• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in the Duthac Centre, Shandwick Street, Tain on Tuesday 3 November 2009 at 10.30am.

Present
Mr D Mackay
Mr G Farlow
Mr W Fernie
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 M Finlayson
Ms M Smith

Officials in attendance:
Mr I Hargrave, Corporate Manager (Item 3.1)
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Dr C Clark, Head of Waste Management (Item 3.1)
Mr C Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner
Miss K McLeod, Principal Solicitor
Mr R Fraser, Environmental Health Officer (Item 3.1)
Miss L Mackenzie, Graduate Planner
Miss A Macrae, Administrator

Also in Attendance:
Dr A Duff, Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Ms C Chapman, Scottish Environment Protection Agency

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, Lady M Thurso, and Mrs C Wilson, all on other Council business.

2. Minutes of Meeting of 22 September 2009

The Minutes of Meeting held on 22 September 2009, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were approved, subject to the last sentence of bullet point 1, on Page 4 of Item 4.1, being amended to read ‘ It was not the Scottish Government’s policy to increase facilities for residual waste’

3.1 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 Munro Construction (Highland) Ltd 09/00254/FULSU

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

Note: Mr D Bremner and Mr W Ross arrived during consideration of the item and took no part in the discussion or determination of the application. 

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-46-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00254/FULSU to extend approved 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 Munro Construction (Highland) Ltd.

Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner, reported that the applicant had confirmed that the installation of new roller doors with appropriate fittings would ensure the building was sealed, and that confirmation had also been received from SEPA that the waste management licence for the site had been issued on 30 September 2009.  The reference within SPP10 ‘Planning for Waste Management Facilities’ to safeguarding distances were for guidance only, and other material considerations contained therein referred to the need for such facilities to be located within established communities and allocated industrial estates.  The guidance also referred to the case for consideration of a buffer zone of 250m from dwellings in respect of waste processing, and made no reference to waste transfer or handling as would be the case with the development.

The Principal Planner continued that in terms of the associated traffic impact, many of the lorries would access the site via the back road from Alness.   The applicant had undertaken landscaping works and it was recommended that a note be attached to any permission reflecting the need for the applicant to adhere to the conditions, including maintaining the landscaping and tidiness of the site.  In the event approval was granted she also recommended that Condition 7 detailed in the report be adjusted so that reference to ‘August 2009’ was deleted, and replaced with ‘as agreed with SEPA’.

Responding to questions from Members, the Head of Waste Management provided an update on the current position regarding the award of the Council’s contracts in relation to waste management, and confirmed the development at Evanton would handle waste from Easter Ross and Sutherland. He stressed that his role was that of service delivery and that controlling the waste transfer operation was the responsibility of SEPA and the Planning Authority.

Mr M Finlayson, one of the local Members, observed that there had been a vast improvement in the aesthetics of the site. He asked for clarification on the drainage arrangements, and particularly whether any leachate would be discharged into the Cromarty Firth.

Dr Alistair Duff, SEPA, advised that any discharge would be collected in a sealed sump and removed from the site.

Mr M Finlayson asked whether there were contingencies in place, to respond to the breakdown of plant which would, for example, control odours. Dr Duff advised that there were conditions attached to the licence relating to the maintenance of critical plant, and that a maintenance plan had been approved.  He stressed that in such circumstances no waste would be accepted until the plant was fully operational.

Responding to further questions, Dr Duff outlined the ongoing inspection regime that would be undertaken to monitor odours at the site.  Dr Duff also advised that a 72 hour time limit had been imposed on the length of time waste was held at the plant, and therefore it should not attract vermin but that the licence conditions required that regular checks be undertaken by a qualified pest control officer.

Responding to Ms M Smith, one of the local Members, Dr A Duff referred to the previous non compliance with the licence conditions and confirmed that the licence had been temporarily suspended due to odours which had arisen from the composting side of the business.  The operator had investigated the odour nuisance, which was found to be caused by a certain foodstuff being imported into the site, and once this ceased, there had been no further reports of such nuisance.  He also advised that the other matter of non compliance relating to the external storage of material had also been addressed, and therefore the operator was complying with the licence conditions.  Dr Duff also outlined enforcement powers available to SEPA, which included the ultimate sanction of withdrawal of the licence, and confirmed that he was confident the inspection regime would adequately monitor the operation and ensure compliance with the licence conditions, noting that the inspection reports were available for scrutiny on SEPA’s public register.

