Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in the Assembly Rooms, Sinclair Terrace, Wick on Tuesday 8 December 2009 at 10.30am.

Present:
Mr D Mackay
Lady M Thurso
Mr G Smith
Mr D Bremner
Mr R Coghill
Mr J McGillivray
Mr M Rattray
Mr R Durham
Mr A Torrance
Non-Members also present:
Mr M Finlayson
Mr W Mackay
Mr J Rosie
Ms M Smith

Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr C Ratter. Area Environmental Health Manager
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Miss K McLeod, Principal Solicitor
Mr P Adams, Solicitor
Miss L Mackenzie, Graduate 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 G Farlow, Mr W Fernie, Mr W Ross, and Mr R Rowantree, all on other Council business

2. Minutes of Meeting of 3 November 2009

The Minutes of Meeting held on 3 November 2009, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were approved.

3. New Appeals to Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

(a) 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

The Principal Solicitor reported that notification had been received of receipt of an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the above development, and that the Appellants had indicated a wish that the appeal be determined under the written submissions procedure.  As the Committee decision was taken contrary to recommendation, it would be for Members to decide which procedure they wished be requested for determination of the appeal.  The options were written submissions, a Hearing or a Public Local Inquiry.

Ms M Smith, one of the local Members, advised that the application had  been the subject of a long debate by the Committee, at which a large number of objectors had been in attendance, following which the application had been refused.  Given the strength of feeling in Invergordon against the proposal, and the number of objections lodged in response to the application, she requested that the appeal be dealt with by way of a Public Local Inquiry.  Mr M Rattray, one of the local Members, concurred with this view and expressed his support for a Public Local Inquiry.

Following further discussion the Committee AGREED to request that the appeal be dealt with by way of a Public Local Inquiry.

Mr M Finlayson and Mr M Rattray both left the meeting at this point.

(b) Erection of 5 Wind Turbines, 60m High to Hub, Formation of Access Road and Associated Infrastructure, Construction Compound and Electrical Control Building (In Detail) and Formation of Visitor Centre Comprising of Fishing Lochan with Enclosed Crannog Style Centre, Archaeological Trail and Woodland Walk (In Outline) at Land to the North of Broubster Cottage, West Shebster, Thurso 05/00594/FULCA

The Principal Solicitor reported that that notification had been received of receipt of an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the above development, and that the Appellants had indicated a wish that the appeal be determined following the holding of a formal inquiry session.  As the Committee decision was taken contrary to recommendation, it would be for Members to decide which procedure they wished be requested for determination of the appeal.  The options were written submissions, a Hearing or a Public Local Inquiry.

Mr D Bremner, one of the local Members, expressed his concern that written submissions would result in the applicant having the final response to the Reporter, and acknowledged that while some of the issues could be better dealt with at a Hearing, this route may prohibit a full case being put forward, and therefore that Members should request that the appeal be considered at a Public Local Inquiry.

One of the local Members, Mr R Coghill questioned whether a Public Local Inquiry was warranted in this case, and whether a Hearing would be sufficient noting that the Reporter would be in possession of all the facts in relation to the application, but that he would be content with a Public Local Inquiry if that was the consensus view.

Following further discussion the Committee AGREED to request that the appeal be dealt with by way of a Public Local Inquiry.

3.1 Erection of 2 No. Chicken Farm Buildings and Feed Silos, Formation of Vehicular Access at Land at Shore Park, Latheronwheel for City Centre Estates (Leisure) Ltd 09/00200/FULCA

Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted a local Member vote in relation to this application.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-53-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 09/00200/FULCA for the erection of 2 no. chicken farm buildings and feed silos, formation of vehicular access at land at Shore Park, Latheronwheel for City Centre Estates (Leisure) Ltd.

Mr D Bremner, one of the local Members, expressed his opinion that in addition to recognising the impact of the development on archaeological monuments in the area, policy T6 and the impact on scenic views and the adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area, should also be considered as a reason for refusal, the impact of the proposed development on the attractive seascape in the area, Latheronwheel being one of the most photographed and painted villages in Caithness. Screening of the site was also an important factor in relation to both the local and visitor appreciation of the landscape, and he pointed out that tree cover would not be constant over the calendar year. 

Mr W Mackay, one of the local Members, expressed concern at the impact the development would have on visual amenity and on the archaeology in the area, and while he welcomed investment in farming, he opined that the proposed site was not located in an appropriate setting for a development of the scale proposed. Additional evidence was required as to how any nuisance associated with rats and other vermin would be controlled.  The development would have a significant visual impact on a rural open setting, and impact on the integrity of the landscape.  There was increased public interest in archaeology and the preservation of historic monuments and this was a significant material consideration in relation to the application. He referred to the representations received and the fact that the development had caused alarm locally, and he recommended that the application be refused.

