• Agenda

Minute of Special Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee held in the Ross Institute, Halkirk on Tuesday 4 December 2007 at 10.30am.

Present:

Mr D Mackay

Lady M Thurso

Mr W Fernie

Mr G Smith

Mr D Bremner

Mr R Coghill

Mr J McGillivray

Mr W J Ross

Mr M Rattray

Non-Members also present:

Mr W Mackay

Mr D Flear

Mr J Rosie

In Attendance:

Mrs F Sinclair, Area Solicitor

Mr I Ewart, Team Leader, Planning and Development Service

Mr D Mackay in the Chair

1.    Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Mrs C Wilson, Mr R Durham and Mr A Torrance.

2.     Erection of Two Semi-Detached Houses and Formation of Two Vehicular

        Accesses at Sinclair Lane, Halkirk (07/00483/FULCA)

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Members had applied for and been granted local Member votes:  Mr William Mackay and Mr David Flear.

There had been circulated Report No PLC-39-07 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 07/00483/FULCA by Caithness Homes for planning consent for the erection of two semi-detached bungalows and the formation of vehicular accesses on land to the west of Sinclair Lane, Halkirk.

The Team Leader explained that a further application had been received on the day before the Meeting which varied the driveway and garden arrangement at the development.  The further application went some way to overcome the objections raised to the application and the reasons for refusal outlined in the report by the Planning Officer.  However, the original application had not been withdrawn and Mr Ewart invited the Committee to determine it.  Mr Ewart cautioned that it would be inappropriate to take enforcement action while there was still a planning application to be determined in respect of the development site. 

After discussion the Committee AGREED to REFUSE the application for the reasons detailed in the report.

3.    Application under Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 – Erection of  Twenty

       One Wind Turbines at Stemster, Shebster by Baillie Wind Farm Limited

The Committee noted that this item on the Agenda had been deferred with the consent of the applicant and the agreement of the Chairman in order to ensure that all persons who have made representations on the application to the Scottish Government will have the opportunity to engage in the Council’s Hearing process when it considers the details of the application.  Mrs Sinclair explained that arrangements are being made for the application to be considered and that it is anticipated that a suitable date in mid-January will be found with arrangements being made for the Hearing to take place in a hall near to the application site as previously.

The Committee NOTED the position.

4.    Alterations to Workshops (Revised Plans) at Units North West of Radio

       Station, Neil Gunn Drive, Ormlie Industrial Estate, Thurso

       (07/00372/FULCA)

There had been circulated Report No PLC-40-07 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager inviting the Committee to make a decision on the merits of this application which had been appealed by the applicant to the Scottish Government on the grounds that the Committee had not determined the application within the statutory two month period.  During discussion Lady Thurso explained that she took exception to the remarks in the applicant’s appeal submission to the effect that the four newly elected Councillors did not understand their responsibilities, explaining that she had made efforts to reach a compromise between applicant and objectors and that this had been her reason for acceding to the deferrals. 

Councillor Rosie pointed out that he had not attended a private meeting with the Planning Officer and Councillor Mackay to consider alternative sites as could be implied from the second paragraph of page nineteen of the Committee papers.  Councillor Mackay and Mr Ewart confirmed the position as stated by Mr Rosie. 

During discussion individual Members expressed concern at the situation indicating that it was inappropriate for the development to be located so close to the residential properties.  However, noting that the developer already had permission for a building which the objectors regarded as even less attractive, and which did not have any features to ameliorate the adverse impact of the building on the neighbouring residences’ amenity, on the motion of Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Coghill, the Committee AGREED that it would have been minded to grant the application, as amended, subject to the conditions detailed in the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager’s report considered by them at the meeting on 23 October 2007.

 The meeting concluded at 11.10am.