Agendas, reports and minutes

 

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee commenced at 10.30 am in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 19 August 2014.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mrs C Caddick (as Substitute for Mr J Crawford)
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr A Duffy (except Item 5.1)
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr C Macaulay
Mr T MacLennan
Mr T Prag (except Item 5.1)
Ms J Slater
Mr H Wood (except Item 5.1)

Non- Committee Members Present:

Mrs E McAllister (Item 6.4)
Mr K Gowans (Item 6.7)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Mr J Bromham, Aquaculture Development Officer
Mr P Adams, Solicitor Planning
Ms J Mair, Planning Enforcement Officer
Mr M MacLeod, Head of Planning and Development
Mr R Fraser, Environmental Health
Mr J Danby, Principal Engineer
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mrs P Bangor-Jones, Administrative Assistant

Business

1.  Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies were received from Mr J Crawford, Mr J Ford and Mr F Parr.

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.1 – Mr T Prag - non-financial
Item 5.1 – Mr B Lobban - non-financial
Item 5.1 – Mr D Fallows - non-financial

3.  Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation the minute of the Committee meeting held on 24 June 2014 which was APPROVED.

4.  Major Applications

There had been circulated Report No. PLS/054/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category, currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:  

• with regard to Thornbush Quay, additional work was required by the applicant to put forward a competent application; and
• with regard to the non-food retail development on land to the rear of Inverness Retail and Business Park, it was explained that after long negotiations the applicant had to date not signed the Section 75. It was further confirmed that, if the Section 75 was not signed off, the application would come forward to the September Committee meeting to seek refusal.  

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to NOTE the current position.

5.  Continued Items
Cuspairean a' Leantain

5.1
Applicant: RWE Innogy UK Limited (13/02441/FUL) (PLS/048/14)
Location: 6km West of Findhorn Bridge, Glen Kyllachy, by Tomatin (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Wind farm (50MW) consisting of 20 turbines, 110m maximum height to blade tip, associated infrastructure, access tracks and 3 borrow pits.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item having had dealings with the landowner in relation to charitable works and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban each declared a non-financial interest in this item as Board Members of the Cairngorms National Park Authority Board.  They confirmed, however, that they had not participated in, or been present during, the CNPA’s decision to comment on this application and that accordingly, in accordance with the terms of the Specific Exclusion for CNPA membership provided in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, they would take part in the deliberation and determination of this item.

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/048/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

A site visit had taken place on 19 August 2014, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr B Clark, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban and Mr C Macaulay.  Only those members who had attended the site visit took part in the determination of the application.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• with regard to noise it was explained that in certain wind strengths and wind directions there was concern, in part theoretical, that noise arising from the operation turbines at Farr, together with the proposed turbines, could reach a cumulative level of noise that breached the reasonable limits at one inhabited house.  In order to ensure this noise sensitive property was given protection in compliance with Energy Technology Support Unit standards, a planning condition would be attached to any project approval to ensure some turbine curtailment when the specific wind conditions were experienced.  Turbines could operate with automated controls to shut down at certain times and in certain pre-programmed conditions. In this manner the cumulative noise levels would not adversely impact on the identified house. Such curtailment would only be required within the proposed scheme, in full recognition of operational limits that applied to the Farr wind farm;
• the level of access to an operational wind farm was unlikely to have a significant impact on the local road network and therefore, there was no intention to make large scale improvements to the network at this stage. On completion of the development the existing three accesses would be used for ongoing servicing and general maintenance;
• there was a need for the applicant to upgrade the existing estate tracks at their junction with the public road network;
• in terms of the proposal by SSE for a sub-station in the area, a separate application would be required to provide a connection from the wind farm to the grid. In this regard there was a potentially significant development of a sub-station, grid line and a range of other electrical projects. It was important to understand that the permission for a wind farm and the grid connection were two separate applications.  It was further explained that proposals for a grid connection would come before the Committee as a Section 37 application;
• it was essential that the applicant recognised that public access was fundamental both during construction and when the wind farm was operational. It was incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that access tracks were managed to ensure access was not denied to the public. It was possible to safeguard access by a range of measures and the Access Officer would work with the applicant to ensure the access condition was met;
• all construction traffic would come off the A9 trunk road;
• with regard to the process of grid connections it was further explained that the applicant is required to have planning permission before the distribution element is progressed.  It was acknowledged that the present format was not ideal;
• there were areas where the Glen Kyllachy wind farm would be seen in isolation with no intrusion from the neighbouring Farr wind farm.  It was explained that The Cairngorm National Park Authority had raised no objection to the application;
• it was important to recognise that tourists arrive into the area by various modes of transport, not all tourists arrived using the A9 corridor; and
• It was further confirmed that work had been undertaken in conjunction with SEPA to ensure the turbines were sited away from the deepest peat levels.  The peat removed during construction would not be discarded but removed to other locations on site to add to the peat stock.

