Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in the Duthac Centre, Shandwick Street, Tain on Tuesday 22 September 2009 at 10.30am.

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

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

Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr C Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner
Ms S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
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 D Bremner, and Mrs C Wilson on other Council business.

Mr R Coghill declared a financial interest in Item 4.2 below, and confirmed that he would leave the meeting for the duration of this item.

2.    Minutes of Meeting of 12 May 2009

The Minutes of Meeting held on 12 May 2009, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were approved.

3.    Minutes of Meeting of 18 August 2009

The Minutes of Meeting held on 18 August 2009, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were approved.

Arising from Item 4.1, (Erection of Waste to Energy Combined Heat and Power Plant at Land at Cromarty Firth Industrial Estate, Invergordon for Combined Power and Heat (Highlands) Ltd 08/00455/FULRC) and specifically the last bullet point on page 24 , Mr R Durham asked for an update on the request by Members that the Director of TEC Services progress a traffic assessment on the A9 between Cromarty Firth and Nigg roundabouts, clarifying that his request related specifically to difficulties of access and egress on the A9.

The Area Roads and Community Works Manager confirmed that he had referred the matter to the Director of TEC Services who was considering his response, his initial view being that this was a Transport Scotland issue, but that he would consider and discuss the issue directly with Members.

Ms M Smith asked that Transport Scotland be requested to undertake an appropriate traffic assessment in consultation with all relevant parties, and that it be emphasised that planning applications were currently being refused on the grounds of road safety issues associated with the junctions on the A9.

The Committee AGREED that the Chairman write to Transport Scotland requesting that the issue of access and egress on the A9 be investigated at the earliest opportunity, in consultation with all relevant parties.

4.1 Extend Approved Site Use to Include the Transfer of Household Waste and Sealed Asbestos Waste and Extend Saturday Operating to 7.00pm at Beechwood Road, Evanton for William Construction (Highland) Ltd 09/00254/FULSU

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

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-42-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00254/FULSU by William Munro Construction (Highland) Ltd to extend approved site use to include the transfer of household waste and sealed asbestos and extend Saturday operating to 7.00pm

Mr M Finlayson, one of the local Members, raised a number of concerns in relation to the application as follows:

• Highlighting Kiltearn Community Council’s concerns, and in particular the impact on local amenity arising from the proposed extension to the operating hours on a Saturday

• The building was approximately 70 years old, and he questioned whether the doors located at the gable ends of the building would be sealed.  He cautioned that if this was not the case, then any wind blowing through the building would generate odours, impacting on local residents

• Expressing concern that the report stated it was ‘hoped’ the revised traffic management system and air filtration measures proposed would reduce future potential complaints, and suggesting that there should be more certainty that the applicant had taken sufficient steps to allow that to be confirmed

• Drainage in the area was notoriously poor, and querying whether the impact of the discharge of leachate from the site had been considered, and why SEPA had not raised this as an issue.

• While specific odour control equipment would be installed, the applicant had confirmed that the doors of the building would also have to be closed

• He had been witness to the fact that local residents had experienced problems with flies and while the source could not be proven he had been advised that there had not been a problem before the existing waste transfer station had been constructed.  The nuisance from flies would therefore be exacerbated by the proposed extension of use.  He was also aware of the odour nuisance caused by the existing development

• Developments of this nature should be located 250m away from houses.  However the report stated that the proposed development was located 50m from the nearest house, and therefore was the wrong type of industry located in the wrong place, given its proximity to houses

• Traffic movements would impact on road safety, with vehicles stacking up at the busy Skiach junction before exiting onto the A9, advising that there had been accidents at this location in the past

Ms M Smith, one of the local Members, raised a number of matters in relation to the development, as follows;

• Expressed concern at the non compliance with SEPA’s licence conditions for the site, and planning conditions from previous permissions

• Both SEPA and TEC Services had recorded complaints from the nearest householder located 50m away from the development, concerning nuisance problems associated with the existing operation.  Issues related to noise, odour, flies, seagulls and other vermin associated the development.  Houses should not be located within 150 – 250m from a waste transfer station, and she expressed sympathy with the concerns raised by local residents.

• Major issues existed with the local road network in this location and particularly at the Skiach junction.  The accident record at the junction had been highlighted by TranServ Scotland, as part of its monitoring programme

• There would be an impact on road safety associated with the additional 26 lorry movements per day.  Slow moving traffic exiting from the site at Skiach would be turning on to a fast section of road, meeting the traffic flow from the Struie heading onto the A9  

• The additional lorries passing through the site and use of reversing alarms would increase the noise nuisance, impacting on neighbouring residents

• The fact that the doors of the building had to be replaced and a negative airflow system installed demonstrated that the building was not sustainable. The odour nuisance demonstrated that the site was not the most appropriate location for a development of this nature

• Significant material considerations existed in relation to the application in terms of traffic, odour, noise, extended hours, and level of additional waste that would be handled at the site and therefore at the appropriate point in the meeting Ms Smith would propose refusal..

