Agendas, reports and minutes

Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee held in the Assembly Rooms, Wick on Tuesday 21 April 2009 at 10.30am.

Present
Mr D Mackay
Mr G Farlow
Lady M Thurso
Mr D Bremner
Mr G Smith
Mr R Coghill
Mr J McGillivray
Mr R Durham

Non-Members also present:
Mr D Flear
Mr A Rhind
Mr W Mackay
Ms M Smith

Officials in Attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr C Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mr I Ewart, Team Leader, Planning and Development
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Miss K McLeod, Principal Solicitor
Mr F Rennie, Solicitor
Mr A Parker, Planner
Miss A Macrae, Administrator

Mr D Mackay in the Chair.

1. Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr W Ross and Mrs C Wilson, on other Council business, and Mr M Rattray, Mr R Rowantree, Mr W Fernie and Mr A Torrance.

Mr D Bremner declared an interest in Item 11 below as an employee of the applicant.

Mr G Farlow and Mr D Flear both declared a non financial interest in Item 11 below as Council representatives on the Dounreay Stakeholders Group

2. Minutes of Meeting of 3 March 2009

The Minute of Meeting held on 3 March 2009, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were approved

3. Erection of Retail Store with Associated Fuel Filling Station, Car Parking and Access (Approval of Reserved Matters) at Former Morrison’s Site, Shore Road, Tain

With reference to Item 3.1 of the Minute of Meeting of 3 March 2009, there had been circulated Report No. PLC-14-09 by the Assistant Chief Executive seeking the Committee’s approval to amend the reasons of refusal agreed by the Committee on 3 March 2009 in their determination of an application for approval of reserved matters by Santon Retail Ltd/Tesco Stores Ltd for the erection of retail store with associated fuel filling station, car parking and access (approval of reserved matters) at former Morrison’s site, Shore Road, Tain. 

The report recommended that the Committee (1) amend, by the deletion of reason for refusal 2, the reasons for refusal agreed by the Committee in their determination of application 08/00453/REMSU and that the minute of the meeting held on 3 March be amended accordingly, and (2) acknowledge the submission of the revised car park layout plan by the applicant and either (a) agree to defer consideration of the application for approval of reserved matters until the revised car park plan had been further publicised and referred to the statutory consultees for comment, or (b) decline to defer consideration of the application for approval of reserved matters and issue the decision in accordance with recommendation (1) above.

Members heard from the Principal Solicitor in relation to the report, who clarified that only those Members present and who were able to vote when the application was considered by the Committee on 3 March would be able to vote on the recommendations contained in the report.  She reported that reason for refusal 2 related to off-site traffic management works, the works proposed being within the ambit of the outline planning permission granted by the Committee on 1 July 2008. She explained that unlike a detailed application which would allow re-consideration of the principle of an application, an application for approval of reserved matters followed on from the outline permission and that the two were separate and distinct parts of the same application process.

The Principal Solicitor stressed that while it was Members’ democratic right to overturn recommendations on applications it was important that the decision taken was competent and defendable should an appeal be taken against that decision. She advised that in regard to the second reason for refusal the principle of the development including off-site traffic management works had already been agreed by the grant of outline planning permission and therefore it was not competent to revisit this at the reserved matters stage.

The Principal Solicitor also reported that a revised car park layout plan had been submitted by the applicants, which appeared to accord with condition 9 of the outline planning permission, and therefore addressed reason for refusal 1. As the Committee decision had yet to be issued, it was open to the Committee to defer the issue of a final decision on the application pending a report on the reserved matters application being put before a future meeting of the Committee to consider the application, including the revised car park layout plan, afresh. She cautioned that the plan now submitted would be a material consideration should the applicant decide to appeal against any refusal.

Mr A Rhind, one of the local Members, queried the legal interpretation being applied in relation to the outline planning consent and consideration of the reserved matters application, and advised that he had obtained independent legal advice which suggested that reason for refusal 2 was a competent reason to refuse the application, and stressed that this had been a fundamental reason for refusing the application as far as the community and some Members had been concerned.  He acknowledged that officials had the power to hold back the decision but observed that it would have been courtesy for Members to have been informed of this at an earlier stage.  He emphasised that a condition of the outline approval was that the reserved matters application considered on 3 March 2009 be brought back to the Committee.   He stressed that the site was not the problem, rather the access and egress to the site, and claimed that what the applicant called ‘road improvements’ were not regarded by the community to be an improvement, and would cause traffic chaos.

Mr Rhind expressed the view that a democratic decision had been taken in Tain to instruct officers to issue the refusal notice for the three reasons detailed, which had not been followed up,  and stated that if the applicant wished to appeal the decision then so be it.  The community would continue to fight the proposal if it went to appeal, and he was confident that the Reporter would agree that this was not a suitable site because of the traffic situation.  He also expressed the concern that any appeal should not be dealt with by way of written submissions, but at a public local inquiry.