Mr M Rattray, one of the local Members, indicated that his main concern in relation to the application related to governance issues, noting that there had been a considerable improvement in the landscaping of the site, and expressing the view Members had a duty to local people to ensure the impact on their environment was investigated.

Dr A Duff explained that the frequency of SEPA’s inspections was based on the operator’s past performance and the perceived risk from the site.  Inspections were unannounced and if any complaints were received an inspector would be despatched to the site as soon as possible, particularly if the complaint related to odours which were transient in nature.  Therefore he was confident that the site would be monitored effectively. 

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager in response to Ms M Smith, advised that the Council’s waste strategy policy was not a material planning consideration and that the application should be considered on its merits.

Members also heard from Ms C Chapman indicating as a material consideration the application supported the national and area waste plans, and that SEPA had not objected on the basis that there was no practical alternative to exporting the waste to landfill sites outwith the Highlands.

During the subsequent discussion Members raised the following issues;

• Guidance was sought on the issues being discussed which were material to the planning application as opposed to the waste management licence. The Principal Planner explained that there was a crossover between the two, and that the conditions attached to any planning permission would cover storage and noise, while the potential nuisance from odours was controlled by SEPA through the licence application, stressing that the Council should not be attaching any conditions which were the responsibility of another body.

• Expressing concern as to how efficient the applicant would be in complying with the recommended conditions given the previous history of non compliance, observing that the Council did not have an enforcement officer, and that there continued to be external storage of waste on the site

• Seeking assurances that the landscaping of the site would be maintained, to ensure the site was screened from the A9.

• Seeking clarification on the tonnage of waste that would be handled at the site.  The Principal Planner clarified that household component equated to 30,000 tonnes, which represented a reduction from the original proposal of 50,000. 

• The site operating hours should be restricted to between 7am and 4pm on a Saturday as a condition of any permission, to minimise the impact on local amenity

• Reference was made to Government policy and targets regarding the move towards zero waste, and the view was expressed that to extend waste transfer facilities as proposed was contrary to national policy.  The Council had also signed up to the Government’s policy on zero waste, and reference was also made to the outcome detailed in the Single Outcome Agreement that carbon emissions be reduced. Therefore the Council should not continue to roll out more facilities for residual waste. Members had a duty to ensure that the conditions attached to the planning permissions for these operations were not flouted.

• Expressing disappointment that there was no planning gain arising from the development for the occupiers of the houses nearby to the development

• Expressing concern that the Council had again failed to meet its own and Government targets in relation to recycling, as reported to a recent meeting of the TEC Services Committee

• Whether the Planning Authority had given prior written approval for the external storage of materials on the site.  The Principal Planner reported that this had not been requested by the applicant, and that the materials currently being stored were solely for use in the construction of another building on the site.  The conditions attached to this and previous permissions would continue to be monitored and if the materials remained on site then appropriate enforcement action could be taken.

• Expressing concern that the trees planted as part of the landscaping scheme should be maintained as they matured.  The Principal Planner, advised that there were conditions attached to a previous permission which covered landscaping, and the submission of a tree management plan, which the applicant had to adhere to, and therefore there was no need to reattach this as a condition.

• There was sufficient capacity in Seater Landfill site to extend operations.  The Head of Waste Management reported that a waste transfer station would still be required, irrespective of whether there was additional capital investment in Seater, and reported that re-tendering process had provided an opportune time to resuscitate waste transfer facilities in Easter Ross, the waste currently being transported to Inverness.   He also indicated that Government targets provided for only 5% of waste to landfill sites by 2025, and that the extension of Seater was immaterial if only limited waste would be disposed of at landfill sites.

Thereafter Ms M Smith, one of the local Members sought clarification on the following matters;

• The proximity of the nearest houses to the development. The Principal Planner reported that the nearest houses were 50m from the boundary of the site.

