three local Development Plans would need to take account of infrastructure, travel to work areas and cohesive planning units and therefore might not reflect the Council’s Operational Areas; the boundaries would be determined by the incoming Council

·        although good development briefs were prepared, the Council was less good at implementing them; the Committee would be given reports on progress in this regard

·        a draft Development Plan was being prepared in conjunction with TEC Services, containing guidance on residential development standards; it was hoped this would go some way to addressing the concerns raised regarding the design standards of housing schemes.

 

After discussion, the Committee NOTED the key challenges facing the Council in respect of the Development Plan process and AGREED:

 

i.             the preparation over the course of 2007 of a Highland-wide strategic development document;

ii.           to move towards three Local Development Plans being prepared for Highland, with the exact boundaries of these plans being agreed by the incoming Council; and

iii.         to merge the Local Plans currently being prepared for Skye and Lochalsh and Lochaber, following consideration of the proposed Plan content and format by the appropriate Area Committees in March 2007, with consultation taking place after the local government election in May 2007.

 

10.       A96 Corridor

 

Having a family member employed in a senior position at Highlands and Islands Airport Limited, Mr R Lyon declared a non-financial interest in this item, but, having applied the test in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, elected to remain in the room and participate in the discussion.

 

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Member had applied for and been granted a local member vote: Mr R Balfour.

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-8-07 dated 25 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on the latest A96 Corridor studies by Halcrow, which set out a recommended approach towards implementation of the proposed strategy.  The overall phasing, infrastructure funding and developer contributions protocol were outlined and various delivery mechanisms were considered.  A copy of the “A96 Corridor Masterplan: Stage 2 – Interim Report: Phase 5, Phasing, Contributions and Delivery”, dated January 2007 and prepared by Halcrow, was appended to the report.  Briefings had been provided to the Nairnshire and Inverness Area meetings on 23 and 29 January 2007 respectively.  The Committee was asked to agree that another round of public and agency consultations take place in February, prior to finalising the Strategy at its meeting on 14 March 2007.  

 

In speaking to the report, the Head of Development and Strategy stressed that the A96 Corridor Strategy was a long-term vision, stretching to 35 years ahead.  Over the previous 20 years, the Inner Moray Firth had seen growth of over 30%, including very high levels of in-migration.  It was important that long-term plans were in place to accommodate future growth, so that the required infrastructure could be funded and constructed.  The A96 Corridor Strategy would feed into the National Planning Framework and would assist other bodies, such as Scottish Water, to plan their investment programmes.  The Strategy would provide a useful steer to developers and ensure that designated undeveloped areas would be safeguarded; over 90% of the corridor would remain green.  If the aim was to attract further people to the area and discourage local people from leaving, design must be of a high quality and there must be a choice of places to live.

 

The Halcrow report assessed the feasibility of the current proposals and made suggestions as to how they might be achieved.  The total investment required to 2041 was estimated at approximately £3bn, with infrastructure requirements accounting for 14-15% (£430m) of this figure.  Making reasonable working assumptions as to contributions from the Scottish Executive and other bodies, the consultants considered that the proposals were feasible, and could best be achieved through the formation of a Joint Venture company and through Section 75 developer contributions, with an estimated levy per house built of £10,000.  However, this arrangement would need to be revisited, should the proposed Planning Gain Supplement legislation be introduced. 

 

The Head of Development and Strategy gave a brief presentation on the current development position within the A96 corridor, advising that a Strategic Environmental Assessment needed to be published.  The proposals would be publicised as part of a further round of public consultations.  Five manned exhibitions would be held locally.  Input would also be sought from stakeholders.  A final report taking into account consultation responses would be brought to the Committee on 14 March 2007.  

 

During discussion, the Members for Nairn Ninian and for Ardersier, Croy & Petty expressed reservations about certain aspects of the proposals, in particular the proposed new town development at Tornagrain.  They suggested that this proposal was premature and over-hasty and was being foisted on the local residents, whose negative responses to earlier consultation exercises were being ignored.  The lack of response to their letters to the Council on this matter was the subject of a formal complaint.  Enough changes impacting on this population were being proposed without the creation of an unwanted new settlement, driven by landowning interests.  Development should be sensitive and sustainable and should focus on the existing settlements, in particular the expansion of Inverness and Nairn, where infrastructure was already in place and where its upgrading would be more cost-effective.

