• 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, 21st December 2010 at 10.30 am.

 

Committee Members Present

 

Mr D Mackay

Mr J McGillivray

Mr I Ross

Mr G Smith

 

Non-Committee Members Present:

 

Mr M Finlayson (Items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3)

Mrs M Smith (Items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3) 

 

Officials in attendance:

 

Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager

Ms S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)

Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner

Mr Campbell Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager, 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 David Bremner, Mr Rob Coghill, Mr Richard Durham, Mr George Farlow, Mr Bill Fernie, Mr Martin Rattray, Mr Robbie Rowantree, Lady Marion Thurso, Mr Alan Torrance and Mrs Carolyn Wilson.

 

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

 

There had been circulated for confirmation the minutes of the Committee meetings held on 9th November and 16th November 2010.  The minutes were held as read and approved.

 

3.      Planning Applications

 

3.1 Applicant: Ms Fiona Scott and Mr William Beattie (10/02884/PIP) (PLC/052/10)

Location: Site 1 Fox Farm Woodland, Ardross

Nature of Development: Erection of House and Installation of Sewage System

 

Mr Mike Finlayson and Mrs Maxine Smith had requested and been granted local member votes for this item pursuant to Standing Order 13.2.

 

There had been circulated Report No PLC/052/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending the grant of planning permission subject to the conditions detailed therein.  For the reasons set out in the Report, the Committee was also invited to agree to the discharge of the existing section 75 agreement which currently prevented further development over the applicants’ landholding.

 

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, Mr Allan Todd, presented the report and recommendation.

 

The Committee agreed the recommendation to grant planning permission in principle subject to the conditions recommended in the report.  The Committee further agreed that the existing section 75 agreement should be discharged as recommended.

 

3.2 Applicant: Highland Homeless Trust (10/03344/FUL and 10/03346/LBC) (PLC/053/10)

Location: The Sutor Inn, High Street, Invergordon

Nature of Development: Conversion of Residential Premises Above Former Pub to Three Flats

 

Mr Mike Finlayson and Mrs Maxine Smith had requested and been granted local member votes for this item pursuant to Standing Order 13.2.

 

There had been circulated Report No PLC/053/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending the grant of planning permission subject to the conditions detailed therein.

 

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, Mr Allan Todd, presented the report and recommendation.

 

Mrs Maxine Smith expressed concern that more and more listed buildings on Invergordon High Street were being broken up and converted into flats.   She was disappointed that the Conservation Officer had no objection to the application given that at paragraph 5.2 of the Report it was stated that the proposal would involve breaking through the front elevation to form extract vents.  Internal walls were also to be knocked down.  A floating ceiling was to be erected under the cornices leaving the cornices intact, but once the floating ceiling was in place it would remain in place forever and the cornices would be as good as gone.   The Archaeology Unit had requested that a photographic record was kept but this was not enough.   Mrs Smith indicated that she would, on these grounds, propose refusal of the two applications and, if the application were approved, she would be writing with her objections to Historic Scotland. 

 

Mr Todd advised that the Conservation Officer’s comments at paragraph 5.2 were in response to the original application.  This had been amended to meet the Conservation Officer’s concerns and no longer included a proposal to take extract vents through the front elevation.  Although the suspended ceiling would hide the cornices from view they would still be there and would be undamaged.  The building would not be altered in such a way that the alterations could not be reversed. 

 

Mrs Smith expressed concern that if these changes were made they would be permanent and the building would never revert back to its original condition. 

 

Mr Ian Ross queried whether the previous listed building consent had been for similar alterations to the building and Mr Todd confirmed that this was the case.

 

Mr Michael Finlayson would have preferred if the house could have been kept as a single unit and not split up into flats as it was a beautiful house.  There were few houses on the High Street still in this condition and it was unlikely that once it was converted it would ever revert back.  He was not unsympathetic, however, to the need for flats. 

 

Mrs Maxine Smith informed the Committee that although not a planning issue there were already 56 flats on the High Street and proposals for more than 50 flats on Joss Street and she disagreed with the need for more flats in the High Street area. 

 

Mr Donnie MacKay agreed with the recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent as it was an opportunity to see an old building brought back into use and there was a need for housing for young people. 

 

Mr Ian Ross agreed that it was preferable to see a building brought back into use and not left to decline any further. 

 

Mr Donnie MacKay, seconded by Mr Ian Ross, then moved that planning permission and listed building consent be granted in accordance with the recommendation.

 

As an amendment, Mrs Maxine Smith, seconded by Mr Michael Finlayson, moved that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the listed building. 

