• Agenda

Minute of the meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in the Duthac Centre, Shandwick Street, Tain on Tuesday, 28th September, 2010 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Durham
Mr G Farlow
Mr B Fernie
Mr D Mackay
Mr J McGillivray
Mr M Rattray
Mr I Ross
Mr G Smith
Lady M Thurso
Mr A Torrance

Non-Committee Members Present:

Mr A Rhind

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Ms S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner
Ms Lisa Mackenzie, Graduate Planner
Mr S Young, Principal Engineer, TECS
Mr R Fraser, Environment Health Officer, TECS
Mrs A MacArthur, Clerical Assistant

Mr Donnie Mackay in the Chair

Business

1. Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies were received from Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr R Rowantree and Mrs C Wilson. 

Mr J McGillivray declared a non-financial interest in item 5.3 as his brother was building a house in the immediate vicinity. 

It was also noted that Lady M Thurso, Mr I Ross and Mr A Rhind could not vote on Item 3.3 as they had not attended the previous meeting where the initial report had been presented and debated. 

2. Confirmation of Minutes

There had been circulated for confirmation the minute of the meeting of the Committee held on 10th August 2010.  The minute was held as read and approved.

3. Planning Applications

3.1 Applicant: Mr Paul Hart (10/02658/FUL) (PLC-035-10 (662kb pdf))
Location: Caledonian Hotel, Main Street, Portmahomack
Nature of Development: Change of Use of Caledonian Hotel into a Domestic Dwelling

Pursuant to Standing Order 13.2, Mr A Rhind had requested and been granted a local member vote for this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLC/035/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending the grant of planning permission subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The Principal Planner, Mr B Robertson, presented the report and recommendation.

During debate, Mr A Torrance commented that although the condition of the hotel was poor, the loss of the hotel to the village would be most regrettable.  He noted that the bedroom wing had been demolished in March of that year making the hotel less viable, but he considered it could still operate as a viable business by offering bar facilities, lunches and dinners. It had the potential to provide employment and be effective in supporting the community.   He felt the application could be refused on the basis that it did not accord with the sustainable objectives of the Structure Plan which included supporting the viability of communities and developing the local economy.  It was also contrary to policy G2 in that it would not contribute to the economic and social development of the community and would be detrimental to tourism.  The village needed this facility to encourage tourism to the area.

Mr R Durham commented that it was a difficult decision and wondered if a deferral to allow time to explore the possibility of a community buy out of the hotel would be merited. 

Mr A Rhind, commented that the Caledonian Hotel had played a prime part in tourism in the summer time for many years, attracting many visitors to the area.  He recognised that at the moment the economic situation was not good and a lot of licensed premises were going out of business as they were no longer viable.   The knocking down of the bedroom block had diminished the business but he hoped that someone would still be prepared to take on the hotel and turn it into a thriving business.   He also agreed with a three month deferral to give the owner of the hotel time to advertise the property for sale further.

Mr I Ross recognised the strength of local feeling opposing the loss of the hotel.  He also recognised that there was no policy basis on which to refuse the application.  He expressed support, however, for a deferral to see whether the hotel could be retained as a hotel.

Mr G Smith pointed out that the hotel had already been marketed as a hotel and there had been little interest.  A community buy out would take years and a three-month deferral would serve little purpose.

Mr R Durham agreed that three months was too little time for the community to get funding together, but it would give them time to explore the options available to them. 

The local ward members, Mr A Torrance, Mr A Rhind and Mr R Durham then sought a brief adjournment to discuss with the Clerk the wording of a motion to defer determination of the application.  Following the adjournment, the Clerk intimated that she had advised that deferral of the application could lead to an appeal against deemed refusal on grounds of non determination.  She advised that the local ward members nonetheless wished to make the following motion:

“Given the historical context the Caledonian Hotel has held within the community for the last century, together with the potential that its continuation would hold for the economic benefit of Portmahomack, the Committee should agree to defer determination of the application for three months to allow community and local member engagement with the owner to explore avenues which might allow the hotel to be retained in productive use.”

Mr G Smith moved as an amendment that planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation in the report.  The amendment received no seconder and accordingly fell.

The motion to DEFER determination of the application for the reason put forward by the local ward members accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

3.2 Applicant: Mr Jamie MacGregor (10/02996/PIP) (PLC-036-10 (1306kb pdf) )
Location: Land to the North of Balintore Hotel, East Street, Balintore
Nature of Development: Construction of Residential Housing (4 Detached Units)

Pursuant to Standing Order 13.2, Mr A Rhind had requested and been granted a local member vote for this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLC/036/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending the grant of planning permission subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr B Robertson presented the report and recommendation.

