• Agenda

Minute of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee held in the Royal Marine Hotel, Golf Road, Brora on Tuesday 26 June 2007 at 11.50am.

Present

Mr D Mackay

Mr G Farlow

Lady M Thurso

Mr W Fernie

Mr G Smith

Mr D Bremner

Mr R Coghill

Mr W Ross

Mr M Rattray

Mr R Durham

Mr R Rowantree

Non-Members also present:

Mrs D Mackay

Mr D Flear

In Attendance:

Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner

Mr A Todd, Area Planning & Building Standards Manager

Mrs F Sinclair, Area Solicitor

Mr R Blain, Principal Engineer

Mr B Robertson, Senior Planner

Mr K Black, Corporate Address Gazetteer

Miss S Macritchie, Student Planner

Miss A Macrae, Administrator

Mr D Mackay in the Chair

1.  Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr J McGillvray, Mrs Carolyn Wilson (on other Council business), and Mr A Torrance.

2. Electricity Act 1989 – Section 36 Application to Construct and Operate a 35m Turbine Wind Farm at Gordonbush Estate, 12 km North of Brora, Sutherland (03/236/S36SU)

There had been circulated report PLC-6-07  by the Director of Planning & Development advising that the Council had been consulted by the Scottish Executive on the Section 36 application to construct and operate a 35m turbine wind farm at Gordonbush Estate, 12 km north west of Brora.   The report recommended that Members support the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Members had applied for and been granted a local Member vote:  Mrs Deirdrie Mackay.

Mr R Rowantree declared a financial interest in this item as an employee of Gordonbush Estate and proceeded to leave the meeting, taking no part in the debate or decision in relation to the application.

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

Applicants

Chris Marden –      Scottish and Southern Energy

Murdo McGhie – Scottish and Southern Energy

Objectors

Ian Kelly - Landscape

Rita Finlayson

Peter Gordon – Royal Society for Protection of Boards

Victoria Reeves – Helmsdale Heritage Society

Allan Tubb  - Landscape

Valerie Scott

George Stephenson

Sir Michael Wigan

Mr John Billett

Prior to the meeting Members had viewed the application site from Sciberscross, having travelled via the Clynelish Distillery road where they viewed the Old Schoolhouse and junction with the A9.  Additional stops were made at the proposed access to the site at Ascoile and by a Scheduled Ancient Monument, 500m east of Ascoile.  All Members, with the exception of Mr R Rowantree were present at the site inspection.

Prior to commencement of business the Chairman summarised the Hearings Procedure, and confirmed that all parties had received a copy and understood the process.  In light of the number of objectors wishing to address the meeting he advised that some flexibility would be afforded in the time allotted to the objectors, on the basis that the applicant would be allotted the same time as the objectors.

Mr W Ross as a point of order raised the fact that there had been no proactive consultation with local communities since 2003/04 after the application had been lodged, and that notification of the Hearing had essentially arrived out of the blue.  Given the time that had elapsed, subsequent changes in standards and expectations and in personnel both within the Council and community councils, he questioned whether it represented good practice to consider the application at this time and therefore whether the Hearing was competent.

The Area Solicitor advised that the Scottish Executive had set the time limits and procedures in relation to the application

The Principal Planner indicated that the relevant consultations, as required by the Scottish Executive, had been carried out and therefore he had full information in preparing the report.  The Environmental Statement supplied by the applicants had subsequently been supplemented with additional information, and advertised for consultation, most recently in October 2006.  He confirmed that the application had been brought forward to the Committee at the earliest opportunity and before the summer recess to avoid delay.

Mrs D Mackay expressed her support for Mr Ross’s comments, concerning the issue of community participation, stating that in the four years since the application had been lodged there had been considerable changes in personnel within the Council, the relevant agencies and within communities.  She expressed concern that community consultation should be as solid as possible.

Responding to the points of order, a number of issues were raised from the floor regarding community council consultation and consultation with objectors.

