Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee held in the Duthac Centre, Shandwick Street, Tain on Tuesday 19 May 2009 at 10.30am.

Present:
Mr D Mackay
Mr G Farlow
Lady M Thurso
Mr G Smith
Mr D Bremner
Mr R Coghill
Mr J McGillivray
Mr W Ross
Mr M Rattray
Mr R Durham
Mr A Torrance

Non-Members also present:
Mr A Rhind
Ms M Smith
Mr M Finlayson

Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner
Mr I Moncrieff, Principal Engineer
Miss K McLeod, Principal Solicitor
Mr F Rennie, Solicitor
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 R Rowantree, Mr W Fernie, and Mrs C Wilson, on other Council business.

Mr M Rattray declared an interest in Item 4.6 below on the grounds that he was a member of Invergordon Community Council, confirming that he had taken no part in the discussion on the application, and as a Director of Port Services (Invergordon) Ltd, which leased a site next to the application site, noting that the Company had not objected to the application, and as such he proposed to participate in the debate and determination of the application.  

2.     Minutes of Meeting of 17 March 2009

The Minutes of Meeting held on 17 March 2009, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were approved

Arising from the Minute, Mr W Ross clarified that his apologies had been submitted on the basis that he had been on other Council business.

3.     Minutes of Meeting of 21 April 2009

The Minutes of Meeting held on 21 April 2009, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were approved.

Arising from Item 4 of the Minute, ‘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’, Mr G Farlow requested that the site visit be progressed at the earliest opportunity.

The Committee agreed that the site visit be progressed, in accordance with the decision taken on 21 April 2009.

4.1 Erection of House and Integral Garage, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway, Erection of 6.62m High Wind Turbine at 119 Clachtoll, Lochinver for Miss H Theakston and Mr G Acreman 09/00012/FULSU

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-22-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00012/FULSU by Miss H Theakston and Mr G Acreman for the erection of house and integral garage, installation of septic tank and soakaway, erection of 6.62m high wind turbine at 119 Clachtoll, Lochinver.

Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner, referred to the conditions to be attached to the report and advised that if Members were minded to approve the application then condition 5 set out in the report be amended so that the access track was finished in a dark non-reflective material.

Mr G Farlow, one of the local Members, expressed his support for the application, noting that the application was also supported by the Assynt Crofters Trust, indicating that the development would not impact on badgers and other wildlife, which were prevalent throughout Assynt, and approval could potentially sustain a young family in the area, which would support local facilities including the School.

Further comments from Members related to the fact that it was important that access rights were preserved, and that this would be safeguarded by the provision of self shutting gates with off set hinges, the possibility that the construction of the access road may cause run off to the properties below, and as to whether the site would be tidied up, if developed. 

Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner advised that any potential drainage problems should be resolved through the construction of the road, and the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager indicated that the applicants had confirmed that if they took ownership of the site then it would be tidied up.

The Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report, on the basis that Condition 5 be amended so that the access track is finished in a dark non-reflective material, and Condition 7 amended so that the details of self shutting gates incorporating off set hinges be submitted for prior approval.

4.2 Erection of One Two Storey Block Containing Six Apartments at Plot 21, Oldwick, Wick for M M Miller (Wick) Ltd 09/00020/FULCA

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-23-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application  09/00020/FULCA for the erection of a two storey block containing six apartments at Plot 21, Oldwick, Wick for M M Miller (Wick) Ltd.

Mr G Smith, one of the local Members, expressed support for the proposals indicating that there was a steady demand for affordable flats in the area, and he also sought confirmation that there was adequate play area provision on the wider Oldwick site.

During discussion some Members expressed concern that two storey buildings were being erected in front of existing single storey houses, and questioned why the applicant had not opted to build the same number of units in single storey form, given that the site was fairly large.  The development would overpower the bungalows located behind the site, and concern was also expressed at the density of the development on the overall site, this being in excess of the indicative figure in the Local Plan. 

Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner, outlined the play area provision within the overall site.

Members also queried whether the outline consent for the site contained details of the proposal for the two storey development, on the basis that the neighbouring purchasers would have been aware of the proposals at the outset.

Following further discussion the Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions in the report, and to the terms of the original outline consent being checked to determine whether it contained a reference to two storey accommodation. In the event that there was no reference to two storey accommodation, it was agreed that the application be dealt with under delegated authority by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and local Members.