During discussion Members commented that:-

• there was a concern about the amount of peat disturbance on the site but the measures indicated in the report for the reuse of peat were noted;
• it was difficult to understand the technical noise mitigation measures that had been proposed;
• the visibility of the development from the A9 access corridor into Inverness and beyond was not the most welcoming vista for tourists;
• there was grave concern over cumulative impacts both visual and noise;
• with regard to cumulative impact,  the siting of the Glen Kyllachy application required serious consideration. Farr wind farm was sited within a natural bowl and therefore lessened the impact on the landscape. The proposed development meant that turbines would be sited upwards and out of the bowl and therefore would have a significant detrimental visual impact;
• it was not a mitigation measure to site wind farms next to each other;
• there was unease with regard to the noise arising from the existing Farr wind farm and it was not acceptable to add to existing noise levels;
• it was suggested that if possible, it would be helpful if further dialogue was undertaken with local residents, community groups and public bodies with a view to considering the site layout, the number of turbines and further noise reduction measures;
• Farr wind farm was a well-designed and appropriately sited development;
• the developer had worked to achieve site accesses which would lessen the impact on the local road network and on residents; and
• the site visit had been helpful to put the application in context.

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds that the proposal contravenes Policy 67 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan in that the development will have a significant detrimental visual impact, both taken cumulatively with Farr Wind Farm and on its own, at areas of regional and local significance, notably, Slochd, Strathnairn, Loch Ashie, Abriachan and, consequently, the Great Glen Way.

6.  Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Measan Na Mara Ltd (14/00580/FUL) (PLS/055/14)
Location: South Channel, Loch Moidart, Eilean Shona, Acharacle (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Marine Shellfish Farm, (Pacific Oysters) extension of existing site to create 4 plots of oyster trestles (zones 1,1a,2 and 3), consisting of a total of 21,420 trestles each 3m x 1m x 0.6m high in a site of 23.2 hectares
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/055/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to hold a site inspection before determining the application.

Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr B Clark, then moved that the application be deferred to the next Committee to allow a site inspection to take place in the interim.

Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr R Laird, moved as an amendment that the Committee defer the application to the next Committee to allow for additional visualisations and a video to be prepared.

On a vote being take, ten votes were cast in favour of the motion and seven votes in favour of the amendment as follows:-

Motion
Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mrs C Caddick
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan   
Mrs J Slater

Amendment
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr R Laird
Mr C Macaulay
Mr T Prag
Mr H Wood

The motion to hold a site visit prior to the determination of the application therefore became the finding of the meeting and Committee AGREED to defer consideration of the application to the meeting of the Committee on 30 September 2014 and to conduct a site inspection on 8, 9 or 10 September 2014, dates on which the tide would be sufficiently low.

6.2
Applicant: Mr Steve Fox (13/03463/FUL) (PLS/056/14)
Location: Land 320M SE Of Carnoch Farm, Ardgour (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Erection of a single Harbon HWT Wind Turbine (29.95m to blade tip)
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/056/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to hold a site inspection before determining the application.

Mr T MacLennan, seconded by Mr A Baxter, then moved that the application be deferred to the next Committee to allow a site inspection to take place in the interim.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr D Fallows, moved as an amendment that the Committee proceed to determine the application.

On a vote being take, ten votes were cast in favour of the motion and seven votes in favour of the amendment as follows:-

Motion
Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mrs C Caddick
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan   
Mr H Wood

Amendment
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr R Laird
Mr C Macaulay
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater

The motion to hold a site visit prior to the determination of the application therefore became the finding of the meeting and Committee AGREED to defer consideration of the application to the meeting of the Committee on 30 September 2014 and to conduct a site inspection on the same day as the site visit for application 14/00580/FUL.

6.3
Applicant: D and E MacGillivray (14/00995/PIP) (PLS/057/14)
Location: Land 150M North East Of Linnhe View, 15 North Ballachulish, Onich (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Erection of 10 houses and associated road works (Renewal of 10/00016/PIPLO)
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/057/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission in principle be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and the recommendation, also seeking permission to amend conditions 4 and 5 (if the application was granted) to suspensive conditions.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-

• the visibility splay towards Fort William was not within the applicant’s control and was therefore subject to a suspensive condition.  The condition required the applicant to gain the permission of the landowner to allow the applicant to clear the splay prior to work starting on site;
• it was possible to specify by condition that all trees planted were native trees;
• the matter of de-crofting was not pertinent to the application, as the development was sited within the settlement boundary. The location within the settlement boundary therefore outweighed the policy to safeguard croft land; and
• there had been no material changes from the planning permission in principle for 10 houses which had been granted on appeal in 2011 and therefore no grounds on which to refuse the application.