Mr R Durham emphasised that the Scottish Executive had asked for views to be submitted by 20 September and therefore any delay in considering the application may result in the Council not submitting a view by the deadline.  He suggested therefore that Members proceed to consider the application, and note the points of procedure raised.

The Committee AGREED to proceed with the Hearing.

Proceedings commenced with a DVD presentation, prepared by the applicants on the key elements of the development, and containing photomontages of how the development would impact on the landscape from different orientations.

The Principal Planner then introduced the application, observing that the proposal, to be determined by the Scottish Executive, is for 35 wind turbines at Gordonbush, located east of the Beauly to Dounreay gridline.  He described the proposed access arrangements using the existing access track at Ascoile, which would eventually be extended to service the development. The turbines will be a maximum of 107m in height, and would be transported from Invergordon via the A9.  It is proposed to construct a substation west of the gridline, and three borrow pits to provide aggregate for the construction of the access road and turbine bases, thereby reducing the impact on the road network of having to transport material into the site. Referring to visual impact he stated that the development would not be visible from the main A9 communities, or the main transport or tourist routes, with limited visibility from the nearby straths.  The site is relatively isolated, and therefore is rarely visible from the nearby occupied properties.

Continuing the Principal Planner outlined the wind farms approved in the Highlands, and advised that these developments are relatively distant from each other, with the exception of Gordonbush which would cluster with the Kilbraur development to the south.  Although the site is not covered by any statutory conservation designation, it lies in close proximity to important designated sites, and therefore the impact on nature must be assessed.  Therefore in mitigation a habitat management plan would be required for the entire Gordonbush Estate.  There is a proposal to designate the area as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) but as this is only indicative at this stage it is difficult to give this weight when assessing the application.

Turning to the consultations carried out, he advised that 449 objections had been received of which 35 had accepted the invitation to appear at the Hearing.  He also outlined the responses received from the various consultees as set out in the report.  TEC Services had updated their original response to the effect that all wind farm traffic should be routed via the Schoolhouse and Clynelish Distillery, and the C6 Brora to Ascoile road avoided.  The Trunk Roads Authority require a travel management plan for the transportation of abnormal loads, and require give advance notice to be given to all relevant parties and therefore, a travel liaison group would require to be established. Scottish Natural Heritage had withdrawn their objection following further examination of the proposal.  Mr McCorquodale outlined the development plans and planning policies relevant to the application, highlighting the South and East Sutherland Local Plan, Scottish Planning Policy 6 on Renewable Energy, and Planning Advice Note 45 – Renewable Energy Technology, and the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy which identified three preferred areas for development.

Applicants

The Chairman invited the applicants to present their case.

Mr C Marden and Mr M McGhie spoke on behalf of the applicants.  Mr Marden advised that;

• The development accords with the statutory development plan, national planning policy, and the Council’s planning guidance
• This will be a highly productive site in terms of the energy generated, and will also bring economic benefits
• The application had been advertised on three separate occasions, and therefore there had been ample opportunity to scrutinise the development
• Wind farm applications inevitably generate objections, however of the 449 received in respect of this application, only 51 were from locally based objectors
• No objections had been raised by the statutory consultees
• The area represented only one of three preferred development areas contained in the Renewable Energy Strategy. 
• The technical suitability of this location is evident and high productivity will also bring higher environmental benefits
• The site is not visible from the coast, and there is only limited visibility from the nearby straths.  Although the site is open to the west, this area has a limited number of visitors
• Should the application be approved Planning and Listed Building Consent will be required for the Old Schoolhouse and the building will be restored
• Evidence from other wind farms operated by the applicants indicates that local firms are successful in securing sub contracts and a range of services will be required.   Indeed a study carried out in relation to a wind farm in Perth & Kinross, found that 80% of those employed by contractors travel from with a 20 mile radius of the site
• Longer term economic benefits will be accrued through the development with 12 full time equivalent staff being employed directly by SSE, along with other support staff such as habitat management staff which would include ecologists, countryside rangers etc
• The Highland Renewable Energy Strategy is on the agenda of the Council’s new administration, and therefore approval would be a positive signal on the intent to deliver on this front
• The development is sustainable both at a national and local level

Concluding Mr Marden indicated that the application meets all local and national guidelines and he sought Members approval of the application.

