Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 12 April 2016 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour (excluding Items 6.1 and 6.2)
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark (excluding Items 5.1-5.4 and 6.7)
Mr J Crawford (excluding Items 5.1-5.4)
Mrs M Davidson (excluding Items 6.2-6.10)
Mr A Duffy (excluding Items 5.1, 6.1-6.3 and 6.10)
Mr D Fallows (excluding Items 5.1-5.4 and 6.7)
Mr J Ford (excluding Items 6.6-6.10)
Mr L Fraser (excluding Items 3-5.4)
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green (excluding Items 5.1 and 6.2)
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird (excluding Items 6.4-6.6 and 6.8-6.10)
Mr B Lobban (excluding Items 5.1-5.4)
Mr T MacLennan
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater (excluding Item 5.1)

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
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Mr C Wishart, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Miss C McArthur, Solicitor
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Non-Committee Members Present:

Mr B Gormley (Items 3-4 and 5.3-6.1 only)
Mr A Henderson (Item 6.3 only)

Mr J Gray in the Chair

Preliminaries

The Chairman confirmed that the meeting would be filmed and broadcast over the internet on the Highland Council website and would be archived and available for viewing for 12 months.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence
Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Mr F Parr and Mr H Wood.

2. Declaration of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.1 – Mr J Crawford (non-financial)
Item 6.7 – Mr D Fallows (non-financial)

3.Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the Committee meeting held on 1 March 2016 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/020/16 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 speaking to the report, Mr D Mudie reminded Members that in relation to Druim Ba Wind Farm, the applicant had submitted an appeal to the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) of the Scottish Government on the grounds of non-determination of the application as the deadline for determination had been missed.  He advised that, following officer recommendation for the application to be refused and following consultation with local members, the appeal response had been submitted under delegated powers, as had been agreed by the Committee at its previous meeting.

In relation to Tom Nan Clach Wind Farm, the Committee was advised that there had been a technical issue in terms of the consultation and that it was currently being re-consulted on.  It was anticipated that the application would be submitted to the meeting of the Committee in May.

In response to a question regarding proposed development at Bogbain Farmhouse, it was confirmed that the application site was land behind the undeveloped roundabout just off the A9 and that the application would be submitted to the meeting of the Committee in May.

During discussion, Mrs M Davidson drew attention to concerns raised by community representatives regarding the substantial landscape impact arising from Druim Ba Wind Farm and asked whether the Council could request that a public local inquiry be held.  In response, the Area Planning Manager South advised that whilst the Committee could request a PLI, this would focus on all issues surrounding the application and he suggested that a hearing would be more appropriate as this could focus on particular issues such as landscape impact.  He stressed that it was a matter for the Reporter to decide whether a hearing should be held.

Thereafter, the Committee agreed that officers REQUEST that the Reporter appointed by the DPEA hold a hearing session on the issue of visual impact at Druim Ba Wind Farm and NOTED the current position.

At this point in the meeting, the Chairman advised that in relation to item 6.5 on the agenda, the applicant had made a late submission of information and asked the Committee to decide whether to defer the application to the next meeting to allow the late submitted information to be considered as part of the application.

The Committee agreed to DEFER Item 6.5 on the agenda to the next meeting to enable the late submitted information to be considered as part of the application.

5. Continued Items
Cuspairean a' Leantainn

5.1   
Applicant: RES Ltd (15/00737/FUL) (PLS/014/16)
Location: Land at Carn Ghriogair, Aberarder Estate, Aberarder, Inverness (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of 12 wind turbines (130m in height) including associated works (Aberarder Wind Farm).
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of Interest – Mr J Crawford declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/014/16 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

A site visit had taken place on 11 April 2016, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mrs M Davidson, Mr J Ford, Mr J Gray, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr T MacLennan and Mr T Prag.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Within the context of the visual spread of Dunmaglass Wind Farm from viewpoint 17, the proposed extension was not considered to be out of scale with the existing infrastructure.
• The blade lengths of the proposed turbines would be 80 metres to hub height and at Dunmaglass Wind Farm the blades were 78.5 metres to hub height.
• In terms of road mitigation, whilst it was unreasonable to seek contributions from a single developer to contribute to making improvements to all the problems identified through the South Loch Ness Road Improvements Strategy, the recommendation included conditions to ensure that specific improvements could be enforced. 
• In the interest of supporting the economy in the local area, previous development had been permitted with specific mitigation packages to allow for the proposed route to be improved incrementally.
• The height to tips of blades on turbines at nearby windfarms were as follows:-