Mr R Durham referred to the context in which the application had been considered, advising that when the application was submitted the Council was approaching a conjoined public local inquiry involving an application for two retail stores, including an application by ASDA, although they had subsequently withdrawn their application, and that Scottish Government had requested that the Council take a decision on the Tesco application before the public local inquiry started. He also referred to the background to the ASDA application, which had been approved by the Planning Development Europe and Tourism Committee, and thereafter called in by Scottish Government on the strength that the Council’s standards of car parking had not been applied.

At this point the Principal Solicitor clarified that the ASDA application had been approved by Committee on the basis that the Council’s standards of car parking had been applied. As this breached the national standards for car parking the application required to be notified to Scottish Government. The Scottish Government had exercised its right to call the application in for determination. 

Mr Durham continued that at the meeting of the Committee on 1 July 2008, he had supported the recommendation contained in the report to approve the Tesco application in the expectation that all the applications for supermarkets in Tain would go to a public local inquiry, indicating that he had not wished the applicant in this case to go to a public local inquiry as the main player.   On consideration of the matter he believed that the best solution was for a public local inquiry to be held, noting that at the time the outline planning application had been considered the community of Tain had not expressed their strong disapproval in response to the application.  He observed that this was a case where issues of planning and democracy crossed, and he therefore believed it was right to defend the position that this was not the right site for a supermarket in Tain, and agreed with Mr A Rhind that any appeal should be dealt with by way of a public local inquiry rather than written submissions.  He therefore moved approval of the recommendation contained in the report that the Committee amend by the deletion of reason for refusal 2, the reasons for refusal agreed by the Committee in their determination of the application 08/00453/REMSU, and to decline to defer consideration of the application for approval in accordance with recommendation (2) (b) contained in the report.

Responding to a question, the Principal Solicitor confirmed that outline consent had been issued following the meeting on 1 July 2008.

Responding to Mr A Rhind who quoted from the terms of the outline planning consent in relation to off site traffic improvements, the Principal Solicitor reiterated that the reason for refusal 2 strikes at the heart of the principle of the development, the principle of development including off-site traffic management works having already been agreed.  

Mr G Smith indicated that Members rely on the professional advice of officials and to his mind the matter had been resolved to the satisfaction of the Council.  However there were issues relating to the development which encompassed issues outwith the realm of the Committee, and he therefore supported the view that the application should be considered rather than deferred, and that a public local inquiry have the final say.

The Committee agreed to (i) amend by the deletion of reason for refusal 2, the reasons for refusal agreed by the Committee in their determination of application 08/00453/REMSU and that Item 3.1 of the minute of meeting held on 3 March 2009 be amended accordingly, (ii) acknowledge the submission of the revised car park layout plan, and (iii) decline to defer consideration of the application for approval of reserved matters and issue the decision notice in accordance with (i) above.

Mr A Rhind and Mr R Durham left the meeting at this point.

4. Erection of House and Garage, Installation of New Septic Tank and Soakaway System and Formation of New Access onto Public Road at Land 250m North of Bighouse, Trantlemore, Forsinard for Mr Morrison (08/00432/FULSU)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-18-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application  08/00432/FULSU by Mr Morrison for the erection of house and garage, installation of new septic tank and soakaway system and formation of new access onto public road at land 250m north of Bighouse, Trantlemore, Forsinard.

The Principal Planner reported that the applicant’s agent had asked for this application to be withdrawn from the agenda.

Mr G Farlow, one of the local Members, noted that the reason for refusal centred on matters of design and suggested that for the purposes of mediation a further meeting be held between the applicant’s agent and the relevant officials to try to secure an acceptable design. 

The Principal Planner advised that under the scheme of delegation if an application was refused on design grounds then it was required to be submitted to the Committee for determination, and that discussions with the applicant with a view to improving the design had proven unsuccessful to date. 

Following further discussion the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to a future meeting of the Committee to allow further discussions to be held between the relevant officials, local Members and the applicant with a view to securing an improved design.

5. Enforcement Notice for the Removal of Unauthorised Yurt/Marquee/Tent Used for Residential Purposes at Croit Clais Na H-Airgh Bhig, Upper Lybster

Mr D Flear and Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted local member votes in relation to this item.

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager referred to the report considered at the last meeting of the Committee on 3 March 2009 in which authorisation was sought to issue an Enforcement Notice to secure the removal of a yurt, which is being used for residential purposes, from a croft at Upper Lybster.  He indicated that subsequently Ms Waterston, one of the parties on whom the Notice was to be served, had contacted the Planning Office to advise that she had not received any of the correspondence sent by the Council, and that it appeared that the Section 272 Notice requiring confirmation of ownership had not been properly served.