Mr M Rattray concurred with the views expressed by the other local Members, and advised that the nuisance generated by odours from the site was the key issue in respect of the application.  The Council had a duty to ensure local residents lived in an acceptable environment.  The development would also impact on the road network, and the Skiach junction should be the subject of further investigation on road safety grounds.  The application for extended operating hours was a step too far and in the event that the application were approved he would prefer if the hours were limited to between 7am and 4pm.

Thereafter, Members raised a number of points in discussion of the application, as follows;

•  Questions existed regarding the source of the additional waste to be handled at the plant, and how this accorded with the Council’s commitment to zero waste management, noting that the Scottish Government’s Zero Waste Strategy was currently out for consultation.  There should be no increase in the overall volume of waste handled in the Highland area. It was not the Scottish Government’s policy and should not be the Council’s policy to do so.  Bringing additional waste into the Inner Moray Firth area from other parts of the Highlands was unacceptable.

•  Representatives from Environmental Health and SEPA should have been present to answer technical questions on the potential nuisance arising from traffic, noise and odour

•  The report stated that the past performance of the operator was not a material planning consideration.  However the Planning and Development Service should address the issues of non compliance before any permission was granted for additional material to be imported into the site

•   Expressing concern that the applicant had not complied with the conditions attached to the original permission, and querying who would monitor the impact of the operation given the considerable increase in the volume of waste being handled, and whether the Council could take the chance in relation to any future non compliance by approving an extension to the current operation.

•  The volume of traffic associated with the development would increase by one third, at the already busy junction at Skiach, where both access and egress was poor

•   A query as to why the application to extend the operating hours on a Saturday to 7.00pm had been brought forward, noting that it had been thought prudent to restrict the hours to 4.00pm when the previous permission was granted in 2006

•  Whether there was any deterrent proposed to mitigate any increase in the bird nuisance, either by the Council or SEPA

•  Appropriate enforcement action should be taken by Environmental Health and SEPA regarding the current operation and non compliance with conditions. To this end a letter should be sent to the operator expressing concern at the non compliance and seeking reassurances that appropriate action would be taken.

•   Refusing the application would result in Members having no opportunity to influence the application, should any subsequent appeal be upheld by the Reporter who would consider the material issues in relation to the application. It was important to secure a well run facility, and to influence the future operation of the site through the imposition of  conditions on any permission

•  The application should be deferred if Members were of the view that there was insufficient information available to determine the application

•  The development would generate an additional two lorries per hour which would have no significant impact on the junction at Skiach

•   Additional information was required as to the source of the additional waste to be handled at the plant

•  Clarification was required as to whether the proposed installation of roller shutter doors would involve the existing doors being replaced, and as to whether the building would be sealed.

•  Dr C Clark, TEC Services, should be invited to a future meeting to explain how the Council intends to use the facility

Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner responded to the points raised, and advised that the report related to the planning application for the development, distinct from the licence application which was the remit of SEPA.  Issues relating to odour were the responsibility of SEPA and the Council could not impose conditions in this regard. While she did not have a guarantee the building would be sealed, SEPA had been satisfied with the further information provided by the applicant in regard to the proposed air filtration system.  Referring to the non compliance with conditions from previous permissions, it was recommended that if this application were granted, it be a condition of permission that there be no external storage of materials whatsoever on the site, except for the storage of skips. In respect of landscaping, she noted that progress was being made by the operator to comply with the conditions attached to the original permission. 

Referring to road safety concerns, Mrs Stott reported that Transport Scotland and TEC Services had no objections to the application.  There were no proposed changes to the drainage arrangements and she was not aware of any current problems being experienced in this regard.  SEPA were also satisfied with the arrangements.  The facility in Easter Ross would result in less waste from Ross and Cromarty being transported to Inverness, and therefore would improve the Council’s carbon footprint.  Responding to the points raised concerning seagulls on the site, SEPA had not recorded any statutory complaints in respect of the site. She also confirmed that the original application had been for Saturday operating hours extending to 4pm, and the request was for this now to be extended to 7pm. 

Further comments from Members related to the fact the greater clarity was required in relation to the proposals and their control, and expressing the view that material reasons for refusal existed in relation to loss of amenity and traffic issues.  The operator should be given a reasonable timescale to comply with conditions from previous permissions, otherwise enforcement action should be pursued.