Mr R Durham commented that the Local Plan was prescriptive in requiring that  proposals for further infill housing in this area must take the pattern and design of the local fishertown housing into account. 

The four proposed units, however, would have no garden ground consistent with the settlement pattern.  Infill housing on the site was in principle acceptable but the application, though for planning permission in principle, specified that it was permission in principle for four units.  Mr Durham felt that four units would be an overdevelopment of the site not in keeping with the existing pattern in that part of Balintore. 

Mr A Torrance commented that the development was not feasible as it would erode the cemetery wall at the rear of the site.  A 25 metre buffer zone should be retained.

Mr R Durham, seconded by Mr A Rhind, moved that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

“1.  The application does not accord with Policy 1, Chapter 31 of the RACE Local Plan (2007) which allocates land for housing, as the proposed development is considered to be overdevelopment in that the 4 units proposed do not have a level of garden ground consistent with the pattern of the immediate area.   

2.  The application involved overdevelopment of the site in a form that represents poor layout at variance with local character and the prevailing settlement pattern and would create unacceptable residential amenity standards for the proposed houses and immediate neighbouring houses relative to the existing high amenity standards in the area surround the site, contrary to Highland Structure Plan policy G2.”

Mr Durham further specified that in the event that his motion were carried, the decision notice should contain an informative note stating that an application for a lower density of houses might be looked on more favourably. 

As an amendment, Mr G Smith, seconded by Mr B Fernie moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report. 

Votes were cast as follows:

For the motion (9):

Mr Richard Durham
Mr George Farlow
Mr Donnie MacKay
Mr Jim McGillivray
Mr Martin Rattray
Mr Ian Ross
Lady M Thurso
Mr Alan Torrance
Mr A Rhind

For the amendment (2):

Mr Bill Fernie
Mr Graeme Smith

Accordingly the motion to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated became the finding of the meeting.

3.3 Applicant: Crudie Farms (10/02384/FUL) (PLC-037-10 Part 1 (249kb pdf)  |  PLC-037-10 Part 2 (1890kb pdf))
Location: Land 325 m South West of Arabella Car Park, Arabella
Nature of Development: Erection of Potato Storage Building and Weighbridge and Formation of Access Road and Concrete Aprons

Mr J McGillivray had earlier declared an interest in this application and accordingly left the meeting for the duration of this item.

The Clerk advised that Mr A Rhind had initially requested a local member vote on this item under Standing Order 13.2 but as he had not attended the previous meeting when the Committee first considered the application he was not entitled to a vote.  At the Chairman’s discretion, however, he wished to exercise the right under Standing Order 13.1 to address the meeting without a vote. 

There had been re-circulated the original report by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager to the Committee on 10 August 2010 recommending the grant of planning permission subject to the conditions detailed therein.  A follow-up Report No. PLC/037/10 had also been circulated presenting the further information provided by the applicant which had been requested by the Committee at that meeting.

Mr B Robertson presented the follow-up report highlighting the further information submitted by the applicant in relation to noise impact assessment, hours of operation, external lighting and site selection, and the further clarification provided by TEC Services in relation to noise and roads issues.  He advised that the recommendation remained that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the original report but with the two additional conditions which were recommended in the follow-up report relating to lighting and noise.  It was further recommended that condition 8 in the original report be amended to read “Outwith any harvesting or planting period there shall be no overnight parking or storage of HGVs, tractors, trailers or other agricultural machinery on the hardstanding areas outside of the building.”.  In addition, the third and fourth sentences in condition 9 in the original report should be deleted on the advice of TEC Services as the relocation of the weight limit sign was deemed unnecessary.

Mr A Rhind advised that while, as a local ward member, he was happy to see any business that provided new jobs in the area, he felt that that what was proposed by the applicant was a building which would be visually obtrusive from all angles and which would ruin the ambience of the small village of Arabella.  Although business was welcomed there were other sites where a potato store of this scale could be better accommodated.

Mr Rhind then left the meeting.

Mr A Torrance agreed that the development would be a complete intrusion on the character of the village and would spoil the amenity of residents.

Mr G Smith asked that, if the Committee were minded to grant planning permission, condition 8 be adjusted to add provision that any stacks of pallets stored outside the building be no higher than the eaves of the building. 

Mr G Farlow felt the development would lead to unnecessary and permanent loss of good quality agricultural land. 

Mr R Durham commented that while he was wholly supportive of this type of facility in the area, there were other more appropriate sites where the development would be less visually intrusive, particularly at Fearn airfield.  The applicant had looked at Fearn airfield but had advised that as it was zoned for industrial use they “were not allowed to use it”.  Mr Durham suspected that, in reality, the applicant did not wish to locate the facility at Fearn airfield as, given that it was zoned for industrial use, it would be subject to business rates which would probably make the project unviable. 