During debate Members raised the following:-

• it was an anomaly that the application was before committee because there had been no material changes since the Reporter allowed an appeal in March 2011. The report had therefore been referred to the Committee because of objections received from the public. With regard to the particular set of circumstances, it meant that the Committee had no alternative other than to agree the report recommendation;
• the loss of good arable land was regrettable; and
• with regard to the indicative site layout, Members commented that the proposed indicative plan was not acceptable. 

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle, subject to:

• the prior conclusion (within 4 months) of a s75 obligation to secure delivery of affordable housing, and
• the conditions recommended in the report, with amendment to Conditions 4 and 5 to suspensive conditions and amendment to Condition 8 to specify that new trees planted must be native species.

It was further AGREED that local members would be consulted on the matters specified in conditions before these were approved under delegated powers.

It was also requested that it be minuted that the indicative site layout submitted with the application was, for the reasons given in paragraph 8.3.1, not considered acceptable and that a less suburban arrangement should be sought at Matters Specified stage, to fit in with the settlement pattern.

6.4
Applicant: Munro Construction (Highland) Ltd (14/02502/FUL) (PLS/058/14)
Location: 38 Carsegate Road North, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Change of use to waste transfer station – capacity 24,999 tonnes
Recommendation: Grant

Mrs B MacAllister had requested the Chairman’s permission to address the Committee on this application under Standing Order 13.1.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/058/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-

• with regard to Policy 70 criteria and land restoration details, the applicant had not submitted land aftercare and after use details as the development was sited in an existing building and in an established industrial estate. There were no changes required to the building and, therefore a land restoration plan was not required;
• SEPA did not object to the application and had indicated that in terms of controlling odour, dust and vermin, these would be controlled by a Waste Management Licence; and
• the applicant was not required to undertake a sequential test, as the site was located within an industrial estate.  Policy 70 had established that such facilities would be acceptable where they were located in industrial estates. It was further confirmed that the flood alleviation scheme would impact on the applicant’s existing waste transfer station;

During debate Members commented as follows:-  

• there was concern about potential issues related to odour, environmental impact, dust and vermin. There was a fundamental need for clean air;
• it was vital that the impact on surrounding retail outlets and residential developments in the vicinity was considered. It was important to recognise that it was not solely an industrial area;
• the close proximity of the development to residential and to the local primary school, approximately 400 metres;
• while it was appreciated that most of the waste transfer would take place within the storage facility, with an estimated 38 vehicle movements daily the doors to the facility would have to be open on a regular basis;
• the site was not suitable, not adequate and did not accord with Policy 70
• the area around the storage unit was not an industrial estate but was predominately a retail park:
• worry that the site was prone to flooding and surprised that there was no objection from the Flood Management Team and SEPA;
• there was concern over the impact on the car dealerships located within the estate, given that a great deal of business was conducted on forecourts. There was also concern that the development would have an impact on future businesses who may not wish to locate to the vicinity because of the potential environmental difficulties;
• it was not acceptable that the detail of how waste material which included asbestos, food and general waste would be managed on site was not available;
• there was anxiety that, whilst a SEPA Waste Management Licence would be issued and while waste would be stored within the facility, it was noted in the report that the potential for noise nuisance, odour, vermin and bird nuisance would be only partly eliminated;
• it was noted that, although not mentioned in the report, certain waste plastic would be stored onsite, outwith the main storage facility but within the site perimeter. This outside storage would serve to undermine the SEPA environmental controls placed on the facility to control nuisance issues;
• at present the building was used as a storage facility but with the proposed change to a household waste transfer station, there was concern that there would be future contamination problems;
• with regard to the issues of dust, odour and vermin, it was felt this was a perception issue;
• SEPA would strictly enforce the licences and problems had to be addressed before a licence was issued; and
• it was noted that the applicant had set the maximum capacity at 24,999 tonnes and this was 1 tonne below the Major development category threshold.

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission on the following grounds: 

• that the proposal is contrary to Policy 70 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan in that (i) no justification has been submitted for not pursuing the existing preferred sites identified in that Policy, and (ii) the proposed use of the premises as a waste transfer station is incompatible with surrounding existing and allocated land uses given that noise, odour and vermin nuisance cannot be wholly eliminated, and
• that given that noise, odour and vermin nuisance cannot be wholly eliminated the proposal is contrary to Policy 34 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan in that the proposed use does not conform with existing and approved adjacent land uses, which are predominantly retail.

6.5
Applicant: Mr S Munro (14/01607/FUL) (PLS/059/14)
Location: 39 Firthview Road, Inverness, IV3 8LZ (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Erection of house
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/059/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• the proposed development height was lower than the adjacent property and lower than the previous application; and
• with regard to privacy, it was explained that the reoriented roof layout, with two dormer windows to the front of the property and a small velux type window to the rear, would ensure no loss of amenity to the adjacent property.