4.3 Erection of House and Installation of Septic Tank and Mounded Soakaway at Land 150m North of Inver Croft, Inver for Andrew Skinner 09/00022/OUTSU

Mr A Rhind had applied for and been granted a local Member vote in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-24-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application  09/00022/OUTSU by Andrew Skinner for the erection of a house and installation of septic tank and mounded soakaway at land 150m north of Inver Croft, Inver. 

Mr A Torrance, one of the local Members, expressed the view that the application would not create ribbon development, and rather would act to strengthen the village and make it more cohesive, by filling in a gap in the settlement pattern. The development would support a young family in the area, and therefore the local School and other facilities. The site lies in close proximity to the settlement boundary line, and close to properties which had received planning permission in recent years.  He suggested that within rural settlements it was difficult to establish where the boundary should be established, and the previous Director of Planning and Development had advised that these lines were not set in tablets of stone, and the application should therefore be looked at favourably to allow the village to prosper.

Mr R Durham, one of the local Members, referred to the terms of the Local Plan, advising that outwith the defined settlements in the Rural Development Area, proposals may be considered acceptable where they help repopulate communities, strengthen services and reflect the character of development in the locality if they meet a number of criteria set out in the Plan. He therefore expressed his support, in principle, for the application subject to it being satisfied that the application would meet the criteria contained in the Local Plan

Mr A Rhind, one of the local Members, referred to the demand for housing in Inver, and questioned the assertion that the site was detached from the village,  the site being located in proximity to existing properties and the local school, which was a focal point of the village. There were no other available sites for housing developments in the core of the village, and therefore alternative sites had to be investigated.  The development would support a young family in the village and therefore the local School, which was experiencing a falling roll. There had been no objections to the application, and the development was located immediately outwith the settlement boundary, and could be accommodated with no visual intrusion, and no impact on the amenity of local residents.

Further comments from Members suggested that in a recent presentation to community councils on housing in the countryside, the Head of Planning and Building Standards had advised that if an area contained five or more houses, development should be looked at leniently.  It was suggested that while the development does not conform to policy, there were no objections to the application and therefore it should supported, on the basis that it met the relevant criteria in the Local Plan.  The principle of settlement development areas should be opposed, as they did not reflect realistically settlement patterns on the ground.  There was strong argument for supporting the application, on the grounds that strong linkages had been demonstrated, the view being expressed that the lines of the settlement boundary should have a soft edge.

The Committee agreed to grant the application on the grounds that the development accords with the criteria contained in the Local Plan in relation to developments which are regarded as acceptable within the Rural Development Area, subject to appropriate conditions to be framed by officials under delegated authority in consultation with the local Members. 

4.4 Erection of House and Improvement of Existing Access, and Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway North-West of Green Acres, Portmahamock for Mr Allan Summers 09/00042/OUTSU

Mr A Rhind had applied for and been granted a local Member vote in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-25-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 09/00042/OUTSU by Allan Summers for the erection of a house and improvement of existing access, and installation of septic tank and soakaway north-west of Green Acres, Portmahomack.

Mr A Torrance, one of the local Members, referred to the demand for housing which existed in Portmahomack, and advised that approval would sustain a young family within the community and support the local School. A precedent for development existed in relation to other sites along the single track road to Tarbatness lighthouse, and the geography of the site would make it possible for the development to be less visible if the house was restricted to single or one and a half storey in height. 

Mr A Rhind, one of the local Members, suggested that the house would blend in well with the landscape, and that having viewed the site, the development would be unobtrusive and he therefore had no difficulty with the application.

Mr R Durham indicated that the settlement pattern was typically scattered in this part of rural Easter Ross, and the site was located in a prominent place on the peninsula.  He therefore emphasised the importance of good design to ensure that the house fits into the rural landscape.

Mr W Ross expressed the view that the argument in terms of development outwith settlements within the Rural Development Area was less convincing in respect of the application, given the size of the community.  The interpretation of a softer edge was also less convincing, and care should be taken not to create a precedent for future development in this area.  He also questioned whether the draft housing in the countryside policy would have implications for the development.

During discussion Members also commented that there appeared to be pressure to adjust the settlement development boundary in this area to accommodate further development, noting that there had been no objections to the application.  The potential loss of good agricultural land was also raised, as was the distance of the site from the settlement boundary line.

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager clarified that the draft housing in the countryside policy would not have changed the recommendation in this case. 

The Committee agreed to grant the application on the grounds that the development accords with the criteria contained in the Local Plan in relation to developments which are regarded as acceptable within the Rural Development Area, subject to appropriate conditions to be framed by officials under delegated authority in consultation with the local Members, and additional conditions to secure a traditional design and good tree planting and screening.

Mr A Rhind left the meeting at this point.

