Agendas, reports and minutes

Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee

Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2008

Minutes: CSER Planning Applications and Review Committee Minute - 29 January 2008

Agenda

Minute of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee held in Lairg Community Centre, Lairg on Tuesday 29 January 2008 at 10.30am.

Present:

Mr D Mackay, Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Lady M Thurso, Mr W Fernie (from item 4.2), Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr J McGillivray, Mr W J Ross, Mr M Rattray, Mrs C Wilson, Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance

Non-Members also present:

Mr D Flear, Mr W Mackay, Mr A Rhind, Mr M Finlayson

In Attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager

Mrs F Sinclair, Area Solicitor

Mr C Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager

Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner

Miss A Macrae, Administrator

Mr D Mackay in the Chair

1. Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

There were no apologies for absence. Mr J McGillivray declared a financial interest as owner of the site in item 4.6, for the erection of a house on land to the north of Eleven School Street, Embo, Sutherland, and intimated that he would leave the room during consideration of that item.

2. Minute of Meeting

The Minute of the Special Meeting of the Committee held on 4 December 2007 copies of which had been circulated with the agenda was approved.

3. Minute of Meetings

a) The Minute of the Meeting of the Committee held on 18 December 2007
copies of which had been circulated was approved.

b) The Minute of the Special Meeting of the Committee held on 15 January
2008 copies of which had been circulated was approved.

4. Planning Applications

4.1 Installation of small scale hydro-electricity generation scheme at Wester Fearn Burn, Mid Fearn, Ardgay (06/00429/FULSU)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-01-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 06/00429/FULSU for the installation of a small scale hydro electricity generation scheme (0.95MW) consisting of access tracks, overhead power line, pipeline, intake structure, turbine house with hardstanding, tailrace, and three borrow pits, as amended, at Wester Fearn Burn, Mid Fearn, Ardgay.

The Chairman confirmed that the application would proceed under the Hearings Procedure.

The Principal Planner summarised the application, the consultations carried out and the representations received. The Committee noted that the applicant was present as were representatives of the Highland Salmon Company Limited one of the objectors. Both parties confirmed that they understood the hearings procedure.

Mr C Brooke, the applicant, advised that the development would contribute to the Government’s policies in connection with renewable energy schemes. The risk assessment carried out in respect of the proposal had established that the risk to the existing fish farm located downstream would be minimal, and SEPA had confirmed that it would not impact on existing CAR licence holders. He emphasised that he had cooperated with the Highland Salmon Company Ltd in the past, and had no wish to threaten their business, the proposal having been amended to adjust the route of the pipeline, to take account of the Company’s concerns. During the construction process concrete would be delivered on site by helicopter. The applicant had amended his insurance policy to cover for the construction and the operation of the hydro scheme. Concluding he expressed the view that the Wester Fearn Burn can successfully support both the fish farm and the proposed hydro scheme.

Responding to questions from Members, the applicant advised that;

The weir structure would be pinned into hard rock
A single helicopter lift would transport one cubic tonne of concrete, and he confirmed that safety issues associated with this operation had been assessed
Comparing the output of the scheme to that of a wind turbine at Beinn Tharsuinn Wind Farm, it was reported that the application was for a 0.95MW scheme, while the figure for a wind turbine is 1.75MW
Referring to on site monitoring and bio security, a round the clock sampling programme on the Wester Fearn Burn would be taken forward. SEPA will provide independent monitoring of the site, and disinfectant mats will be located at the entrance to the agricultural operation as a precaution
Access would not be taken over Forestry Commission land and the relevant landowner had given permission
The impact on biodiversity over the 2.6km length of the pipeline had been assessed by SEPA and SNH who had no objections to the proposal.
The method statement for the construction process will include details of the protection measures to be installed to deal with any sedimentation
The exact siting of the turbine house would be determined on the basis of its visual and noise impact, and the ground conditions
The pipeline would be shut down in conditions of frost, and the exact process was explained to Members. The pipeline had also been designed to ensure it does not protrude from the ground in such conditions
The gradient of the pipe from the dam to the turbine house had been determined by the ground conditions, and surveyed to confirm that it is satisfactory.
There had been no change to the proposals since the CAR licence had been issued in early December
Should otters be found then the applicant would have discussions with SNH, and arrangements would be made for work to be carried out to avoid disturbance to the otters

The Chairman asked whether a representative of Edderton Community Council was present to address the meeting. Members noted that the Community Council had confirmed that it did not support the proposal.

Mr M Brown, who was representing the applicants, advised that he was a member of Edderton Community Council and that the Chairman of the Community Council had verbally agreed that he address the meeting on his behalf.