• Farr Wind Farm – 110 metres to tip
• Glen Kyllachy Wind Farm – 110 metres to tip
• Dumnaglass Wind Farm – 117.5 to tip
• Aberarder – 130 metres to tip

 

• Legal advice had been sought as to whether road mitigation could be conditioned rather than be taken as planning gain and it was confirmed that by conditioning this, the road infrastructure had to be in place prior to the commencement of development on site.
• A financial contribution secured by a Section 75 was not always the best mechanism for the delivery of the works as it might cost the Council more to deliver the works than it would the developer.
• The Council was currently working with the industry to improve the quality of visualisations.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed development had been carefully designed, concern was expressed at the “stacking” nature of the turbines which could give a disordered appearance.
• Proposals for a contribution to the road network from the developer by condition would help address issues in South Loch Ness.
• Whilst the proposed development would not be highly visible from South Loch Ness with the exception of near Farigaig Substation, the number of people accessing the outdoors climbing Corbetts and Munros was increasing and some of the views demonstrated by the visualisations were substantially adversely affected.
• Concern was expressed regarding Scottish Natural Heritage’s classification of wild land.
• The visual impact from high ground around North Loch Ness and for substantial mileage of the Great Glen Way, in particular Farr, Kyllachy, Durnaglass, and Corriegarth wind farms, was highlighted.
• There were currently a substantial number of recreational users of the Great Glen Way and this could increase in the future.
• Council and national policy supported the development of wind energy construction in the right places.
• Consent had already been granted for Dumnaglass Wind Farm and whilst the visual impact from viewpoint 17 was acknowledged, the proposed development would not have a significant impact due to the way it would be sited.
• The use of contours to blend in with the surrounding turbines presented a good design of wind farm and from most viewing angles the turbines would not have too great of a visual impact.
• The proposed development represented a modest extension to an existing array of turbines.
• The proposed turbines would sit on the forward slope of a plateau and would therefore be very visible.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed development was making use of existing infrastructure, there would be a considerable visual impact form the Great Glen Way.
• Objections from two community councils raised concern regarding the cumulative and visual impact of the proposed development.
• The site visit had provided a view of the scale of what had already been constructed in the area, consented developments and also future applications to be determined along the ridge line.
• The explanations provided in the report for supporting the proposed development demonstrated that the development would contribute to cumulative impact and would have a significant impact on views over a considerable length of the Great Glen Way.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• the proposed development was contrary to Policy 67 (Renewable Energy) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as the development would have significantly detrimental individual and cumulative visual impact as viewed by recreational users of the outdoors in the vicinity of the site, in particular on high ground of north Loch Ness and the Great Glen Way, due to the design and location of the proposed development.

The Chairman, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

On a vote being taken, six votes were cast in favour of the motion and three votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr A Baxter
Mr R Balfour
Mrs M Davidson
Mr J Gray
Mr D Kerr
Mr T MacLennan

Amendment

Mr R Laird
Mr J Ford
Mr T Prag

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

5.2   
Applicant: Robertson Homes Ltd (12/01832/S42) (PLS/016/16)
Location: Land at Craig Dunain Hospital, Westercraigs, Inverness (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Application for non-compliance with Conditions 1, 6 and 14 of planning permission 03/00676/OUTIN for residential development and associated infrastructure based upon submitted Master Plan (as amended) (550 houses).
Recommendation: Grant

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/016/16 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