Mr R Coghill, one of the local Members, agreed that more emphasis should be placed on the impact on local residents, and while the village was set below the skyline, there were open views while travelling to the north and south.  The village was situated in line with the prevailing wind, and therefore odour nuisance could be a problem for local residents, and the presence of livestock in flash flood conditions may also result in run off into the local burn.  He advised that the application represented a worthwhile development but was located in the wrong place. 

The Area Environmental Health Manager reported that he did not anticipate any noise nuisance to arise from the poultry, or ventilation/extraction systems, and that if the applicant adhered to the management plan then odours would also be controlled. Professional pest control services would be used to control vermin, and if any nuisance arose then there was legislation in place to address the problem.

Further comments from Mr G Smith referred to a similar smaller scale development in Clyth, in close proximity to houses, which operated without any problems having being reported.  However the protection of scheduled monuments was a material consideration and therefore, on balance, he supported the recommendation to refuse the application.  He also expressed the view that refusal should be for the reasons stated in the report, expressing the view that an additional reason based on the impact on the amenity of the village would not stand up in any appeal.

Mr D Bremner seconded by Mr R Coghill moved refusal of the application for the reasons stated in the report, subject to the inclusion of an additional reason that the proposal did not accord with Highland Structure Plan policy G2 Design for Sustainability as the development of the site was considered to have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of the village of Latheronwheel, and it did not accord with Highland Structure Plan policy T6 Scenic Views as approval of the development would not protect the important scenic views enjoyed from the A9(T) tourist route towards the open water of the North Sea.

Mr G Smith seconded by Mr J McGillivray moved as an amendment 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, Lady M Thurso, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance, Mr W Mackay

For the amendment: Mr G Smith, Mr J McGillivray.

Accordingly the motion to REFUSE the application for the reasons stated above was carried by seven votes to two and became the decision of the Committee.

3.2 Re-Roofing Part of Building at Invergordon Academy, Academy Road, Invergordon for The Highland Council 09/00421/FULSU

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-51-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00421/FULSU for the re-roofing of part of the building at Invergordon Academy, Academy Road, Invergordon

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

3.3 Erection of Single House and Detached Garage, with Private Foul Drainage and New Private Access at Land West of Torvaig, Lamington for CLC Highland Ltd 09/00409/FULSU

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-52-09  by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 09/00409/FULSU for the erection of single house and detached garage with private foul drainage and new private access at land west of Torvaig, Lamington for CLC Highland Ltd.

The Principal Planner reported that a late representation had been received, signed by three separate parties who had previously objected, re-iterating the points raised in their original representations.

Mr R Durham, one of the local Members, expressed concern at the potential for overdevelopment in this area, and the fact that a new village would effectively be created if an increase in the density of housing was permitted.  He outlined his support for the recommendation to approve the application for a single house in this case, but that approval should be subject to a Section 75 Agreement restricting any further development on the site.

The Principal Solicitor advised that while it would be appropriate to attach a Section 75 Agreement to restrict or regulate the use of land if Members were so minded, she was concerned that this had not as yet been raised with the applicant whose agreement would be required, and therefore it would be useful to obtain the applicant’s view on the proposal in the first instance.

One of the local Members, Mr A Torrance, cautioned that overdevelopment in the area was a serious issue, noting that an application for three houses in the vicinity had been refused and was now the subject of an appeal. He expressed concern at the cumulative impact of a number of applications currently approved, pending or subject to appeal.  He was also not convinced that the application should be determined before the outcome of the above appeal was known, and while the Committee had previously indicated that it was minded to grant an application for a single house, he had not supported this decision.  In terms of the Council’s policy he understood that any proposal to develop housing on croft land outwith the settlement boundary was considered taboo, however in this case the development was partially located outwith the lines of settlement boundary and was being recommended for approval.  The site was also the last croft to be worked in the area, and he also expressed disappointment at the proposed design of the house. 

Following further discussion, Mr A Torrance moved that the application be refused, but on failing to find a seconder the motion fell.

Thereafter the Committee AGREED to indicate that it was minded to approve the application, subject to a Section 75 Agreement to restrict any further development on the site, and that on this basis the application be deferred meantime to allow further discussions to be held with the applicant in this regard. Additionally the Committee AGREED that if the applicant was not willing to enter into a legal agreement then the application be reported back to Committee for consideration.