Following discussion on whether it was appropriate for Mr Brown to speak on behalf of the Community Council, and consultation with the objectors, Mr Brown confirmed that to avoid any question of bias in relation to the consideration of the application, in the absence of an official mandate to speak on behalf of the Community Council, and to ensure that he did not make any comments which the Community Council may not support, it would be inappropriate for him to address the meeting.

The Chairman then invited the objectors to state their case.

Mr R Gardiner outlined the Highland Salmon Company’s operation in the Wester Fearn Burn, and advised that the fish farm had received status in six quality assurance schemes. Advice had been sought from a number of specialists who maintained a contrary view to the points contained in the applicant’s submission and in relation to the recommendation set out in the report. He expressed concern that a scheme of this size and in the location could seriously affect the viability of the business and the livelihood of its employees. He detailed his concerns about the impact of the development on the Company’s insurance cover, the potential for water pollution and failure of the compensation flow, and alleged that the developer had supplied misleading information. The Company’s insurers would only provide month to month cover until additional information is supplied by the applicant. As yet the applicant had failed to provide this information. He advised of his concern that any losses incurred by this development may not therefore be covered, explaining that fish farming is a high risk business and to operate without such cover was not an option. SEPA could take enforcement action but by that stage irreparable damage to the fish farm may have been done. He also cautioned that there would be no water quality monitoring carried out during the construction process.

Mr Gardiner continued that the development does not accord with the relevant policies on the basis the development will have a detrimental impact on the river, water flows and aquatic life. The scheme will also be in direct conflict with existing commercial activities. He suggested that the scheme will not generate electricity for approximately 40% of the time and will struggle to achieve the required water flow in dry or frosty conditions. The developer has other options in terms of generating income through other renewable energy schemes such as wind energy. Mr Gardiner therefore requested that Members refuse the application given the potentially devastating effect it may have on his salmon hatchery business.

Mr Laing explained that the rental from the fish farm operation had provided diversification from his agricultural operation. The Wester Fearn Burn therefore supports two households and employment in the area, and he suggested that the lifeblood of the community must be considered in considering the proposed scheme. The key to the success of this project will be the uninterrupted flow of water from the burn, however technical questions exist over the gradient of the pipeline in difficult terrain, the fixing of the gabions, and the risk of landslides associated with the excavations. He stressed that the applicant had not revealed how such technical issues would be addressed. Referring to the amended pipeline track, he also expressed concern at the depth required to achieve the necessary fall. Mr Laing advised that the Mid Fearn Estate is suitable for other renewable energy schemes, being so designated in the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy, with proposals presently being considered for an expansion to the Beinn Tharsuinn Wind Farm. The applicant therefore has other options in terms of renewable schemes, whereas the viability of the Highland Salmon Company is dependant upon the hatchery situated downstream. He concluded by stating that the fish farm operation could become a casualty of the Scottish Government’s drive to achieve renewable energy targets.

During discussion Members raised a number of points in relation to;

the level of monitoring to be undertaken by SEPA during the construction process
the number of people employed by the fish farm operation
the competency of attaching a condition to the permission that prior to the commencement of the scheme, a legal agreement be concluded to cover any losses incurred during the construction and operation of the wind farm

The applicants responded to the points raised and specifically to the issue concerning the gradient of the pipeline. They also advised that answers to all the various questions raised through representations had been included in their responses.

In accordance with procedure, the Chairman declared the Hearing to be at an end and sought confirmation that (i) there were no further parties wishing to speak, and (ii) the parties were satisfied with the way the Hearing had been conducted. There were no members of the public wishing to speak and the applicant and the objectors confirmed that they were satisfied with the way that the Hearing had been conducted.

The Principal Planner summarised the application and advised that the development accords with the Structure Plan and Local Plan, on the basis that a detailed method statement is provided, which will set out in detail issues relating to construction, management of potential pollution incidents and water quality. National policy supports hydro schemes and encourages renewable energy projects. The site will be screened from neighbouring properties and there are no technical objections from SEPA or SNH. There is a potential impact on the commercial fishery, but this can be minimised through planning conditions and the CAR licence. There are no other techical objections and he therefore recommended approval subject to conditions and an appropriate legal agreement covering a restoration bond.