Mr G Farlow indicated that he wished to make a motion to refuse planning permission and sought an adjournment to seek advice from the Clerk on the wording of his proposed reasons for refusal.  Mr A Torrance indicated likewise.

Following the adjournment, Mr G Farlow, seconded by Mr A Torrance, moved refusal for the following reasons:

“1.  The application is contrary to Structure Plan policy A1 in that it would cause the permanent loss of high quality agricultural land and it has not been established that the development is essential to the interests of the local community and that no reasonable alternative location is feasible.

2.  The development would be significantly detrimental in terms of Structure Plan policy G2 in that it would be visually highly intrusive by reason of its scale in an otherwise open area of landscape and therefore does not demonstrate sensitive siting.”

As an amendment, Mr G Smith, seconded by Mr B Fernie moved that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report with the additions and amendments explained by Mr Robertson and with provision in condition 8 limiting the height of outdoor pallet stacks to no higher than the eaves of the building. 

Votes were cast as follows:

For the motion (4):

Mr Richard Durham
Mr George Farlow
Mr Martin Rattray
Mr Alan Torrance

For the amendment (3):

Mr Bill Fernie
Mr Donnie MacKay
Mr Graeme Smith 

Accordingly the motion to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated became the finding of the meeting.

3.4 Applicant: Mr John Innes (10/02688/FUL) (PLC-038-10 Part 1 (360kb pdf)  |  PLC-038-10 Part 2 (166kb pdf) )

Location: 1 Bank Lane, Alness
Nature of Development: Continued Temporary Siting of Storage Container

There had been circulated Report No PLC/038/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of planning permission for the reasons detailed therein.

The Principal Planner, Mrs D Stott, presented the report and recommendation.

Following debate, the Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the recommendation and further agreed to authorise Enforcement Action to secure removal of the container if it were not removed within three months of the date of the decision notice.

3.5 Applicant: Miss Alice Morgan (10/01838/LBC) (PLC-039-10 Part 1 (290kb pdf)  |  PLC-039-10 Part 2 (643kb pdf))
Location: 1 Shandwick Street, Tain
Nature of Development: Replacement Windows – Double Glazing 

There had been circulated Report No PLC/039/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of listed building consent for the reasons detailed therein.

The Planning Officer, Ms L MacKenzie, presented the report and recommendation.

Following debate, Mr B Fernie, seconded by Mr G Farlow, moved that the listed building consent be granted on the basis that the proposed style of replacement windows would look perfectly acceptable.

As an amendment, Mr R Durham, seconded by Mr A Torrance moved that listed building consent be refused for the reasons stated in the report. 

Votes were cast as follows:

For the motion (6):

Mr George Farlow
Mr Bill Fernie
Mr Donnie MacKay
Mr Jim McGillivray
Mr Martin Rattray
Lady M Thurso

For the amendment (4):

Mr Richard Durham
Mr Ian Ross
Mr Graeme Smith
Mr Alan Torrance

Accordingly the motion to GRANT listed building consent became the finding of the meeting.

4. Decisions on Appeals to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

Erection of House and Improvement of Existing Access at Land 100 metres North West of Greenacres, Portmahomack, Tain, IV20 1RD by Allan Summers  Appeal Decision - 10/01448/MSC (53kb pdf)

The Committee noted that the appeal had been allowed. 

5. Delegated Decisions and Performance

The Committee noted the undernoted list of delegated decisions on planning applications from 1 August to 17 September 2010 which was available on the Members’ Bulletin and via The Highland Council website. 

Caithness:

Number of applications determined in two months: 56
Number of applications refused: 0
Percentage of all applications determined in two months:  62.50%
Percentage of applications determined in two months since 1 January 2010:  65.19%

Sutherland & Easter Ross:

Number of applications determined in two months:  73
Number of applications refused:  2
Percentage of all applications determined in two months:  80.00%
Percentage of applications determined in two months since 1 January 2010:  73.09%

CSER Total:

Number of applications determined in two months:  129
Number of applications refused:  2
Percentage of all applications determined in two months:  72.52%
Percentage of applications determined in two months since 1 January 2010:  69.80%

Highland:

Percentage of applications determined in two months since 1 January 2010:  60.32%

6.   Committee Meeting Dates for 2011

The Committee noted the undernoted dates which had been arranged for meetings of the Committee in 2011:

1 February
15 March
26 April
7 June
2 August
13 September
25 October
13 December

There being no further business the meeting closed at 1.15 pm.