• Whether it had been a condition of the Council’s contract that there had to be a waste transfer station located in Easter Ross. The Head of Waste Management confirmed that the contracts had been let on the basis that a waste transfer station be provided in Easter Ross.

• The applicant had not complied with previous planning conditions, and therefore how confident could the Committee be that these conditions could be physically enforced. The Principal Planner reported that the non compliance with conditions related to the landscaping and storage of materials on the site.  She acknowledged that the Council did not have an enforcement officer, but that she was mindful of the Committee’s concerns and undertook to make regular visits to the site. 

At this point the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager reminded Members that the past performance of the applicant was not a material consideration in relation to the application.

During further discussion, additional points raised included the following;

• Clarification was sought on the operational reasons for extending the operating hours on a Saturday, the view being that it would be harsh to restrict the operator to 4pm.  The Head of Waste Management clarified that the recycling centres in Inverness closed at 5pm, and there was a need to move waste and catch up on collection rounds after this time. He did not anticipate significant movements after 5pm, and the intention was to review the movement of traffic after this time after one year.

• Whether the development fitted in with the concept of working towards zero waste, given that it was associated recycling and composting.  The Head of Waste Management advised the contract for residual waste transfer was essentially an operational matter to dispose of the residual waste that was produced in the Highlands.

• Clarification was sought on whether the waste being handled at the plant was residual from the act of recycling.  The Head of Waste Management confirmed this to be the case.

• Discussion centred on the fact that the guidance contained in SPP10 referred to processing and not waste transfer or handling.  The Principal Planner confirmed this to be the case and advised that proximity was only one of the material considerations which should be taken into account, and that others in favour of the development related to the fact that the site was an established waste transfer station located in the heart of an industrial estate.

• Complaints had been received about the nuisance from flies, and concern was expressed that this could be an ongoing issue. Mr R Fraser, Environmental Health Officer advised that in terms of nuisance it was difficult to associate any nuisance from one place to another, and that pursuing enforcement action was therefore difficult. He advised that this was not a statutory nuisance, and a matter for SEPA to control through the licence conditions.  Dr A Duff referred to the specific licence condition regarding insects, and reported that one complaint had been received in this regard, but that the problem had been dealt with, with spraying being undertaken to ensure that the problem did not arise again.

• The fact that residual waste was anything the householder deposited into their waste bin, concern being expressed that the blue recycling bins had not as yet been rolled out to Wester Ross and areas of Sutherland.

• The application should be refused on the grounds that there should be no extension of residual waste facilities in the Highlands, in the context of the Government’s and the Council’s policy to move towards zero waste

• The best available technologies and techniques should be used to reinstate the site

• Stressing that the development was not a temporary proposal, albeit the Council’s contract was for three years, there could an extension to the contract

• The applicant had taken action to tidy up the site, and while mindful of public concerns, and the past track record of the operator this was not a material consideration.  The applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt, and therefore approval should be issued for a temporary period of three years after which the applicant would have to apply to renew the permission.

• The Planning Authority should give a clear steer to the applicant that the operation would be monitored closely, and that any breach of conditions would be reported to the Committee, and permission would be revoked if necessary

• The granting of a time limited permission would place pressure on the applicant to monitor the operation rather than the Planning Authority

• Expressing concern at the proximity of the houses to the development, and the fact that this should have been considered when the original permission was granted in 1996

• A condition of permission should be that the operating hours be restricted to 4pm on a Saturday.  Should a clear operational need for this be demonstrated then the applicant should reapply for an extension to the hours.

• The Planning Officer should not be expected to make frequent visits to the site, but rather six monthly or annual inspections with any breach of conditions being reported back to the Committee

• There should be the opportunity in any inspection regime for consultation between the various agencies involved, and it was suggested that six monthly meetings between SEPA, Planning Authority and TEC Services (Environmental Health) be organised to consider the operations

• Questions over the impact on the operation should an extension to hours on the Saturday not be granted.  The Head of Waste Management explained that the additional hours were required to deal with overflowing recycling bins in the Council’s recycling centres. 