Following further discussion the Committee agreed to DEFER consideration of the application to as early a meeting as possible, to allow the Head of Waste Management, TEC Services (Roads and Environmental Health) and SEPA representatives to be present to respond to questions from Members, and for further information in relation to whether (i) the waste transfer building would be sealed, (ii) the proximity principle was being applied in relation to the source of the additional waste, and (iii) the proposed increase in the volume of waste to be handled at the site would be reflected in a decrease elsewhere in the Highlands.

The Committee further AGREED to grant delegated authority to the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager to pursue enforcement action if the conditions attached to the previous permission 05/00917/FULRC or any subsequent permissions were not complied with within a reasonable timescale.

Mr W Fernie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr I Ross, and Mr R Durham left the meeting at this point.

4.2  Repairs and Internal Alterations to East Wing, Stemster House, Halkirk for Messrs Coghill 09/00104/LBCCA

Having earlier declared a financial interest in this application, Mr R Coghill left the meeting for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLC-43-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending that the application 09/00104/LBCCA by Messrs Coghill for repairs and internal alterations to the East Wing, Stemster House, Halkirk be approved subject to conditions.

The Committee agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report; subject to the addition of a further condition requiring details of the proposed external flue to be submitted for prior approval; and subject to notification of the application to Historic Scotland.

Mr R Coghill re-joined the meeting at this point.

5. Unauthorised Development at 13 Firhill, Alness

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

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-44-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager giving details of an unauthorised timber screen fence located at 13 Firhill, Alness.  The report recommended that an Enforcement Notice be served requiring the fence to be either removed or reduced in height to no more than 1m above existing ground level, with a period of two months being allowed for the works to be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Ms M Smith advised that the householder had erected the fence in good faith, on the basis of advice received from the Housing Service that planning permission for the fence was not required. It was difficult to differentiate between the front and back gardens in the Firhill area, and in this case the fence had been erected around the back garden, where the policy allowed for a greater height.  There was a wide pathway in the area and therefore the erection of the fence would not impact on public amenity or be more likely to attract crime along the footpath. As a compromise, further mediation should be undertaken with a view to the fence being lowered by approximately 12 to 18 inches.  She expressed concern that the costs associated with any appeal should be avoided, and advised that there were other fences of a similar height in the area.  

Mr M Rattray, one of the local Members, expressed support for continued mediation on this matter, expressing sympathy with the householder in respect of the advice they had received from the Council.

Further points raised in discussion related to a case in Thrumster where the Reporter had upheld an appeal against an enforcement notice served in connection with the height of a fence, the fact that the house was a private residence and that planning permission had never been granted for the fence, and the desirability of continued mediation to try to resolve the matter.

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager referred to the precedent which would be created and which could lead to the erection of high fences along the remainder of the footpath.  He advised that it was irrelevant whether the fence was in the back or front garden, and explained that a fence within 20m of a road or public right of passage must be restricted to a maximum height of 1m unless a higher fence had been approved in the original planning permission.  Elsewhere, a maximum height of 2m was permitted.. Referring to the case in Thrumster he confirmed that the Reporter had approved the height which had been agreed through mediation and not that which had been the subject of the enforcement notice.

Following further discussion Ms M Smith seconded by Mr M Rattray moved that consideration of this item be deferred to allow further mediation to be progressed, with a view to an acceptable compromise being agreed, in consultation with the local Members.

Mr R Coghill seconded by Mr G Smith moved as an amendment that enforcement action be pursued, in line with the recommendation contained in the report.

There being no further amendments, votes were cast by roll call as follows:

For the motion: Mr D Mackay, Mr G Farlow, Lady M Thurso, Mr J McGillivray, Mr M Rattray, and Ms M Smith.

For the amendment: Mr G Smith, Mr R Coghill, and Mr A Torrance.

Accordingly the motion to DEFER consideration of this item for the reasons stated above was carried by six votes to three and became the decision of the Committee.

6.     Unauthorised Development at 50 Kirkside, Alness

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-45-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager giving details of an unauthorised timber screen fence located at 50 Kirkside, Alness.  The report recommended that an Enforcement Notice be served requiring the fence to be either removed or reduced in height to no more than 1m above existing ground level, with a period of two months being allowed for the works to be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner, reported that since the preparation of the report a site visit had confirmed that the fence had been reduced to an acceptable height, and no longer required planning permission, and consequently there was no need to pursue enforcement action. 

The Committee NOTED the position.

7.     Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

The Committee noted the details of the following appeals:

(i) Erection of House and Improvement of Access at 2A Front Street, Inver for Stephen J Reid 08/00217/OUTSU – Appeal Dismissed.

8.    Schedule of Meetings

The Committee APPROVED the schedule of meetings for 2010, as follows;

• 26January
• 9 March
• 20 April
• 1 June
• 10 August
• 28 September
• 9 November
• 21 December

9.    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 Noon.