Ms Waterston had asked that the issuance of the enforcement notice be temporarily suspended until further discussion and negotiation have taken place between herself and the Council. A letter had been sent to Ms Waterston advising her that the enforcement action had been suspended and inviting her to remove the yurt or to lodge a planning application for the unauthorised development within fourteen days of the date of the letter.

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager advised that in the meantime further correspondence had been received from Ms Waterston which required detailed investigation and therefore asked that the application be deferred on the basis that he would report back to the next meeting in May 2009, if time allowed.

During discussion Members expressed the view that this was a straightforward matter in terms of applying for planning permission, and that there was little to be achieved by further lengthy negotiations and therefore the issue should be resolved as soon as possible.

The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this item until the next scheduled meeting of the Committee on 19 May 2009, pending further investigation of the matter by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager.   

Mr R Durham returned to the meeting at this point

6.  Formation of New Vehicular Access at Housing Site to South of 4 Skaill, Thurso for Mr D Gibson (09/00001/FULCA)

Mr D Flear and Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted local member votes in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No.  PLC-15-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application  09/00001/FULCA by Mr D Gibson for the formation of new vehicular access at housing site to south of 4 Skaill, Thurso.

During discussion Members highlighted the fact that while the outline planning permission provided for a visibility splay of 150m, this appeared to have been reduced to 90m, and that the access was located near to a blind corner and the application should therefore be refused on the grounds of road safety.

The Area Roads and Community Works Manager clarified that the required guidelines based on the road speed required a visibility splay of 120m, but that a minimum of 90m would have been acceptable in this case, noting that a splay of only 80m could be achieved for the proposed access, and therefore he had objected to the application. The proposed access was different to the shared access approved under the outline planning permission, and therefore some of the objections had based their concerns in response to the original requirement for a 150m splay required at the outline stage.

Following further discussion the Committee agreed to refuse the application for the reasons stated in the report.

7. Demolition of Existing Store and Erection of House at Former Workshop, Paterson’s Lane, Thurso for Mark Alexander Properties Ltd (09/00023/FULCA and 09/00033/CONCA)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-16-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the applications 09/00023/FULCA and 09/00033/CONCA for the demolition of existing store and erection of house at former workshop at Paterson’s Lane, Thurso for Mark Alexander Properties Ltd.

Responding to questions from Members the Area Roads and Community Works Manager advised that he had objected to the application on the basis that the access failed to achieve the required visibility splays, and that the change of use from its current use as a paint store to a house would be more onerous in terms of the traffic generated.

The local Members referred to the fact that the driveway was an existing access and indicated that, in their opinion, the development would generate less traffic as a house, than a workshop or previous commercial uses.  The access was typical of others in Thurso and there was not a significant volume of traffic in the area, and the benefits of the redevelopment outweighed any traffic considerations.

Mr G Farlow noted that in this case the officials had offered clear advice, as they were qualified to do so, and that it was for Members to exercise judgement in relation to applications.

The Committee agreed to grant the applications 09/00023/FULCA and 09/00033/CONCA, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to the application for Conservation Area Consent being notified to Scottish Ministers.

8. Change of Use of Shop to House at 97 High Street, Wick for David Robertson (09/00051/OUTCA)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-17-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00051/OUTCA by David Robertson for the change of use of a shop to house at 97 High Street, Wick

Mr G Smith, one of the local Members, expressed his opinion that the house should  front onto the High Street, and not Parliament Square, located to the rear of the property and which formed an attractive feature of the town. He noted that this part of the town experienced an element of anti social behaviour, particularly at weekends, which would impact on the property.  Further comments in support of the development referred to the fact that with the recent edge of town developments it was unlikely that the centre would in the future be bustling with shops, however at the same time it was important to retain the town centre as a focus point and to ensure there was a mix of development.

A contrary view was expressed by Mr D Flear, cautioning that the development would not assist in regenerating the town centre, and that increasing residential use may inhibit any future redevelopment should funding be secured for this purpose.  He also expressed concern that there was no parking provision in Market Square for this development. 

The Area Roads and Community Works Manager confirmed that current parking restrictions on Market Square provided for no waiting at any time

During discussion Members noted that there was already a mix of development in the town centre including residential use. Concern was also expressed that the building could become an eyesore if the application was not approved, and that the applicants should be aware of the reality of life in the town centre particularly at weekends, and that they be reminded of the parking restrictions that apply in Market Square.

The Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report, and an additional condition to avoid a blank gable end of the property facing the High Street being brought forward under reserved matters.