• It was reasonable for recyclate to be taken to the site up to 7pm and the public in the Highlands should be encouraged to recycle as much as possible

• Insufficient information was available as to the impact on the business, should operations cease at 4pm on a Saturday, rather than 7pm as requested. This site was located within an industrial site and it was queried whether such a restriction should apply to other traffic movements associated with the site.

Following further discussion the Committee AGREED to grant the application for a time limited period of three years, after which the use of the site for this purpose would be subject to a new application, to ensure the planning conditions attached to the permission were met, and subject to the conditions detailed in the report, on the basis that (i) reference to ‘August 2009’ in Condition 7 be deleted and replaced with ‘as agreed with SEPA’, and (ii) an additional note to the applicant be added to the permission requiring that landscaping be maintained for the duration of the permission.

Mr M Finlayson and Ms M Smith left the meeting at this point. 

3.2 (i) Conversion of Ambassador House to 9 Apartments, and (ii) Conversion of Ambassador House to 9 Apartments, Demolition of Earl’s Cross Cottage, Erection of 4 Flats, 2 Semi-Detached Houses and 11 Detached Houses and Formation of New Access Road from Earls Cross Gardens, at Ambassador House/Earls Cross Hostel, Earls Cross Road, Dornoch for Global Construction 09/00362/LBCSU and 09/00363/FULSU

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-47-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the applications 09/00362/LBCSU and 09/00363/FULSU for the i) Conversion of Ambassador House to 9 Apartments, and (ii) Conversion of Ambassador House to 9 Apartments, Demolition of Earl’s Cross Cottage, Erection of 4 Flats, 2 Semi-Detached Houses and 11 Detached Houses and Formation of New Access Road from Earls Cross Gardens, at Ambassador House/Earls Cross Hostel, Earls Cross Road, Dornoch for Global Construction.

Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner, referred to the conditions detailed in the report and proposed two amendments, namely that Condition 5 be amended so that the last sentence read;  ‘For the avoidance of doubt, the developer shall undertake a full and detailed excavation, including all necessary conservation, post-excavation analysis and publication of results, prior to the commencement of any development on Plot 1’, and Condition 11 be adjusted to add the word ‘Consent’, after ‘Road Construction’.

Mr J McGillivray, one of the local Members, commented on the application as follows;

• Whether any hindrance existed in relation to the prior adoption of the road at Earls Cross Gardens. The Area Roads and Community Works Manager reported that modifications to the road would be necessary, but there were no issues that could not be overcome.

• The development was less concentrated than other developments in Dornoch, and that the issues raised in representation had been addressed in the report. 

• Referring to Scottish Water’s comments he advised that he was aware of concerns about water pressure in the area.  He also referred to the access route for construction traffic noting that this route was narrow with a particularly poor bend and whether any action could be taken to ameliorate any potential traffic problems during the construction period.  The Area Roads and Community Works Manager advised that this was a convoluted narrow road with a sharp bend, and that any such measures to assist the flow of traffic would be difficult to achieve.

• Whether it would be possible to impose a 20mph speed limit in the area, in the interests of child safety.  The Area Roads and Community Works Manager reported that he would have no objection to an advisory 20mph speed limit. 

• The development was one of a sequence of substantial developments in Dornoch, and in terms of amenity he referred to the lack of facilities in the town such as a sports hall, and sought the Committee’s support for such development.  

• Noting that there were no conditions for working hours during the construction process and requesting that the standard hours be applied as a condition.  

Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner, advised that it would be a condition of any permission that that the developer make a contribution to the provision of play facilities in the area, and confirmed that a standard condition could be added regarding working hours during the construction period.

The Principal Solicitor clarified that the road construction consent would adequately cover the completion of the road, while any damage to the road by construction traffic would be covered by a Section 75 Agreement and/or appropriate Bond.

Mr W Ross, one of the local Members, indicated that he was content with the development and that the issues raised in representations had been adequately covered.  He also expressed support for an advisory speed restriction to be displayed in the area.