A site visit had taken place on 11 April 2016, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr J Ford, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr T MacLennan, Mr T Prag and Mrs J Slater.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation, during which he advised that should Stage 2 of the West Link not progress there would still be a requirement for traffic lights at King Brude Road on the A82, therefore the inclusion of condition 5 of planning permission 03/00676/OUTIN within the conditions was recommended.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• There had been no resolution to discussion several years previously on proposals for the relocation of Craig Dunain Rugby Club pitch and therefore further discussion with the Rugby Club and the developer was required to secure either an agreement by condition or a financial contribution.
• The Master Plan provided a broad framework of the expected numbers of units and timescale for development within each phase and also ensured that the developer did not encroach into areas of open space and community woodland.
• A revision of proposed condition 5 to include a requirement for ongoing/regular maintenance of the estate/distributor road could be included within the recommendation. 
• There was currently ongoing discussion regarding flood risk in the wider area and, as the land owner, the applicant had a responsibility to ensure that people were protected.
• The applicant was content to continue making a contribution towards the southern distributer road by way of a legal agreement even though the connection to the West Link might not be completed until a later stage.
• The estimated completion date for Phase 2 of the West Link was 2021.
• There was potential for further development of play facilities within larger areas of flat space.
• It was intended that linkages to the estate road would be provided for recreational users as the development progressed.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the lack of communication from the applicant with the local community and a request was made for the establishment of a community liaison group for the duration of development of the entire site covered by the masterplan.

The Committee then agreed to GRANT planning permission to develop land without complying with conditions 1, 6 and 14 of outline planning permission 03/00676/OUTIN subject to the prior conclusion of a legal agreement to secure the matters referred to at paragraph 9.0 A. of the report, taking into consideration the need for further discussion on the location/use of the replacement rugby pitch with the Dunain Community Rugby Club, and subject to the conditions recommended in the report, and subject also to

• Including condition 5 of planning permission 03/00676/OUTIN within the conditions
• revision of proposed condition 5 to include a requirement for ongoing/regular maintenance of the estate/distributor road

and the following additional condition:

• requiring the developer to establish a community liaison group, to remain operational for the duration of development of the entire site covered by the masterplan, to ensure dialogue between the developer and the community on construction activities,

and subject also to such further amendments to the conditions as considered necessary as a consequence of the discussion on replacement sports/community facilities 

5.3   
Applicant: Robertson Homes Ltd (15/03384/MSC) (PLS/017/16)
Location: Westercraigs, Inverness (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Erection of 51 houses and associated works.
Recommendation: Approve

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/017/16 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

A site visit had taken place on 11 April 2016, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr J Ford, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr T MacLennan, Mr T Prag and Mrs J Slater.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Whilst discussion between the applicant and the Council’s flood team were currently ongoing, the flood team had expressed it was content that the proposals would not affect current development at Sites 5 and 11.
• If the Committee did not consider the proposals suitable then the course of action would be to refuse the application.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Concern was expressed that the applicant had not taken the opportunity to discuss with the local community concerns raised regarding the potential loss of internal green space.
• The opportunity should be afforded to the applicant to amend their application in order to address concerns raised regarding the loss of internal green space.

Mr A Duffy, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved that the application be deferred to allow the developer time to consider relocation of some of the houses proposed for site 11, in particular, the 12 houses proposed in the two areas north of the roundabout, in order to allow retention of those two areas as internal open green space.

There being no amendment, the motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the application for the reason stated. 

5.4   
Applicant: Robertson Homes Ltd (15/03910/MSC & 15/03911/LBC) (PLS/018/16)
Location: Westercraigs, Inverness (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Change of use and renovation of former hospital to form 56 residential units.
Recommendation: Approve Matters Specified in Conditions and Grant Listed Building Consent

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/018/16 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending approval of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein and the grant of Listed Building Consent.

A site visit had taken place on 11 April 2016, attended byMr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr J Ford, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr T MacLennan, Mr T Prag and Mrs J Slater.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The façade of the central area of the building was currently shored up with extensive scaffolding and the proposal was to create an open area into the court yard.
• Whilst it would be possible to reconstruct the damaged central area of the building, this could be difficult and was dependent on the cost of reconstruction in comparison with the value of the property.
• The applicant had developed a master plan which included a timeframe for building the various phases of construction consecutively and reasonable assurance had been received that sites 6, 7 and 8 would be developed within the proposed timeframe.