In answer to questions raised by Members, the applicants responded as follows;

• Evaluation of transport routes had been conducted prior to the Kilbraur development.  However it may be possible to provide access to the site via Kilbraur, thereby avoiding traffic on the A9 through Golspie and Brora.  Further investigation is necessary to establish if this would be feasible on technical, landownership and planning grounds.  Discussions had been ongoing with Sutherland Estates, however there may also be other landowners involved along the route. It was reported that this route would also require the construction of a new bridge at Blackwater
• Approximately 6 habitat management related jobs such as countryside rangers would be created in addition to the 12 posts directly related to the wind farm as outlined in the applicants submission
• Responding to concerns about the potential loss of rare bird species such as golden eagles, Mr Marden advised that research elsewhere showed that eagles will respond to topography and sources of prey.  The proposal is to manage the site accordingly and increase the numbers of grouse to the East of the site to improve the feeding ground, and that this is acceptable to SNH.
• Flood prevention works will be undertaken on the access track to ensure that the property in this location is not affected.  Monitoring of vibration across the site could also be undertaken
• The method of assessing the risk of peat slide had been designed to allow subsequent investigation to target areas of high risk
• SNH had been extremely rigorous in their requirements in relation to the environmental survey.  There had been an absence of a method for assessing the impact on birds from wind farms.  SNH had in 2006 produced new methods concentrating on regional populations
• It is for the Planning Authority to assess the development in terms of preferred areas of development and those areas with a presumption against development as contained in the Renewable Energy Strategy.  However the RSPB's report which had been factored into the Strategy states that the report is no substitute for an environmental assessment
• Migration times have been included in the bird assessment
• The Ecological clerk of works, employed by the developer, will have the authority to instruct contractors.  Details of the environmental monitoring that will be carried out were also reported.

Thereafter the Chairman asked if other relevant officers of the Council or Statutory Consultees wished to raise any issues. 

L Cranna, North Area Manager, Scottish Natural Heritage, denied that there had been an advantage to the organisation in withdrawing its objections as had been suggested.  She said that a series of policy statements are supportive of wind farms when they are located in the right location, SNH had been stringent in the level of information the developer was asked to provide, and that the organisation was satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions.  When assessing how significant an impact will have on the wider countryside, local impacts must be balanced against the policy position to support renewable developments.

At this point the Chairman reported that there would be a break in proceedings for lunch.  He reminded Members that there should be no discussion in relation to the application, outwith the meeting.

The meeting re-convened at 2.00pm.

Community Council

The Chairman invited Brora Community Council to state their objections.

Mr J McMorran, Chairman of Brora Community Council advised that the Community Council had undertaken local consultation by posting fliers in local shops asking people for their views.  The results of an earlier postal ballot in Helmsdale and Brora had also been analysed where the vote had been overwhelmingly against wind farm developments.  Based on the feedback the Community Council voted to object to this development, and therefore he had a mandate to speak on behalf of the local community.  Mr McMorran expressed the view that the site visit undertaken earlier in the day had been inadequate, not having been held on site.  Assessment of the site had therefore been purely visual, and did not allow for an on-site assessment of the impact on the peatland.  He also raised a number of other points as follows:

• Onshore wind farms are the result of an ill thought out national energy policy, and while power stations will have to be replaced it may be too late to save precious wilderness areas
• The Community Council’s objections as detailed in the report stand, and have not been mitigated to any extent since the objection was lodged
• Concern over the cumulative effect of developments has materialised given the proximity of the Kilbraur development, and he opined that both developments were favoured due to the ease of connection to the East Coast Grid line.
• Strathbrora is listed as an AGLV
• The proximity of the site to the Special Protection Area of Coir an Eoin peatlands remains a principal objection.  The report states that the SPA site is 2km away and this is misleading.  The site plan attached to the report shows the substation will be 200m away from the SPA, and the delineated wind farm boundary is only 50m away at the nearest point.
• SNH who had originally objected to the proposal had apparently traded natural heritage for a habitat management plan.  Mr McMorran queried the legality of such an agreement, and alleged the breeding grounds and hunting areas of birds are being bartered for control over the entire area of the Estate.
• Given the proximity of the site, it is not surprising the site lies on active blanket bog, a priority habitat under the EC Habitat Directive
• A proper renewable energy policy should be put in place, rather than a quick fix necessitated by the need to meet targets by 2012
• Questions exist over when the development will become carbon neutral