 

Before proceeding to a vote, Mr Graeme Smith sought clarification of the extent to which this application differed from the previous application which had been approved.  Mr Todd advised that the two applications were very similar.  Both were for 3 flats and principally involved internal alterations.

 

Votes were cast as follows:

 

For the motion (4):

 

Mr Donnie MacKay

Mr Jim McGillivray

Mr Ian Ross

Mr Graeme Smith

 

For the amendment (2):

 

Mrs Maxine Smith

Mr Michael Finlayson

 

Accordingly the motion to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to the prior referral of the application for listed building consent to Historic Scotland became the finding of the meeting.

 

3.3 Applicant: Mrs H Cook (09/00511/FULSU) (PLC/054/10)

Location: The Old Orchard, Skiach, Evanton

Nature of Development: Removal of Condition (2) Attached to Permission 04/00460/OUTRC and Condition (1) Attached to Permission 07/00576/REMRC

 

Mr Mike Finlayson and Mrs Maxine Smith had requested and been granted local member votes for this item pursuant to Standing Order 13.2.

 

There had been circulated Report No PLC/054/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending the refusal of planning permission for the reasons detailed therein.

 

The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, Mr Allan Todd, presented the report and recommendation that the conditions, which required the formation of a common turning area within the site, be retained.  He advised that while TEC Services did not object to deletion of the requirement for a turning area, this was on the basis that it was an unadopted road and TEC Services therefore had no remit.  If it had been an adopted road, they would be insisting that a turning area was required.

 

Mr Todd advised that within the site, the turning area could be separated from the remainder of the site to distinguish between the public and private areas.  Alternatively, it might be possible to create a turning area outwith the site but within the applicant’s landholding on the other side of the lane. 

 

Mr Mike Finlayson advised the Committee that this was a difficult situation involving a neighbour dispute.  He was sure of the need for a turning area although he did also feel sympathy for the applicant as it was right at his front door.  A turning area or passing place in the area of land on the other side of the road which was also in the applicant’s ownership would be preferable.

 

The Clerk pointed out that as this was an application under section 42, the committee’s powers were not limited to deletion or retention of the conditions.  They also had power to vary the conditions. 

 

Following discussion Mr Todd stated that this property had been granted planning permission without a requirement to bring the road up to adoptive standards but instead with the condition that the applicant construct a turning area as it was a single track road and vehicles had problems turning after visiting properties.  If there were no turning area all heavy goods vehicles would have to reverse out of the single track road which was not considered acceptable. 

 

The Area Roads and Community Works Manager, Mr Campbell Stewart, advised that if the road had been an adopted one, TEC Services would have required the formation of a turning area at the end of the road to accommodate a refuse truck and further works such as a serviced layby.  These works would have cost up to £50,000.  If the Committee was minded, however, to vary the conditions to require formation of a turning area on the other side of the road within the applicant’s landholding, TEC Services would be looking for a manoeuvring area with a depth of 6 metres.  He considered they could probably achieve that depth but this would need to be confirmed. 

 

Following discussion it was agreed that while members considered that a turning area was required and that a condition to that effect must be retained, they would defer determination of the application to allow the local ward members and planning officer, with advice from TEC Services, to discuss with the applicant the feasibility of creating a turning area within their landholding, on the opposite side of the road from the house site.  

 

3.4 Applicant: Ben Loyal Estate (10/04149/PIP, 10/04159/PIP and 10/04161/PIP) (PLC/055/10)

Location: 3 No House Sites to South of Tongue Village

Nature of Development: (1) 10/04149/PIP Erection of a Single Dwelling House (Plot 2) at Land 70m South of Fir Chlis, Tongue – Middle Site, (2) 10/04159/PIP Erection of a Single Dwelling House (Plot 3) at Land 125 m North East of Aquila Cottage, Tongue – Northern Site and (3) 10/04161/PIP Erection of a Single Dwelling House (Plot 1) at Land 150 m South of Fir Chlis, Tongue – Southern Site 

 

There had been circulated Report No PLC/055/10 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending, in respect of each application, the grant of planning permission in principle subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

 

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

 

Mr Ian Ross stated that the applications were in harmony with the recently adopted local plan and reflected the existing housing pattern.   However, he felt that a condition regarding construction times should be considered to reflect the concerns of people in the local area.

 

The Committee then agreed the recommendation, in respect of each application, to grant planning permission in principle subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional condition to restrict construction to times to be determined by the planning officer.  

 

5.      Delegated Decisions and Performance

 

The Committee noted the list of delegated decisions on planning applications from 30 October to 9 December 2010 which was available on the Members’ Bulletin and via The Highland Council website. 

 

 

There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.55 pm.