The Committee agreed to APPROVE the matters specified and to GRANT listed building consent, subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1   
Applicant: Mr C O'Keefe (15/02566/FUL) (PLS/021/16)
Location: Land 40m East of Pier Head, Onich (Ward 22).
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/021/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised of a correction to Condition 2 in the recommendation which should read “visibility splays of 2.0m x 105m to the west and 2.0m x 120m to the east”.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Transport Scotland was of the view that the impact on the visibility splay looking towards the beech tree located at the trunk road boundary was acceptable.
• Transport Scotland had also deemed the repositioning of the bus shelter acceptable due to the temporary nature of a bus pulling in and out.
• Whilst there would be a degree of engineering required to allow a level access for cars leaving onto the trunk road, this had been deemed acceptable.
• It was considered that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on croft land and would not prevent access.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst the house could be deemed acceptable in terms of its impact on the bay and the national scenic area, concern was over the impact of the access onto the A82.
• Concern was expressed regarding the risk of accidents at this particular section of the A82 going through the mainsection of the village.
• A more appropriate access would be further along the road through the existing access at Pier Cottage.
• Whilst the transitory nature of buses was acknowledged, concern was expressed that people could be likely to take the risk and pull their car out in front of a temporarily stationed bus.
• Concern was expressed that granting permission could set a precedent for further developments in what was a location within the Glen Coe and Ben Nevis National Scenic Area.
• There was already speed restriction of 40 mph speed limit on this stretch of road.
• The house was tucked into the corner and would not block the view onto Camas na Lairich bay.
• A parked bus could block the site line from the access road and an alternative option could be to widen the layby.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• the proposed access to the site was over-engineered, inappropriately located and was of an unacceptable design and scale, which was contrary to Polices 49 and 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as it would have a negative impact on the natural environment and amenity of the Glencoe and Ben Nevis National Scenic Area, and
• the proposed access to the site would have inadequate visibility at a location on the A82(T) which was already restricted by the presence of a bus layby, a beech tree and existing accesses opposite the proposed access and was consequently considered to represent a road safety hazard, with the proposed development being consequently contrary to Policies 28 and 56 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

On a vote being taken, seven votes were cast in favour of the motion and eight votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr J Crawford
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Ford
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr B Lobban
Mr T Prag

Amendment

Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird
Mr T MacLennan
Ms J Slater

The amendment to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.2   
Applicant: Cruachan Hotel (15/03207/FUL) (PLS/022/16)
Location: Cruachan Hotel, Achintore Road, Fort William, PH33 6RQ (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Demolish existing extension and erection of 14 bedroom extension.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/022/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Ms L Prins presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The transport study into parking options for development proposals within the Fort William area had not been completed.
• The scale of the proposed development had been considerably reduced from previous applications and the development now proposed was of an acceptable scale.
• Whilst capacity for car parking provision at hotels was based on the number of beds and staff, this could be relaxed for town centre developments based on connectivity to the hotel.
• Concern had been raised with the applicant regarding the long term justification for coach parking as they could only provide a short term guarantee on numbers based on existing bookings to the end of this summer.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The proposed extension represented over-development.
• Concern was expressed regarding the provision of car parking asthis was only 25% of the number of spaces required under the Council’s standards.
• The proposed development would create additional pressure on the new civic area and the west end car park, particularly as customers of the nearby Travelodge were also advised to use the West End car park in the absence of its own parking facilities.
• The feedback requested from the transport study into car parking provision in Fort William had not been received.
• Whilst development on the site had previously been deemed acceptable, the proposed development would represent over-development on what was a small area of land.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr B Clark, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• the proposed development failed to incorporate an appropriate level of parking provision and, as such, was contrary to Policy 56 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and The Highland Council’s Roads and Transport Guidelines for New Development 2013, and
• the proposed development was judged to be significantly detrimental in that it failed to demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with local character and that it would adversely impact on neighbouring residential amenity, in both respects as a result of the scale and height of the proposed development, and as such it would be contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

The Chairman, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

On a vote being taken, ten votes were cast in favour of the motion and three votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mr J Crawford
Mr J Ford
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr T Prag
Ms J Slater

Amendment

Mr D Fallows
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray

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

6.3   
Applicant: Morbaine Ltd (16/00247/FUL) (PLS/023/16)
Location: South Side of Alcan Site Entrance, North Road, Fort William (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Redevelopment of site to demolish existing structures and construct food and non-food retail floorspace with associated car parking, servicing and access.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/023/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