Concluding, Mr McMorran stated that Members did not have full information to make a decision and asked that the precautionary principle be applied so that the application does not proceed, in the interests of the environment the community inhabits and enjoys.   There is a statutory obligation to engage communities in the planning process.  In this case the community does not want a wind farm and therefore he asked members to take heed of the community view and refuse the application.

Responding to questions from Members, Mr McMorran indicated that the numbers involved in the local consultation exercise were difficult to quantify, as responses were fed back through individual councillors.  The survey had been conducted over July/August 2003.  The previous postal ballot had a 60% return, the result being 3 to 1 against wind farm development.

Third Party Objectors

The Chairman then invited the objectors to state their objections.

Mr Ian Kelly advised that that he was speaking on behalf of the group Landscape.  He suggested that the development represented a huge construction project, and had more to do with the availability of large cash subsidies, rather than a desire to promote green energy.  The applicants cannot guarantee the claimed environmental benefits, and he asked that this should be tied into a Section 75 Agreement, as should the requirement for local job creation.  The process followed under Section 36 is fundamentally flawed.  The project case can only be fully tested if the Council objects to the proposal and triggers a Public Local Inquiry.  Otherwise the application will be determined behind closed doors, given that the Energy Consent Unit does not correspond with objectors. He expressed the view that the application is contrary to the Development Plan and the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy.  He cautioned that the Council is not in control of its own decision and that Ministers could set aside the Section 75 Agreement. Therefore the only safe decision is to object on the grounds of the unacceptable environmental impacts, the fact the proposal is contrary to development plan and Renewable Energy Strategy, and should be determined at a Public Local Inquiry.

Mrs R Finlayson indicated that she had been local councillor for a number of years and therefore had extensive local knowledge.  Visitors come to the area to enjoy the landscape and environment and are important to the economy of the area, and there is a concern that they will leave if they find the environment unsatisfactory.  Therefore the fact that many objectors do not live in the area should not be set aside.  She expressed concern that the Council is again prepared to support development which destroys the environment.  She claimed that the development will be visible from Strathbrora, Strath of Kildonan, and Glen Loth, and the assumption that people do not walk these hills, is misleading.   The Committee is being asked to approve the application based on insufficient evidence.  The proposal is contrary to the wishes of the local community, and she expressed concern that the scale and impact of the development will not be realised until construction is complete, damaging the environment and the economy. Finally she indicated that the peat assessment carried out is unsatisfactory, and that the disturbance of the peat may outweigh any environmental benefits associated with the wind farm.

Mr Peter Gordon, representing the RSPB, advised that while his organisation supports renewable energy as part of a range of measures in response to climate, this does not represent a carte blanche acceptance of such developments.  The site is unique in terms of the density of golden plovers and it is estimated that 17 pairs could be lost.  As a scarce species the birds are deemed an Annex 1 species and therefore subject to special conservation measures. This applies to birds in the wider country side in addition to designated sites.  Birds will be involved in collisions with the turbines, though numbers are difficult to quantify.  He urged refusal of the application on the grounds of the threat posed to an important bird population.    However if the Committee is minded to support the proposal it should be subject to conditions to protect the golden plover including a collision assessment which should inform the turbine development, and in relation to the timing of construction so that disturbance is minimised when the birds are breeding.

Mrs Victoria Reeves, representing Helmsdale Heritage Society, advised that Timepsan which promotes the area’s natural heritage is a main tourist attraction and an important employer in the village.   She explained how the use of GPS will revolutionise tourism in the Highlands giving visitors access to otherwise unknown attractions in areas such as the Strath of Kildonan and Glen Loth, only for this development to spoil the beauty of these areas.  She stated that the development will destroy thousands of years of heritage, to the detriment of the local community and visitors and she therefore urged the Committee to reject the proposal.