4.5 Formation of Waste Transfer Depot, Including Erection of Building, Installation of Weighbridge, and Welfare Facilities at Land North-West of Teaninich Farm Steading, Alness for Pat Munro (Alness) Ltd 09/00092/FULRC

Mr M Finlayson and Ms M Smith had applied for and been granted local Member votes in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-26-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00092/FULRC by Pat Munro (Alness) Ltd for the formation of a waste transfer depot, including erection of building, installation of weighbridge and welfare facilities at land north-west of Teaninich Farm Steading, Alness.

Mr W Ross left the meeting at this point.

Mr M Finlayson, one of the local Members expressed the view that;

• The development does not fit in with the houses to the north in Alness. There were also high quality business premises to the north and south of the development

• Screening of the development was important, and it was suggested that additional bunding and tree planting be undertaken so that the development was less visible on the approach into Alness given that the town was increasingly being viewed as a tourist destination.

• A query over the amount of waste to be handled per annum and the volume of additional traffic that will be generated as result, the response from TEC Services containing little mention of traffic moving onto the A9

• Concern at road safety implications arising from heavy loads pulling out at the junction at Teaninich Avenue onto the A9,

• Noting that Transerv had not been consulted in relation to the application, and suggesting that a speed limit be imposed on this stretch of the A9 on road safety grounds. Mr Finlayson expressed his concern at the risk of a heavy loaded vehicle causing a collision with traffic moving at high speed, and suggested that a holding lane be constructed

• The potential nuisance arising from odour and flies, while the remit of SEPA, should be also controlled by the Committee given that this is a wider community issue,

• The potential for an air locked facility should be considered to minimise any potential nuisance

Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner, responded that that the through put of waste would be 35,000 tonnes per annum, and that in terms of traffic movements this would equate to 15 incoming vehicles per day and 6 outgoing larger vehicles.  The Council’s Road Safety Officer had been consulted and had no issues relating to the traffic movements in this location having examined the accident history at the junction, advising that the junction had been designed to service the industrial estate.  Regarding odour, national planning policy advised that the Planning Authority should not attach conditions which are the responsibility of other authorities. SEPA operated a strict licensing procedure, and conditions should not be duplicated by the Council where there would not be the expertise to monitor the development.

Both Mr M Rattray and Ms M Smith, the local Members, also referred to the following issues;

• Condition 3 of the report should be amended so that any replacement planting is undertaken over a period of 10 years, rather then 5 years as recommended in the report

• An additional condition should be added on road safety grounds that constant monitoring of the junction, is undertaken by the Council and Transerv

• The proposed landscaping and screening measures are not sufficient, particularly to the south of the site, and that bunding or additional tree planting should be considered in this area,

• The local community had worked hard to promote Alness as a tourist destination and therefore more robust conditions regarding additional screening was vital

Further comments from Members related to the fact that;

• The conditions for screening should be enhanced, and the bunding and planting strip on the site should be as wide as possible

• Concern that motorists will have to slow considerably to accommodate the vehicles associated with the development turning off the A9, and therefore the junction should be lengthened and a feeder lane installed

• A mature and responsible approach should be taken to the disposal of waste in the Highlands

• The costs and carbon footprint associated with transporting waste outwith the Highlands was unacceptable, and therefore the application should be refused

• Comparatively there were junctions outwith the Highland area which were far busier, the view being expressed that the junctions at Skiach and Tomich were less satisfactory

• The applicant should be required to have a tree condition survey carried out  every five years, to ensure the well being of the trees, and as a precaution against any potential seepage

• Noting that waste generated in the Council’s area was already being transferred outwith the Highlands

Mr D Mackay seconded by Ms M Smith moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report being amended to provide for increased landscaping/bunding on the site and the requirement to monitor and complete replacement planting within landscaping provision during a period of ten years from the date of initial provision, doubling the period in the draft condition 3 in the report.

Mr G Farlow moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the Council should investigate more sustainable measures for the disposal of waste from the Highlands, and on the grounds that the issues raised in representations and detailed in section 3.2 of the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager’s report had not been addressed by the applicant.

The Principal Solicitor advised that the amendment was not competent, on the grounds that it referred to the wider issue of the disposal of waste outwith the Highlands, advising that that the application dealt with the disposal of waste within the Highlands and was for particular premises in a particular location. 

Mr G Farlow seconded by Mr A Torrance moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the issues raised in representations and detailed in section 3.2 of the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager’s report had not been adequately addressed by the applicant, and on the grounds that the junction at Teaninch Avenue with the A9, was unsatisfactory.