6.4
Applicant: Scottish Sea Farms Ltd (15/04408/FUL) (PLS/024/16)
Location: North-west of Ardintigh Bay, Loch Nevis (AKA Nevis ‘C’) (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Proposed expansion of salmon farm. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/024/16 by the Head of Planning and Buildings Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr C Wishart presented the report and recommendation, further recommending that delegated powers be granted to officers to revise the wording of the recommended conditions before issue of the permission to ensure they were precise and enforceable.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• SEPA could permit an Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE) by license which would take into account the impact from the proposed extension.
• The site was one of three salmon farms operated by Scottish Sea Farms Ltd in Loch Nevis, thereby enabling the company flexibility to fallow different sites at different times or to operate synchronously.
• Whilst the shellfish farming equipment had already been removed from the site, condition 4 in the recommendation  would ensure that this continued to be the case, in line with the Loch Nevis Aquaculture Framework Plan Policy.
• The depth of the water within the site was between 20-30 metres.
• The applicant had proposed the use of cleaner fish as an option for the control of sea lice in addition to chemical methods and had provided assurances that its supply of cleaner fish was sustainable for the next 2-3 years.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report, but also to grant delegated powers to officers to revise the wording of the recommended conditions before issue of permission to ensure they were precise and enforceable.

6.5   
Applicant: Mr and Mrs Tulloch (15/03125/FUL) (PLS/025/16)
Location: Old Milton, Kingussie (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Use of land as Boys Brigade campsite and associated facilities (including wc's, showers and kitchen); upgrading works to access.
Recommendation: Grant

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation, the Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the application to allow officers to consider new information submitted.

6.6   
Applicant: WKW Partnership Ltd (16/00365/LBC) (PLS/026/16)
Location: Cairngorm Hotel, Aviemore (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Replace windows with double glazed timber sash and case units.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/026/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the refusal of the application.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:-

• The listed building consent comprised of the original building and not the modern extensions and annexes.
• The information required to justify why replacements windows were required had been requested but not received from the applicant.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The proposed changes were acceptable as the replacements windows were very similar to the ones being replaced and would not be of further detriment to the original listed building given the existing modern extension at the front of the building.
• The applicant had not demonstrated why the current windows required replacing and there was an obligation for them to do so.
• It was a requirement of the Scottish Historic Environment Policy that a survey be conducted by a specialist to give a definitive answer as to what repairs or otherwise was required and it was suggested that the applicant be given a final opportunity to submit this.

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the application to the Committee meeting on 17 May 2016, to allow the developer a last opportunity to provide evidence, from a joiner specialising in the repair and refurbishment of windows, that a detailed examination of the windows had been carried out and providing his/her assessment of (a) the extent of the work needed to repair the windows and (b) why repair, as opposed to replacement, was not feasible.

6.7   
Applicant: Highland Housing Alliance (15/03605/FUL) (PLS/027/16)
Location: Land 75m SE of 29 Glendoe Terrace, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Erection of 55 dwellings (amended from 58).
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of Interest – Mr D Fallows declared a non-financial interest in this item as a director of Highland Housing Alliance and elected to leave the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/027/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation, during which she confirmed that the application was for the erection of 53 dwellings and advised that an amendment to Condition 20 to clarify the type of housing proposed and address provision of mid-market rented accommodation was recommended.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Public art developer contribution was required as part of planning policy.
• There was no accident history associated with Glendoe Terrace that would warrant the introduction of traffic calming.
• Where possible, traffic calming on bus routes was avoided due to the effect it could have on services. 
• No traffic management plan had been proposed for Glendoe Terrace.  However, if the Committee was minded, a condition requiring an assessment of whether traffic calming measures were required and that any measures identified be put in pace could be recommended.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Public art could be incorporated into the design of the proposed development rather than a standalone feature.
• Concern was expressed that funding of public art would be better used to contribute towards traffic management.
• A request was made for officers to discuss with local members an appropriate public art developer contribution.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and:-

• an additional condition ensuring that the need for traffic calming on Glendoe Terrace was assessed, and that any necessary traffic calming measures identified in the assessment be put in place, as a condition of the development proceeding.
• Condition 20 to be amended to reflect updated information about the level of affordable housing to be provided.

Separately, it was agreed that officers would discuss with the local members an appropriate public art contribution.