Mr A Tubb referred to a map showing 41 nesting sites located on the proposed wind farm, as opposed to 14 on the SPA.  He suggested that the full facts in relation to the application had not been published.  The Scottish Executive had recently advised on best practice on peat slide risk assessments.  He alleged that the applicants’ assessment had not been carried out properly.     The impact on golden plovers nesting on the site had not been accurately reflected in the environmental statement.   He expressed concern at SNH withdrawal of their objections. Furthermore it had been a condition of permission with the Kilbraur Wind Farm that heavy loads were not transported through Golspie, so approval in this case will conflict with the construction method statement.  Summing up he indicated that the irreparable damage to the ecology of the area, loss of amenity, and disturbance to communities must be balanced against energy needs. Savings accrued from the wind farm will be minimal and therefore the environment, habitat and heritage deserves better than this development

Mrs Valerie Scott queried the provision which will be made for emergency vehicle access when abnormal loads are being transported.  She also explained that concerns exist over the integrity of the Main Street in Golspie and that these concerns are the subject of ongoing investigation.  This could be further compromised by the heavy loads associated with the development.  Referring to Kilbraur Wind Farm she indicated that as a courtesy traffic has been diverted so that traffic does not pass through the village and that if the same courtesy was extended in respect of this application she would withdraw her objection.

Sir Michael Wigan explained that his land which neighbours the site is a designated peatland, and subject to a management agreement with SNH.  A number of restrictions are imposed, such as he is not permitted to use all terrain vehicles, cut peat or burn heather.  However the neighbouring development will involve the extraction of thousand of tonnes of peat.  He cautioned that the construction of the roads will result in the erosion of the peat, and which will cause siltation in the river, affecting the salmon population.

Mr George Stephenson advised that the concerns of the Kildonan Estate had been raised in the above objections.

The Chairman then asked whether there were any other Members of the public who had made timeous representations and wished to speak.

Mr J Billet assured the meeting that golden eagles have been breeding on the site over the last four to five years.  Referring to the habitat management plan, he explained that while he sought to increase the grouse population on his own land at Kintradwell, this had been unsuccessful, and he queried and expressed surprise at SNH’s response on this matter.

Applicants Response to Points Raised

Mr Marden clarified the following points;

• The developments which had been the subject of the postal ballot, had been located on the coastal hills of Sutherland.  This site is screened from the coast and therefore he questioned the relevance of this to the application.  These developments had also attracted 250 local objections, as opposed to 51 in this case.
• The question over whether the Section 36 process had been flawed is a legal matter
• The Renewable Energy Strategy encourages clusters in small areas, and therefore the grouping of wind farms in Strathbrora is consistent with policy
• There is no suggestion that the site is wild land, confirmed by SNH
• In relation to the RSPB’s concerns the situation can be managed to achieve benefits.  There may be an impact if the status quo is retained
• There will be very limited visibility of the site from Glen Loth
• TEC Services are content with the peat slide risk assessment
• A response had already been given in relation to the issue of traffic travelling through Golspie
• Abnormal loads will be accompanied by a police escort, and therefore ideally placed to allow emergency vehicle access
• The site is not located on an SSSI
• Much of the site is wet modified bog
• At the time the survey had been conducted the territory was not occupied by breeding pairs of golden eagles,  although it was not claimed that this is the case now
• SNH are content with the feasibility and success of the proposals for habitat management

At the conclusion of the applicant’s response, in accordance with the procedure, the Chairman declared the Hearing at an end and sought confirmation that there were no further parties wishing to speak.  Such confirmation was given. 

Mr J McMorran sought clarification on the proximity of both the site boundary as detailed in the plan attached to the report, and the substation in relation to the SPA, indicating that the windfarm boundary is within 50m at its nearest point and the substation 200m.  The Principal Planner clarfied that the line drawn on the map is intended as a guide for Members and is not the site boundary.  It was confirmed that the substation is a distance of 200m away.  Mr McMorran indicated that he was content with the response.