 

In response to these concerns, Members were reminded that the draft Strategy represented a long-term master plan vision.  In relation to a suggestion that Tornagrain was being programmed for construction ahead of the expansion of Nairn, it was pointed out that the first phase of Nairn expansion was envisaged ahead of any potential development at Tornagrain and that no planning application for Tornagrain had been submitted or was imminent.  In response to suggestions that the Tornagrain proposals should be excluded from the next consultation round,  Members were advised that the consultation process to date had not primarily concerned the Tornagrain element and that this next round would be the main opportunity for local residents to make their views on these proposals known.

 

Other Members expressed their support for the approach being taken in seeking to put a long-term strategy in place for the development of this area of likely future growth demand, rather than having piecemeal, ad hoc development, and welcomed the broad thrust of the work to date.  There was general support for encouraging public participation and community involvement in the consultation process.  

 

After discussion, the Committee APPROVED:

 

i.             the principles of the proposed implementation framework for the A96 Corridor, including the phasing, infrastructure, developer contributions protocol and delivery mechanism; and

ii.           arrangements for another round of consultations during February 2007, for reporting back to the Committee at its meeting on 14 March 2007.

 

The Committee adjourned for lunch at 2.10 p.m. and reconvened at 2.40 p.m.

 

11.       Inverness Airport Master Plan - Consultation

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-9-07 dated 22 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that an outline Master Plan had been prepared for Inverness Airport by Highlands and Islands Airports Limited for public consultation.  It set out the predictions for growth of the airport over the following 25 years and demonstrated how the infrastructure and land uses could change over the period to accommodate the expansion within the existing airport estate.  In broad terms, the Master Plan envisaged development in 3 phases, including:

 

·          2006-2010: doubling of terminal size, increase in south apron capacity to 9 stands; north apron surface upgrade; investment in cargo/freight development through the joint venture company IABP Ltd; associated business park links; new long term parking area; hotel construction

·          2011-2020: further expansion to terminal, cargo/freight, car parking, etc; runway extension; continued off-site infrastructure investment

·          2021-2030: continued growth of ancillary facilities and possible further terminal expansion.

 

The Master Plan also envisaged improved transport links, including bus and rail access, and outlined mitigation measures in relation to the environmental impact of the proposed developments.

 

The circulated report set out the terms of a proposed Council response to the consultation, broadly welcoming the proposals for the airport expansion and business park development, while suggesting a need for greater clarity on some issues, particularly the proposed transport links and mitigation measures.  

 

During discussion, a number of Members urged that greater priority be given to a short-term improvement in public transport links; it was suggested that, for example, existing bus routes could readily be adapted to include an airport stop.  It was also suggested that, in view of the foreseeable increase in fuel duty taxes, which were likely to affect in particular the internal flight market, development of international flights should also be brought forward into the short-term (2006-2010) development proposals.  It was further suggested that the Master Plan be brought to the attention of the Council’s sustainability team for comment, and a statement of the Council’s sustainability policies be included in the consultation response for information

 

In response to questions, Members were advised that the airport’s management had indicated that relocation of the airport terminal building closer to the main road and railway was not a feasible option.  In response to a comment that there was a certain contradiction between the Council’s position on sustainability issues and the promotion of renewable energy generation on the one hand and its apparent support for airport expansion on the other, the Director of Planning and Development indicated that comment had been made at the meeting of the Council’s new Climate Change Working Group to the effect that a balance had to be struck between the Council’s various interests.  Good transport links were essential to the Highland economy, few alternatives were available and, in general, aircraft serving Inverness generally flew at lower altitude than the most potentially damaging high-level routes.

 

After discussion, the Committee AGREED the proposed response to the Inverness Airport Outline Master Plan as set out in the report, subject to inclusion of the suggestions made during discussion.