6.8   
Applicant: 3A Partnership Ltd (15/04049/FUL) (PLS/028/16)
Location: Land adjacent to Drumossie Hotel, Drumossie, Inverness (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Change of use of land for a phased layout and servicing (including access, parking, utilities, landscaping and public art) of land for development of a tourism and leisure complex comprising a maximum of 48 lodges and apartments and buildings for commercial/leisure uses, reception, marketing/office and grounds maintenance accommodation.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/028/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised that the deletion of Condition 9 and its replacement with a condition requiring submission and the prior written approval of the Planning Authority, prior to commencement of any development on site, of a masterplan detailing phasing, design and landscaping in respect of the whole site and requiring that any further planning applications in respect of the site accord with this approved masterplan was recommended.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Whilst an indicative plan had been included with the supporting information submitted by the applicant, further information was required on the facilities proposed and these would be the subject of future full planning applications.
• Condition 6 could be amended to clarify within the approved plans what trees and/or woodland should be retained prior to the commencement of a maintenance scheme.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior conclusion of a legal agreement to secure the developer contributions referred to at paragraph 8.6 of the report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report, and subject also to:-

• clarification of the terms of Condition 6
• deletion of Condition 9 and its replacement with a condition requiring submission and the prior written approval of the Planning Authority, prior to commencement of any development on site, of a masterplan detailing phasing, design and landscaping in respect of the whole site and requiring that any further planning applications in respect of the site accord with this approved masterplan.

6.9   
Applicant: Mr and Mrs O’May (16/00222/FUL) (PLS/029/16)
Location: 15 Croft Road, Inverness, IV3 8RS (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Demolish garage and erection of granny flat.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/029/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the refusal of the application.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• There was no specific policy in terms of what was an appropriate size for this type of development and that each application had to be taken on its own merits, in particular, in relation to the location site.
• A “granny flat” would usually be treated in a similar way to an annex to an existing main house and should be ancillary to the main house.
• The proposed development was not unlike a separate house and that something more modest and in keeping with the relatively small scale of the site would have been appropriate.

During discussion, Members were of the view that the proposed development did not fit Council policy as it would be oversized within the context of the plot and should therefore be refused.

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons recommended in the report.

6.10
Applicant: Hercules Unit Trust (16/00906/S42) (PLS/030/16)
Location: Inverness Retail and Business Park, Eastfield Way, Inverness (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Application under Section 42 for the development of land without complying with Condition 4 and Condition 6 of planning permission 15/03390/FUL. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/030/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, the following comment was made:-

• No objections had been received and the recommendations in the report were acceptable.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission to develop land without complying with conditions 4 and 6 of planning permission 15/03390/FUL subject to the prior conclusion of a legal agreement to secure the matters referred to at paragraph 8.6 of the report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

7. Decision on Appeal to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh agus Àrainneachd

7.1   
Applicant: RES Limited (PPA-270-2138)
Location: Land at Carn Ghriogair, Aberarder Estate, Aberarder, Inverness
Nature of Appeal: Erection of 50 metre guyed mast to facilitate meteorological measurements and community broadband relating to the proposed Aberarder Wind Farm

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.

7.2   
Applicant: RES Limited (PPA-270-2138)
Location: Land at Carn Ghriogair, Aberarder Estate, Aberarder, Inverness
Nature of Appeal: Erection of 50 metre guyed mast to facilitate meteorological measurements and community broadband relating to the proposed Aberarder Wind Farm

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle in accordance with application PPA-001-2000 dated 11 March 2010 without compliance with conditions numbered 1, 11, 12, and 21 as they were previously imposed, but still subject to the other conditions imposed, so far as they are still subsisting and capable of taking effect, and subject to the conditions imposed at the end of the decision notice.

7.3   
Applicant: RES Limited (PPA-270-2138)
Location: Land at Carn Ghriogair, Aberarder Estate, Aberarder, Inverness
Nature of Appeal: Erection of 50 metre guyed mast to facilitate meteorological measurements and community broadband relating to the proposed Aberarder Wind Farm

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle in accordance with application PPA-001-2001 dated 9 March 2010 but without compliance with conditions numbered 1, 12, 13 and 22 as they were previously imposed, but still subject to the other conditions imposed, so far as they are still subsisting and capable of taking effect, and subject to the conditions imposed at the end of the decision notice.

The meeting ended at 16.30 pm.