During discussion a number of other points were raised as follows;

• The contribution being sought from the developer for the provision of play facilities was small in comparison to the scale of the development

• Whether conditions regarding permitted development rights could be used to control such matters as the erection of garages which may spoil the overall look of the site

• The applicant should be asked to provide details of the external finishes for the listed building

• The potential for renewable energy and sustainable heating systems should be investigated

Following further discussion the Committee AGREED to grant the application for planning permission and listed building consent, subject to (i) the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure an appropriate contribution for the provision of play facilities in the area, and covering any damage to the public road as a result of use by construction traffic, (ii) the application being referred to Scottish Ministers to allow them the opportunity to call in the application (iii) the conditions detailed in the report, subject to Condition 5 being amended so that the last sentence reads;  ‘For the avoidance of doubt, the developer shall undertake a full and detailed excavation, including all necessary conservation, post-excavation analysis and publication of results, prior to the commencement of any development on Plot 1’, and Condition 11 being adjusted to add the word ‘Consent’, after ‘Road Construction’, and (iv) an additional condition restricting construction activity on the site to the standard working hours i.e. Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm, Saturday 8am to 12 noon, and no working on Sundays or public holidays.  The Committee further AGREED that TEC Services investigate the opportunity for advisory speed limit signs to be displayed in the area.

3.3 Erection of House, Detached Garage, Installation of Oil Tank at Land 69m West of The Ha’, Dunnet for Mr Alan Henderson 09/00307/FULCA

There had been circulated Report PLC-48-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00307/FULCA  by Mr Alan Henderson for the erection of house, detached garage, installation of oil tank at land 60m west of The Ha’, Dunnet.

During discussion comments from the local Members expressed the following comments: disappointment at the design of the garage which it was claimed resembled that of an agricultural shed; concern that there could be run off from the fields to the lower end of the site, and observed that the fact that there were other agricultural buildings in the area which had more visual impact than the proposed garage. Concern was also expressed that Condition 8 detailed in the report should be met relating to the use of the garage for domestic purposes

The Committee AGREED to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

3.4 Erection of House, Installation of a Septic Tank and Soakaway, Installation of an Oil Tank, Upgrade of Existing Access and Alterations to an Existing Building at Land to North of Langlands House, Janetstown for Mr Mark Teale 09/00334/MSCCA

There had been circulated Report PLC-49-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00334/MSCCA for the erection of house, installation of a septic tank and soakaway, installation of an oil tank, upgrade of existing access and alterations to an existing building at land to north of Langlands House, Janetstown for Mr Mark Teale 09/00334/MSCCA.

The Committee AGREED to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to the amendment of condition 1 to relate to the statutory timescale for commencement of an approval of matters specified by condition.

3.5 Erection of 3 Houses, in Outline, at Land to East of Morven, Duncanshill, Weydale, Thurso for Mrs Fitzgerald 08/00426/OUTCA

There had been circulated Report PLC-50-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 08/00426/OUTCA for the erection of three houses, in outline, at land to the east of Morven, Duncanshill, Weydale, Thurso for Mrs Fitzgerald.

Responding to Mr R Coghill, one of the local Members, Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner confirmed that that the site extended to 0.33ha, and that the overall size of the field had been mapped at 0.62ha.  The plans provided by the applicant showed a turning head at the end of the adopted road, however TEC Services were asking for a turning space to be provided within the application site.

Mr D Bremner, one of the local Members, advised that this was a significant application and represented a test case for the hinterland of Thurso as to how to interpret the revised Policy H3 (Housing in the Countryside).  He stressed there was a need to promote economic and social regeneration in Caithness and that cognisance should be taken of this in determining the application and interpreting the policy.  Referring to the recommended reasons for refusal he expressed his opinion that;

• The development of three houses would not be significantly detrimental to the area, and did not represent overdevelopment

• One of the recommended reasons for refusing the application related to the fact that the development did not accurately reflect the existing and established spacing pattern of housing at Duncanshill.  However this was not the only settlement in Caithness which had mixed spacing, and the supplementary guidance advised that there should be flexibility in this regard

• The report stated that the development would be visually intrusive in the landscape, and would be detrimental to the characteristics, scenic quality and attributes of the next group of houses.  However this was a subjective matter, and he expressed the view that the development would not be so significantly detrimental as to merit refusal

• The application was a significant test case of Policy H3 in and around Thurso, and the special circumstances affecting Caithness and the need for regeneration should be considered in the interpretation of the policy

Responding to questions the Area Roads and Community Works Manager advised that the road was tarred and adopted, despite not being up to adoptable standard, (it was expected that an adopted road should be 3.3 m wide rather than the current width in this case of typically 2.4m).  He confirmed that the applicant would be expected to meet the cost of the required improvements as part of the road construction consent.