 

12.       Proposed Western Isles Electricity Transmission Connection – Consultation by Scottish and Southern Energy

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-10-07 (click here for maps 1-3  and maps 4-6) dated 23 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development advising that Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd (SHETL) were consulting on a preferred route for the Western Isles electricity transmission connection that would involve the undergrounding of a high voltage direct current cable from the head of Little Loch Broom near Dundonnell to a site adjacent to the electricity sub-station at Beauly.  This was a change of approach from a previous consultation, where an overhead transmission line had been proposed, and where the Council had indicated that such a route through Wester Ross was unacceptable.  

 

In being invited to comment on the consultation, Members were advised that there were aspects of this proposal which supported the argument for selective undergrounding of parts of the proposed Beauly-Denny line in terms of the nature of ground crossed.  Members were also advised that, apart from the AC/DC converter station at Beauly, SHETL’s proposals would need neither express planning permission nor consent under the Electricity Act, with the possible exception of the section through the Beinn Dearg Special Area of Conservation.  

 

During discussion, Members generally welcomed the proposals for the Western Isles/Wester Ross/Beauly connection as a sign that SHETL were showing some responsiveness to public concerns.  The view was expressed that SHETL should be encouraged to be similarly open-minded in relation to the most sensitive sections identified in the proposed Beauly-Denny upgrade.  The view was also expressed that SHETL should be asked again to consider a sub-sea route to a landfall further south.  Concern was reiterated as to the impact these various proposals could have for Beauly, in light of the proposals for the converter station, in addition to the proposed sub-station extension.  The ability of the proposed high pylons for Beauly-Denny to withstand the predicted increase in severe weather patterns was questioned.

 

After discussion, the Committee AGREED that its response to the consultation exercise include the following comments:

 

i.             the Council welcomed the investigation of an underground connection for the proposed Western Isles link, but emphasised that any final proposal should be accompanied by full and clear reasons why a longer sub-sea connection further south had been rejected;

ii.           the Council reserved its position in respect of marine issues, since this was to be the subject of a later consultation;

iii.         the developer should have regard to the “Coastal Plan for the Two Loch Brooms Area” (September 2006);

iv.         a scoping exercise, including full details and mitigation relating to traffic, archaeology, natural heritage, community disruption and recreation/ access, should be carried out for the proposed Environmental Appraisal, which should in due course then be the subject of full consultation with the Council, key agencies, Community Councils and the public;

v.           the developer should be advised of Regulation 60 of the EC Habitats Directive in terms of the Council’s powers to review permitted development rights for development affecting Natura areas;

vi.         the Council did not consider it appropriate for SHETL to pursue the location of the proposed AC/DC converter station at Beauly to the immediate north of the proposed Beauly-Denny 400kV sub-station while a decision on the latter was pending, following refusal of planning permission by the Council and prior to the result of an appeal;

vii.       the pursuit of this proposal should be carried out in an integrated manner with proposals for large-scale renewable energy generation in the Western Isles; and

viii.     SHETL should apply the same positive attitude towards undergrounding displayed in this proposal to the Beauly-Denny 400kV line proposal, notwithstanding that the latter was AC rather than DC.

 

The Committee also AGREED to write to Ofgem (i) to advise that the Council supported the principle of a longer sub-sea cable to the south, failing which the Council gave general support for the principle of undergrounding the cable to Beauly, and (ii) to reiterate the Council’s objection, as set out in the Local Plan, to the alternative of an overhead transmission line in Wester Ross.

 

13.       Small Towns Development

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-11-07  dated 24 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development on a request by the Small Towns Network Ltd (STN Ltd) for Council funding to enable it to drive forward a range of community regeneration projects in a number of towns around the Inner Moray Firth.

 

The Committee AGREED:

 

i.             to support STN Ltd. with a maximum of £20,000 per annum grant support for four years, subject to match funding being secured from The Big Lottery, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Network and the Inverness City Partnership; and

ii.           that the grant offer be subject to a Project Partnership Agreement between the Council and STN Ltd.

 

14.       Proposed Private Treaty Lease of the Dolphin and Seal Centre, North Kessock

 

There had been circulated and APPROVED Joint Report No. PDET-12-07 dated 17 January 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development and the Director of Property and Architectural Services recommending that the Council enter into a Private Treaty lease of the Dolphin and Seal Centre at North Kessock to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) on terms and conditions to be agreed by the Director of Property and Architectural Services.

 

The meeting ended at 3.30 p.m.