Members proceeded to debate the application and the following views were expressed:

A conflict of interest exists between the development and the fishery, the latter sustaining stable employment in an area with a fragile economy. The fishery relies entirely on the flow of water down the burn, and the least snagging would have a devastating effect on the business
Concern over whether the conditions would be effective in this case
The potential for a Section 75 Agreement to be concluded binding the developer and objector to cover any potential losses suffered as a result of this development
Concern about the length of the pipleine and the effect on biodiversity. The relevant EU water directive requires the Committee to be satisfied there will no impact on biodiversity arising from water abstraction. SEPA’s reassurances are not sufficent, and the application should be deferred until a proper assessment of the proposal is carried out by the Council’s Biodiversity Officers
The development could have a sigificant detrimental impact on an existing business and therefore does not conform to Policies G2 and G4 of the Highland Structure Plan
The scheme is extremely small in renewable energy terms and greater weight should be attached to the potential loss of employment at the fishery in a fragile area
Concern that if the application is refused it will be the subject to an appeal to the Scottish Ministers. If subsequently approved by the Reporter there would be no legal protection afforded to the Highland Salmon Company in the form of a Section 75 Agreement covering compensation for losses
Should the Committee refuse the application, whether an informative note could be added, covering an appropriate legal agreement and also site monitoring, arising from concerns that such montioring is not considered to be SEPA’s role

Following discussion, Mr J McGillivray seconded by Mr A Torrance proposed the motion that the application be refused for the reasons that the proposed development does not conform with Policy G2 and G4 of the Highland Structure Plan as the proposal will have a significantly detrimental impact on the freshwater system of the burn including pollution and discharges and and could as a result lead to the destruction of the established neighbouring fish farming business situated downstream.

Mr R Durham seconded by Mr R Rowantree proposed as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report following conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement between the developer and the Highland Salmon Company Limited to cover compensation arrangements for any losses by the Highland Salmon Company Limited as a result of the construction and operation of the development, and the restoration of the site.

There being no further amendments votes were cast. As Mr W Fernie had not been present at the commencement of consideration of this item of business Mr Fernie did not participate in the vote.

Votes were cast by roll call as follows:-

For the motion: Mr D Mackay, Mr G Farlow, Lady M Thurso, Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr J McGillivray, Mr W J Ross, Mr M Rattray, Mrs C Wilson and Mr A Torrance.

For the amendment: Mr R Rowantree and Mr R Durham.

Accordingly, the motion by Mr J McGillivray was carried by eleven votes to two and became the decision of the Committee.

At this point the Committee had a short recess and business resumed at 12.30pm.

4.2 Erection of Two Semi detached houses and installation of oil tanks at Sinclair Lane, Halkirk, Caithness (07/00630/FULCA)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-07-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 07/00630//FULCA for the erection of two semi detached houses and installation of oil tanks on land to the north of “Traquair”, Sinclair Lane, Halkirk, Caithness.

The Area Solicitor pointed out that Mr D Flear and Mr W Mackay had requested and been granted local member votes in relation to this item of business.

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager explained the background to the development. The Committee noted that the applicant had submitted this fresh application which in the view of the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager addressed the points raised in the reasons for refusing the previous similar application.

Members’ comments observed that the provision of three houses represented over development on this site and an inappropriate use of garden space, and would alter the character of the area. The adequacy of the drainage system to accommodate the development was questioned, and Scottish Water’s response to the application was also queried. The prospect of a site visit was raised to allow Members to view the impact on the site at first hand. Additional comments related to the fact that retrospective developments of this nature were unacceptable, Members had had their information needs met and therefore a site visit was not necessary. The development did not accord with the Local Plan and should be refused, and that the 1.8m high fence around the development would also impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties

A contrary view was expressed stating that the development accords with policy, the site can adequately accommodate two houses and therefore the Manager’s recommendation to approve the application should be accepted.

Responding to a question the Area Planning & Building Standards Manager clarified the terms of response received from Halkirk Community Council.

Following the discussion Councillor Flear seconded by Councillor Bremner proposed the motion that the application be refused for the reasons that the development is inappropriate in terms of Policy in that the Local Plan shows the development site as having an indicative capacity of one house and the development under consideration increases the number of houses on the site to three, the development is out of character with the surrounding houses in the area and has an adverse effect on the amenity of the area and residents in that there is inadequate garden space, and the objectors’ concerns regarding surface water flooding problems in the area had not been fully addressed in terms of the application.

Mr G Smith seconded by Mr W Fernie proposed as an amendment that the application be granted as had been recommended by the Planning Officer subject to the conditions detailed in the report. There being no further amendments votes were cast by roll call as follows:-

For the motion: Mr D Mackay, Mr R Rowantree, Lady M Thurso, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr J McGillivray, Mr W J Ross, Mr M Rattray, Mrs C Wilson, Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance, Mr W Mackay and Mr D Flear.

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

Accordingly, the motion by Mr Flear was carried by thirteen votes to three and became the decision of the Committee.

4.3 Erection of three houses and four flats on land to the south of Number Three Redspur Gardens, Hill of Fearn (07/00862/FULRC)

There had been circulated report PLC-02-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 07/00862/FULRC for the erection of three houses and four flats on open amenity land to the rear of the existing Council housing at Redspur Gardens, Hill of Fearn.

The Area Solicitor pointed out that Mr A Rhind had requested and been granted a local member vote in relation to this item of business.