9. Erection of House with Integral Granny Flat and Detached Garage, Installation of Foul Drainage Treatment Plant to Puriflo Soakaway, and Formation of Vehicular Access at Land 550m South East of Blacklink, Janetstown, Thurso for Mr Dunbar (09/00051/OUTCA)

Mr D Flear and Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted local member votes in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-19-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 09/00051/OUTCA by Mr Dunbar for the erection of house with integral granny flat and detached garage, installation of foul drainage treatment plant to puriflo soakaway, and formation of vehicular access at land 550m south east of Blacklink, Janetstown, Thurso.

The local Members expressed the view that while the site lies within an area in which there is a presumption against development, there were strong social reasons for approving the development which would allow for the care of family members.  Agricultural need to justify a departure from policy had also been demonstrated, the farm being the main source of the applicant’s income and given the applicant’s proposal to extend the farming operation.  . 

Additional comments from Members related to: the fact that the development was contrary to the Local Plan; concern was expressed that the land outwith townships in the area was an asset to the community and care should be taken in relation to any proposals to develop in these areas; based on the information provided in the report there were not sufficient social reasons to justify the departure from policy, however noting the proposals to extend the farm operation there was an agricultural justification, and the application should be supported for this reason only.        

The Committee agreed to grant the application on the grounds that exceptional need had been demonstrated in relation to both agricultural and social needs, subject to appropriate conditions to be framed by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager in consultation with the local Members, including a condition that the development forms one house and is not sold as two separate properties. 

10. Erection of House at Land to Rear of 19 Saltburn for Mr and Mrs A Hogg (09/00121/FULSU)

Ms M Smith had applied for and been granted a local Member vote in relation to this item.

The Principal Solicitor advised that the above application was considered to fall within the scope of Section 39 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. This section of the Act gives planning authorities the power to decline to determine certain applications.  The qualifying criteria are that (1) the new application is substantially the same as an earlier application that had  been refused on appeal, (2) the new application has been lodged within 2 years of the date of refusal on  appeal, and (3) there has been no material change in policy in the intervening period.

She indicated that the application met all of these criteria, and that as this power was not delegated to officers, Members were asked to vote on whether or not they wished to exercise the power to decline to determine the application. If the Committee wished the application to be determined, this would be delegated to officers in terms of the Scheme of Delegation unless any of the exceptions contained in the Scheme required the application to be reported to Committee in which case a report would be prepared for a future meeting of the Committee.

Ms M Smith spoke in support of having the application determined in the interests of transparency, explaining the reasons why the local Members had not commented on the previous application at an earlier stage.
Following further discussion Mrs M Smith seconded by Mr R Durham moved that the power to decline to determine the application not be exercised and that the application be delegated to officers in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, unless any of the exceptions contained in the Scheme required the application to be reported to Committee, in which case a report would be prepared for a future meeting of the Committee.

Mr G Smith seconded by Mr D Bremner moved as an amendment that the Committee should exercise the power to decline to determine the application.
Thereafter and on there being no further amendments, votes were cast by roll call as follows:

For the motion: G Farlow, Lady M Thurso, R Coghill, J McGillivray, R Durham, M Smith

For the amendment: D Mackay, G Smith, D Bremner

Accordingly the motion was carried by six votes to three and became the decision of the Committee.

11. Update on the Proposals to Construct Facilities for the Disposal of Low Level Waste, Comprising of up to 6 Shallow Sub-surface Vaults and Ancillary Infrastructure on Land to the East of the Existing Dounreay Nuclear Facility, Thurso, Caithness - 06/00373/FULCA

Mr D Flear and Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted local member votes in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-20-09 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards providing an update on the application 06/00373/FULCA, granted by the Committee on 13 January 2009, for the construction of facilities for the disposal of low level waste, comprising of up to six shallow sub-surface vaults and ancillary infrastructure on land to the east of the existing Dounreay Nuclear Facility, Thurso, Caithness. The Report advised that having being notified to Scottish Ministers, the Council was advised that it could deal with the application as it thought fit, but that Ministers had requested that the Council considers applying a condition to the permission regarding a community development fund.  The report recommended that Members agree to the inclusion of such a condition within the decision notice and to note the amended conditions detailed in Annex A to the report.

The Committee agreed to include the following condition within the decision notice on the planning permission for the application 06/00373/FULCA;

Prior to commencement of work on site, confirmation that a community benefit package and mechanism to deliver it is in place shall be provided to the Council.  No emplacement of waste into the proposed facility shall be permitted until such time that an appropriate body to administer the said community benefit fund has been established.Reason: To comply with the Policy G4 of the Highland Structure Plan”

The Committee further agreed to note the amended conditions to be attached to the planning permission, as outlined in Annex A to the report.

Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

The Committee noted the details of the following appeals:

(a) Land at, and Extension to, Access Track at Sallachy Estate, Lairg – Appeal against Service of Enforcement Notice – Appeal  Dismissed.

13. Delegated Decisions

The Committee noted that the list of delegated decisions of planning applications was available via The Highland Council Website.

The meeting concluded at 12.20pm.