Additional comments from Members were as follows;

• The professional opinion in this case was that the application was contrary to Policy H3, and that the public and objectors had a right to expect the Committee to adhere to the relevant policies in this case

• A dangerous precedent would be created for the County and the interpretation of Policy H3 if the application was approved

• The prospect of more houses being built in the countryside was welcomed, albeit the roads issue had to be addressed

• The area should be developed in a more structured way, and expressing concern at the ad hoc development of communities

• While Policy H3 provided the opportunity for some appropriate development, where previously this had not been possible, reservations were expressed about the development, on the grounds that it did not reflect the scale or character of the area, and that other developments could come forward which would be acceptable.  Concern was also expressed at the quality of the plan which had been provided by the applicant

• Since the change in Policy, there had been no applications for housing development in and around Thurso, apart from the application before Members, and currently there was only one house advertised for sale in the area.  It was understood that the applicant had paid for a sewer connection in 2008, and that approval would effectively balance up the housing group on the site.  This was the first application for a self build property in and around Thurso for some time and the development would not be an eyesore, and should be approved.

Following further discussion Mr D Bremner seconded by Mr W Fernie moved that the application be granted on the grounds that the development plan meets the general terms of Policy H3, and supplementary guidance, and on the basis that the need for Policy H3 to be applied in the locality of Thurso had been demonstrated, subject to suspensive conditions to secure a connection to the main sewer and the required road improvements, and to conditions to be agreed by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager in consultation with the local Members to be submitted to the next meeting for approval.

Mr Robert Coghill seconded by Mr G Smith moved that the application be refused for the reasons stated 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, Mr W Fernie, and Mr D Bremner

For the amendment: Mr G Smith, Mr R Coghill, Mr J McGillivray, Mr W Ross, Mr Mr M Rattray, Mr R Durham and Mr A Torrance.

Accordingly the amendment to REFUSE the application was carried by seven votes to four and became the decision of the Committee.

4. Unauthorised Development at 13 Firhill, Alness

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recalled that at the meeting of the Committee on 22 September 2009 it had been agreed to defer consideration of an item relating to an unauthorised development at 13 Firhill, Alness to allow further mediation to be progressed, with a view to an acceptable compromise being agreed, in consultation with the local Members. He reported that a meeting was subsequently held on 6 October 2009 involving the householders at 13 and 14 Firhill, Planning and Housing officials and Councillor Maxine Smith.  It was agreed by all parties that the fence would be lowered to 1.25m in height and that the work would be organised and funded by Housing and Property Services.  It was also intimated to the owners of 13 Firhill that although a fence of the reduced height technically required planning permission, on the basis that it was not significantly higher than the 1m threshold up to which no planning permission would be needed, there was no road safety issue and the adjoining householder was now satisfied with the reduced height, the Council would not be pursuing such application.

The Committee NOTED that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved as a result of the agreed mediation.

5.    Delegated Decisions and Performance

Members were asked to note the undernoted delegated decisions made during the period from 19 August 2009 to 20 October 2009 :-

                         Approved Refused  % of all applications    % of all applications
                                                 determined in 2 months  determined in 2 months
                                                 during period                 since 01/01/09

Sutherland
& Easter Ross        89           1    66.29%                           69.52%

Caithness              58           2    75.00%                           73.45%

HighLand                                   59.17%                          58.63%

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager reported that a summary of the numbers of applications determined under delegated powers and the related performance in doing so will be reported to Committee on a regular basis for Members’ information, and advised that a brief commentary would be provided on trends.  He drew attention to the fact that despite the introduction of the new secondary legislation on 3 August, and the ongoing staffing issues in the Wick office which have resulted in officers from the Golspie office regularly assisting in Caithness, the Area’s performance continued to be above the Highland average.

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 2.00pm