The Principal Planner confirmed that the Council no longer owned part of this site and therefore the application would not require to be referred to Scottish Ministers, should it be approved. He explained that those making representations had confirmed that they did not wish to appear at a Hearing, but had requested that railings be provided to the rear of those properties which back onto the access road, in the interests of road safety.

The Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to an additional condition in the interests of road safety to be drafted by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager providing that railings or other suitable measures be incorporated in the development to protect pedestrians leaving the rear gardens of the existing houses in Redspur Gardens.

4.4 Erection of House on land to the south east of Cadboll Place, Tain (06/01000/FULRC)

There had been circulated report PLC-03-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 06/01000/FULRC for the erection of one house on land to the south east of Number One Cadboll Place, Tain.

The Area Solicitor pointed out that Mr A Rhind had requested and been granted a local member vote in relation to this item of business.

During discussion the local Members expressed the view that only one of the three neighbouring properties had objected to the proposal, access and egress could be gained easily within the curtilage of the site, the development would utilise an area of waste land and would be in keeping with the Conservation Area. Visibility to the south was limited, but fitted with the pattern of narrow streets in Tain.

The Area Roads and Community Works Manager advised that egress from the site was extremely restricted and that the required visibility splays in accordance with the relevant guidelines could not be achieved, in this case being ten to fifteen metres as opposed to the guideline of seventy metres. Traffic congestion on Ross Street, arising from increased parking also remained a concern.

Mr A Rhind proposed that the application be granted and that authority be delegated to the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager in consultation with other Officials and local members to attach appropriate conditions to the consent. The reasons given for the motion were that the proposed house is in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area in which it is located, the erection of a house on the site will not generate any more traffic than the garage presently erected on the site which is to be removed as part of the development, and the development will not exacerbate any existing parking and visibility difficulties in the area as had been suggested in the report.

4.5 Change of Use of Shop to Hot Food Takeaway at 69 High Street, Alness (07/01096/FULRC)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-04-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 07/01096/FULRC for detailed planning permission to change the use of a vacant retail unit to a hot food takeaway at 69 High Street, Alness.

The Area Solicitor pointed out that Mr M Finlayson had requested and been granted a local member vote in relation to this item of business.

Discussion focused on the fact that Alness benefits from a vibrant town centre due to the efforts of the community. It was reported that there are currently eleven takeaway outlets on the High Street. Approval would result in the overprovision of takeaway outlets in the town centre, and emphasis should be placed on achieving a balance in terms of the ratio of takeaways to other general retail uses on the High Street. Alness Community Council had objected to the application. The development would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Mrs C Wilson proposed that the application be refused for the reason that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The Committee so agreed.

At this point the meeting adjourned for lunch and when the meeting resumed at 1.45pm only the following Members were present:-

Mr D Mackay, Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Lady M Thurso, Mr W Fernie, Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Durham, and Mr W Mackay

4.6 Erection of house on land to north of Eleven School Street, Embo, Dornoch, Sutherland (07/00423/OUTSU)

There had been circulated Report No PLC-05-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 07/00423/OUTSU in outline for the erection of a house on land to the north of Eleven School Street, Embo, Sutherland.

The Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report as had been recommended.

4.7 Erection of house at land to west of Borrowston, Thrumster, Caithness (07/00600/FULCA)

There had been circulated report PLC-06-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of a re-application 07/00600/FULCA for planning permission for the erection of a house, installation of a septic tank and soakaway and formation of vehicular access on land to the west of Borrowston, Thrumster, Wick, Highland.

The Area Solicitor pointed out that Mr W Mackay had requested and had been granted a local member vote in relation to this item of business.

Members questioned whether flexibility could be allowed in relation to the spacing requirements identified in the Local Plan to provide the applicant with the opportunity to move the house further away from the main road in the interest of road safety and amenity, noting that the properties across the road lie within a different policy envelope, and that the spacing between properties in this area was already irregular.

The Area Planning & Building Standards Manager reported that it is for the Committee to decide whether to relax the spacing criterion within the Local Plan, advising that each case should be judged on its merits. Depending on the extent of any amended spacing, a fresh application may be required and neighbour notification carried out.

The Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report as had been recommended. The Committee instructed the Area Planning and Buildings Standards Manager to write to the applicants indicating that the Committee may be prepared to consider favourably an application for permission for a house at a location closer to the existing house in his ownership near the application site notwithstanding the spacing criteria in the Local Plan. This would be on the understanding that the planning permission for the development considered today would be surrendered.

5. Appeal – Wind Farm at Achany Estate, Lairg for SSE Generation Ltd

There had been circulated appeal decision notice dated 13 December 2007 from The Scottish Government upholding the appeal, subject to conditions, against refusal of planning permission for the construction of a wind farm at Achany Estate, Lairg by SSE Generation Ltd.