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report with an additional condition requiring establishment of the route and protection of any existing culverts that fall within the site.

6.6
Applicant: Mr J Wotherspoon (14/02316/PIP) (PLS/060/14)
Location: Land 160M SE of New House Buchanan, Kinerras, Kiltarlity (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of house
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/060/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission in principle be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a Section 75 obligation tying the house to the croft land.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.

During debate Members commented that the application had taken heed of concerns raised when the previous application was refused.  It was further commented that it was appropriate that the planned house would be used for the management of the croft.

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle subject to the prior conclusion of a s75 obligation tying the house to the croft land and subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

6.7
Applicant: Michael Peteranna (14/01540/FUL) (PLS/061/14)
Location: 22 Miller Street, Inverness (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Replace timber garage and shed with a blockwork garage
Recommendation: Grant

Mr K Gowans had requested the Chairman’s permission to address the Committee on this item under Standing Order 13.1.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/061/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and the recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and further agreed that no decision notice be issued until fully dimensioned plans of the garage are submitted.

7.  Supplementary Report – Section 75 Obligation
Aithisg a Bharrachd - Dleastanas Roinn 75

7.1
Applicant: Intertrust Trustees Limited (14/01463/FUL) (PLS/062/14)
Location: Eastgate Shopping Centre, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Extension to existing shopping centre outwards into Falcon Square at ground floor & first floor to accommodate retail & restaurants, combined with redevelopment/expansion of second floor storage & plant to accommodate 8 screen cinema and change of use of two existing class 1 retail to class 3 restaurant.

This application had been granted by the Committee on 24 June 2014 subject to conditions but a decision notice had not as yet been issued because subsequent legal advice was that the applicant’s contribution towards improvements to the public realm at Academy Street/Millburn Road would be more appropriately secured by section 75 obligation rather than by condition.

There was now circulated Report No PLS/062/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that Condition 14 be deleted from the conditions approved by the Committee on 24 June 2014 and that issue of planning permission be subject to the prior conclusion of a Section 75 obligation as detailed in the report.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee AGREED to:

• delete condition 14 from the conditions approved by the Committee on 24 June 2014,
• approve the heads of terms for the s75 obligation set out at paragraph 1.2 of the report, noting that a long-stop date for payment, to cover any undue delay in completion of leases for 85% of the lettable space, will be added when agreed with the developers,
• to postpone issue of planning permission pending conclusion of a s75 obligation in these terms, and
• to homologate officers’ decision to commence discussion with the applicants over the terms of the s75 obligation

The Committee further AGREED that the Member consultative group agreed on 24 June 2014 (ward Members plus Cllrs J Gray and T Prag) be consulted on finalising the terms of the s75 obligation.

8.  Appeal against Non-Determination
Ath-thagradh an aghaidh Neo-shònrachadh

8.1 Applicant: Loch Ness Homes Ltd (13/03694/PIP) (PLS/063/14)
Location: Land 145M North of Smiddy Bar, Lewiston, Drumnadrochit (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Mixed use development comprising housing, affordable housing, homes for the elderly, mixed commercial uses, health center, public open space and associated infrastructure
Recommendation: To respond to the Reporter in accordance with Section 9 of report.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/063/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that the Committee agree the response to the Reporter as set out in Section 9 of the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendations.

During discussion Members commented as follows:

• it was unfortunate that the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan had been held up by two unresolved objections;
• it was standard procedure for developments to have a Community Liaison Group and it was hoped that a Liaison Group would be formed for this development;
• to ensure road traffic safety it was vital that a 20 mph zone was implemented within the development; and
• there was a commitment within the application to link the development with off-site paths and the community had been involved in discussion with the local landowner, who was content. It was suggested that this action be taken forward by the Access Officer.

Thereafter the Committee agreed to APPROVE the response to the Reporter set out in the report, including the proposed conditions to be imposed in the event of planning permission in principle being granted, subject to: 

• deletion of condition 19 as now redundant,
• addition of conditions requiring (i) the setting up of a Community Liaison Group, (ii) provision of off-site links with paths (to be approved by the Council’s Access Officer), and (iii) provision for a 20 mph zone within the development.

The Committee further AGREED to recommend to the Reporter that planning permission in principle, if granted, should be subject to the prior conclusion of a s75 obligation to secure delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Council policy.

9.  Exclusion of Public
Às-dùnadh a’Phobaill

The Committee AGREED to resolve that, under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public should be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

10.  Planning Enforcement Report
Aithisg Co-èigneachadh Dealbhaidh

There had been circulated to Members only Report No PLS/064/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The Committee AGREED the recommendations in the report subject to the reference to “Ward Members sitting on the South Planning Applications Committee” being changed to “all of the Ward Members”.

The meeting ended at 3.45 pm