The Chairman then asked the applicants, objectors and consultees to advise whether they were satisfied with the way the Hearing had been conducted. 

Mr I Kelly confirmed that he was satisfied with the conduct of the Hearing with the caveat that there should have been no break for lunch, to ensure that there was no discussion in relation to the application by Members.  All other parties confirmed that they were satisfied with the conduct of the hearing.   

Summing-up and discussion

The Principal Planner summaried matters relevant to the application as follows indicating that the proposal is consistent with the Renewable Energy Strategy, which encourages clustering within the three development areas.  A number of turbines lie within grid squares where there is a presumption against development, however the balance of the policy is to direct development to areas such as Gordonbush, where the details of the application are considered on their merits noting that the approval of the windfarm at Kilbraur had established a precedent. National policy sets targets for renewable energy and it is expected that windfarms will make a significant contribution towards this. Other technologies are some way off and as such nationally there is strong support for wind farm developments. SNH had set aside their objections subject to strong conditions and a legal agreement. Mr McCorquodale advised that the development would not dominate the landscape, and although it would be visible from certain areas, it would not be visible from the main communities or tourist routes, and would not be close to properties.  The proposed layout of the turbines is appropriate to the area. Cumulative impact is aimed at bringing together developments to protect other areas. Archaeology on the site would be protected through appropriate mitigation, noting that the Archaeologist and Historic Scotland are content with the proposal subject to conditions. Trunk Roads Authority and TEC Services are content with the proposals for transport and access, subject to additional conditions to undertake improvements to the road, on the basis all traffic would be routed via the Schoolhouse, and not the C6 road from Brora.  A travel management plan, and on-site borrow pits would be required. The applicants, TEC Services, and SEPA are content there is no significant risk to local water courses , including peat slide.  A code of construction would safeguard local water courses  and private water supply

Taking all the above into account, the Principal Planner concluded by stating that the proposed development is consistent with the Council’s development plan, Renewable Energy Strategy, where the approval of the Kilbraur development had created a favourable precedent, and national policy.  There are no objections from the principal consultees and agencies, and therefore he recommended that Members support the application subject to the conditions and legal agreements as set out in the report and as amended verbally to take into account the most recent comments from TEC Services and  reiterated that the application will be determined by the Scottish Executive.

Discussion followed, with a range of comments, including that

• While national support existed for wind farms, local views should not be ignored
• Concerns expressed by Clyne Heritage Society regarding the archaeology should be addressed
• Construction traffic should be routed via the Kilbraur access route
• Concerns that the borrow pits will scar the hillside
• Previous experience of wind farm traffic and the difficulties that accompany this must be considered sensitively in respect of  the impact on the A9
• The views of the RSPB representative should be supported
• There should have been more recent proactive community consultation. 
• The orientation of the site is too regular and regimented
• In terms of cumulative impact the maximum in relation to what is acceptable is close to being reached in this area
• Conditions attached to the application should reinforce emphasis on habitats, land management and be linked into the issue of environmental scrutiny.  The timing of construction should cover the concerns expressed by the RSPB
• Site investigations concerning the borrow pits should be accurate, noting that this had not been handled well with the Kilbraur development
• A consistent approach with Kilbraur should be adoped with the access and traffic arrangements.  There are issues concerning the integrity of the road in Golspie, and the impact on Brora, particularly in relation to disruption
• The application should be deferred to allow further investigation of the use and extension of the Kilbraur access to Strathbrora
• In assessing each of the determining issues as detailed in the report there is no reason why the development should not proceed.  

After further discussion, Mr G Smith, seconded by Mr G Farlow, MOVED that the Council support the application in terms of the recommendation in the report, subject to an additional condition to be drafted by officials requiring the borrow pits to be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Council. 

As an AMENDMENT, Mr W J Ross, seconded by Mrs Deirdre Mackay, MOVED that consideration of the application be deferred to enable the developer to investigate the use and extension of the access routes for the Kilbraur windfarm.  