Mr M Finlayson seconded by Lady M Thurso moved as a second amendment that the application be deferred pending a report on the access to the trunk road being received from Transerv, and the provision of a further report on the landscaping and screening proposals.

On a vote being taken by a show of hands between the amendment and second amendment, Mr G Farlow’s amendment received 3 votes and Mr M Finlayson’s amendment received 5 votes.

Thereafter, the  motion by Mr D Mackay was considered against the amendment by Mr M Finlayson.  On a vote being taken by a show of hands, the motion received 7 votes and the amendment received 5 votes.  The motion therefore became the decision of the meeting.

4.6 Amendment to Planning Permission 08/00122/FULRC to Include Handling, Storage and Bulking Up of Residual Municipal Waste at Unit 26, Cromarty Firth Industrial Park, Invergordon 09/00094/FULRC

Mr M Finlayson and Ms M Smith had applied for and been granted local Member votes in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-27-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00094/FULRC for amendment to planning permission 08/00122/FULRC to include handling, storage and bulking up of residual municipal waste at unit 26, Cromarty Firth Industrial Park, Invergordon.

The local Members expressed the following views;

• There were road safety issues associated with the Tomich junction off the A9, especially at peak travel times

• Articles in the North Star had quoted a Council roads official’s concerns at the increasing traffic on the A9  and at the inadequacy of the Tomich junction off the A9 into Invergordon, when turning right

• Transerv officials had met with community representatives, and had agreed to carry out a study on the junction to measure capacity for the future.  The final report had yet to be received.

• Press reports also stated that the Northern Constabulary had recorded 9 accidents over a period of 18 months in and around the Tomich junction

• Invergordon had become labelled as a dumping ground, through previous and potential future developments and there was a need to regenerate the town and present a new image, a view supported by the local community council. 

• The town had a thriving business association, and was host to a considerable amount of cruise liners each year, and therefore the town was increasingly becoming a tourist destination

• He had received more representations regarding the Tomich junction than any other issue, and it was surprising that TEC Services had no objections to the application

• There was a moral argument for refusing the application, contamination issues having resulted from previous industrial developments

•  There was a need to make Invergordon a better place to live as the way forward and to re-brand it as a tourist destination

• A question over why Invergordon was the chosen location for waste from places such as Ullapool, suggesting that other alternative locations should be found  

During discussion Members also raised a number of other matters;

• The junction off the A9 at Tomich requires to be upgraded to an acceptable standard

• The transportation of waste from Ullapool to Invergordon should be opposed on both cost and environmental grounds

• In the current economic climate the inadequacy of a junction should not be used as a basis for preventing development

• Anticipate that the report being prepared by Transerv on the junction would conclude that it was adequate

• Members had a responsibility to deal with the disposal of waste, and if the application was refused then Members must suggest how it will be dealt with.  It was understandable that the Council was looking for a base in Easter Ross to deal with the residual waste

• The view was expressed that Transerv should have been consulted on the application

Following further discussion Ms M Smith seconded by Mr M Rattray moved that the application be refused; (i) on safety grounds due to the inadequacy of the Tomich junction off the A9 leading to Invergordon, and (ii) due to the adverse impact of the development on the amenity of the surrounding area due to increased traffic movements and potential nuisance from the activities involved.

Mr D Mackay moved as an amendment that the application be deferred pending a report being received from Transerv on the Tomich junction off the A9 leading to Invergordon, but on failing to find a seconder the amendment fell.

Mr G Smith seconded by Mr D Mackay moved as an amendment that the application be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to a suspensive condition that the junction on the A9 at Tomich be upgraded prior to the commencement of the development.

On a vote being taken on a show of hands between the motion and the amendment, Ms M Smith’s motion received 7 votes and Mr G Smith’s amendment received 5 votes.  The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting.

Mr R Durham left the meeting at this point.

5.    Erection of Single Storey Dwellinghouse with Integral Garage and Oil Tank  on Land   to North of Traquair, Sinclair Lane, Halkirk

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-28-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager concerning the application 09/00145/FULCA for the erection of single storey dwellinghouse with integral garage and oil tank on land to north of Traquair, Sinclair Lane, Halkirk.  The report advised that this new application for a single storey house with integral garage and oil tank had been received and recommended that the Committee agree to suspend the requirement to comply with the Enforcement Notice until the new application has been determined.

The Committee agreed to suspend action on the Enforcement Notice specified in the report pending determination of the new planning application 09/00145/FULCA, on the basis that the application would be presented to Committee for determination

6. 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 1.20pm.