Ms M Smith left the meeting at this point.

3.4 Demolition of Former Fish Smoking Kiln and Construction of 4 No. Residential  Units (Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent) at the Kiln, Shore Street, Thurso for L.R.M. Services Ltd 09/00258/LBCCA

Mr J Rosie had requested and been granted a local Member vote in relation to this application. 

There had been circulated Report No. PLC- 54-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 09/00258/LBCCA for the demolition of former fish smoking kiln and construction of former fish smoking kiln and construction of 4 no. residential units (planning permission and listed building consent) for L.R.M Services Ltd.

Mr G Smith and Mr A Torrance declared a non financial interest in this item on the grounds that they were Council representatives on the Highland Buildings Preservations Trust, and given the potential for the Trust to become involved in any future discussions on the re-use of the property.

Lady M Thurso, one of the local Members, observed that the building had increasingly become an eyesore, and that the proposed development would improve this area of Thurso.  However she cautioned that the building represented one of the last examples of its kind, and therefore it should not be demolished without a full feasibility study being undertaken, in line with the comments received from Historic Scotland and the Council’s Conservation Officer.

Mr J Rosie, one of the local Members, indicated that he was in favour of retaining ancient buildings and putting them to reasonable use.  However in this case the reports from the stonemason and structural engineer concluded that the building was in a poor state of repair.  He reported that the building had deteriorated badly over the last fifteen years, and that its repair and re-use would not be economically viable.  Thurso Town Hall had recently been refurbished, and provided adequate facilities for tourism and visitors.  He advised that the Council’s Archaeologist had commented that the building was in a dangerous condition, and that in addition to the land there could be contamination issues within the walls and roof, and he therefore questioned any future public use. The design of the proposed residential units was sympathetic to the design of the listed building, and in summary he suggested that it could take years for another proposal to come forward for its repair and re-use, and there was a risk that ultimately no schemes would come to fruition, and therefore the building should be demolished, and redeveloped for residential purposes.

The Chairman, one of the local Members, stated that the building had been an eyesore for many years and that the development should be welcomed as it would bring much needed housing to Thurso.

Further comments from Members related to the fact that in the current economic climate, the building would not be repaired and re-used and questions existed over what feasible end use could be found for the property, and the fact that there was no suggestion from Historic Scotland that it would back up its comments with financial support.

The Committee AGREED to grant the application, subject to conditions to be framed by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, and prior notification of the application to Historic Scotland, on the grounds that (i) the owner of the property had already sought to find an alternative use for the property over a considerable period of time and therefore a replacement use should be agreed without further delay, (ii) the conversion of the building to the uses suggested would not be feasible or economically viable, and any further delay would increase the risk of the building collapsing, and (iii) the development was sympathetic to the area and represented a good attempt to replicate what was on the site.     

Mr J Rosie left the meeting at this point.

3.5  Establish Principle of Building a House on the Site at House Plot, South of Pond at Achow Hill, Lybster for Mr and Mrs Guest 09/00373/PIPCA

Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted a local Member vote in relation to  this application.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-55-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00373/PIPCA to establish the principle of building of a house on the site at house plot, South of Pond at Achow Hill, Lybster for Mr and Mrs Guest.

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

3.6 Formation of Wildlife Pond at Land to West of Raggra Farm, Thrumster,   Wick  for Islay J W Macleod 08/00528/FULCA

Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted a local Member vote in relation to this application.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-56-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 08/00528/FULCA for the formation of wildlife pond at land to West of Raggra Farm, Thrumster, Wick for Islay J W Macleod.

Mr W Mackay, one of the local Members, stated that the site was suitable for a wildlife pond and observed that as there would only a limited number of shoots over a period of five months, there would not be any significant impact associated with the development.

Responding to one of the local Members, Mr D Bremner, the Graduate Planner confirmed that the Access Officer had not been consulted and there were no access issues associated with the development. 

Mr D Bremner expressed his disappointment that the development had proceeded to its current stage without planning permission being in place.

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

4. Delegated Decisions and Performance

Members noted the undernoted delegated decisions made during the period from 21 October 2009 to 27 November 2009, as follows:-

                                        Approved    Refused    % of all          % of all

                                                                        applications     applications

                                                                        determined   determined

                                                                        within 2        within 2

                                                                        months in      months in

                                                                        period           2009

Caithness                                 36           1          86.49%       76.79%

Sutherland & Easter Ross           47            0         68.09%       71.19%

Highland                                                            67.24%       63.77%

Members noted that performance was being maintained.

5. 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 12.35pm.