As a SECOND AMENMDENT, Mr R Durham, seconded by Mr M Rattray, MOVED that the Committee support the application as recommended by the Planning Officer subject to an amendmend to paragraph A1 of the Recommendation to ensure a substantive habitat management plan to enhance local and regional ornithological interests, and given the local community opposition as expressed by Brora Community Council and others in the locality the Committee further agree that a Public Local Inquiry would be the correct course for the Scottish Executive to follow in determining the application, and agreed to recommend accordingly to the Scottish Executive. 

Mr McCorquodale explained to Mr Durham that if the Council wished the Executive to follow the route of a Public Local Inquiry the normal procedure would be for the Council to object to the application.  Mr Durham clarified that he was not proposing that the Council object to the application.  Mr Durham reiterated that the reason he considered the public local inquiry to be appropriate was the strength of local opposition.  He said that a Public Local Inquiry would be the most appropriate way for the Executive to assess the cumulative local impact of windfarm developments and said it would be inappropriate for the Council to object to the application as there were insufficient grounds for an objection.  He said that he understood that the Executive would not be obliged to accept the Council’s request for a public local inquiry.  In response to a question from members, Mr McCorquodale clarified in the event that the Council required to make a request to the Scottish Executive for futher time to consider and respond to the application, there was no guarantee that the Scottish Executive  in consultation with the applicant would accede to the request.  

Mr Ross’s amendment that consideration of the application be deferred raised a procedural issue in terms of Standing Order 25.6.  Mr Ross’s amendment was, therefore, considered as a  procedural motion to defer consideration of the application.  Mr G Farlow, seconded by Mr W Fernie proposed as an amendment to Mr Ross’s procedural motion that the committee proceed to determine the application. 

On a vote being taken between the procedural  motion and amendment, Mr Ross’s motion  received five votes  and  Mr Farlow’s amendment received six votes, the votes being cast as follows:-

For Mr Ross’s  Motion :- Mr Donnie Mackay, Lady Thurso, Mr W J Ross, Mr Martin Rattray, Mrs Deirdre Mackay.

For Mr Farlow’s  Amendment:- Mr G Farlow, Mr W Fernie, Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr R Durham. 

 It was agreed, therefore, to proceed to determine the application.   

Thereafter, the  substantive  MOTION by Mr Smith was considered against the AMENDMENT by Mr Durham.  On a vote being taken, the MOTION received three votes and the AMENDMENT received eight votes.  The AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes cast being as follows:-

For the Motion:- Mr G Farlow, Mr W Fernie, and Mr G Smith.

For the Amendment:- Mr Donnie Mackay, Lady Thurso, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr W J Ross, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Durham and Mrs Deirdre Mackay.   

Decision

The Committee agreed to support the application as recommended by the Planning Officer subject to an amendment to paragraph A1 of the Recommendation to ensure a substantive habitat management plan to enhance local and regional ornithological interests.  Given the local community opposition as expressed by Brora Community Council and others in the locality the Committee considered a Public Local Inquiry would be the appropriate course for the Scottish Executive to follow in determining the application, and further agreed to recommend accordingly to the Scottish Executive. 

3.  Planning Application 06/01170/OUTRC – Erection of Foodstore (3,400m2) and Related Access, Parking and Servicing Arrangments (Outline) at Morangie Road, Tain

Members were advised that the application 06/01170/OUTRC for the erection of foodstore and related access, parking and servicing arrangements, in outline, at Morangie Road, Tain had been registered with the Planning and Development Service on 11 January 2007, and that in line with the provisions of Section 13 of the Town and Country (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992, the Service has written to the applicant on 25 January 2007 requesting additional information be supplied to the Planning Authority prior to its consideration of the planning application.  This was subsequently followed up on 4 May 2007 with a further reminder to the agent reminding them of the request for additional information.

Subsequently the Service was advised that the applicant has appealed to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit on the grounds of non determination by the Planning Authority.

The Committee AGREED to note the position.