Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 30 January 2018 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter (excluding items 6.8 and 6.9)
Mr B Boyd (excluding item 6.1)
Ms C Caddick (excluding item 6.1)
Mrs M Davidson (item 6.11 only)
Mr L Fraser (excluding item 6.1)
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley (excluding item 6.1)
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird (excluding items 3-5.2 and 6.6)
Mr R MacWilliam (excluding item 6.1)
Mr B Thompson

Non Committee Members Present:

Mr A Henderson
Mrs L MacDonald
Mr D MacPherson
Mrs T Robertson

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr M Harvey, Team Leader
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Acting Principal Planner
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Miss C McArthur, Solicitor (Regulatory Services)
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

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 intimated on behalf of Mr T Heggie and Mr B Lobban. 

2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None

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 12 December 2017 which was APPROVED, subject to Councillor Hadley’s title to read Ms and not Mrs.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/001/18 by the Head of Planning and Environment which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

5. Major Developments – Pre-application consultations
Leasachaidhean Mòra – Co-chomhairle Ro-iarrtais                                                

5.1
Description: Northern extension of sand and gravel extraction into area known as Littlemills. (17/05498/PAN) (PLS/002/18)
Ward: 19 – Inverness South
Applicant: Alexander Ross & Sons (Sand & Gravel) Ltd
Site Address: Mid Lairgs Quarry, Farr, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/002/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments on the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN), describing the site and setting out likely relevant policies and potential material planning considerations.

The Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and highlighted no material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.2
Description: Erection of hotel (up to 180 beds) with associated landscaping, car parking and ancillary uses. (17/05742/PAN) (PLS/003/18)
Ward: 14 – Inverness Central
Applicant: Vastint Hospitality B.V.
Site Address: Former Swimming Pool Site, Glebe Street, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/003/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments on the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN), describing the site and setting out likely relevant policies and potential material planning considerations.

During discussion, Members indicated that a site visit might be requested when the planning application was submitted.

The Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and highlighted no material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Liberty Aluminium Lochaber Limited (17/05202/FUL) (PLS/004/18)
Location: Liberty Aluminium Lochaber Ltd, North Road, Fort William, PH33 6TH. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Alloy wheel manufacturing facility, alterations and improvements to existing secondary plant access and associated access arrangements, hard standing, landscaping, car parking and ancillary development.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/004/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

A site visit had taken place on Friday 26 January 2018 attended by the following Members:  Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr J Gray, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban and Mr B Thompson. Only those Members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:-

• It was unclear whether there had been a history of traffic using the internal access road as a through route out of the site.
• There had been no discussion with the applicant as to whether the turnaround facility within Ben Nevis Industrial Estate could provide access onto the A82.
• Whilst the amount of developer contribution to be provided for public art as part of the development had not been confirmed, it could be considered a significant amount based on the Council’s Public Art Strategy.
• The peat management plan was enforceable and it was proposed that peat be reused within the site to form part of the landscaping.
• Whilst the increased level of traffic and congestion on the A82 through Fort William during the peak tourist season had been assessed, Transport Scotland was of the view that the increased traffic generated by HGVs serving the proposed development would not create a significant impact as movements would take place outwith the morning and evening peak periods.
• SEPA was content with the level of peat extraction proposed and had not requested a specific calculation regarding CO2 emissions arising from extraction.
• The recommendation included a condition requiring a full peat survey to be undertaken.
• It was recommended that the total peat disturbance should be limited to removal to the depth of 0.5m below the existing ground.
• Whilst previous investigations of the Battlefield site had not identified any artefacts, it was proposed that once the site had been cleared and prior to earthworks, a walkover survey with metal detectors could be undertaken.  The results of the survey would determine the level of earthworks required.
• In recognition of the lack of public access to the site, the applicant had sought to ensure that any contribution towards public art could be used on a scheme within the public domain.
• It was confirmed that the proposed public art contribution was £1.3 million.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• In highlighting the potential economic benefits arising from the proposed development, it was emphasised that the creation of sustainable jobs should not create a burden on local infrastructure.
• Concern was expressed regarding the requirement of a public art contribution given the Council was struggling to afford basic infrastructure costs in relation to new developments and it was suggested that this contribution could be better spent as part of a wider infrastructure fund contribution.
• It was suggested that under Condition 8 of the recommendation, the public art contribution should be put towards a public art fund for the whole of Lochaber in order to improve the public realm in the communities serving the proposed development.
• Concern was expressed regarding the movement of HGVs within the Ben Nevis Industrial Estate due to the current condition of the junctions onto the A82 and it was requested that local Members be included in discussions with the applicant regarding the proposed improvement works to be submitted.
• Whilst acknowledging that any percentage increase of traffic onto the A82 arising from the proposed development could be considered minimal, it was emphasised that during the summer months, in particular during the late afternoon and early evening, the North Road A82 often experienced gridlock for substantial distances outwith town and the small increase could further exacerbate the problem.
• In highlighting that the movement of goods by road within Fort William and the Western Highlands necessitated the use of the A82, which was in a state of deterioration, disappointment was expressed that the proposed development did not take into consideration the potential use of the railway and nearby port facilities.
• The A82 modelling work undertaken by Transport Scotland and their consultants did not correspond with the journey times experienced when travelling across Fort William, in particular during the summer months, and it was emphasised that the Council needed to be alert to any issues arising from increased traffic use from the proposed development.
• Given the limited public access to the site, concern was expressed that the public art contribution could be spent on a scheme that would only be visible to staff and occasional visitors.
• It was requested that the Committee be consulted during the review into the Council’s Public Art Strategy.
• The potential creation of 400 jobs through the proposed development and the potential for further creation of jobs through industrial developments in the Highlands was welcomed.
• The proposed development presented an opportunity for local Members and the Council to lobby for improvements to public infrastructure within the Lochaber area.

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

6.2
Applicant: Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd (17/03660/FUL) (PLS/005/18)
Location: Isle of Rùm Fish Farm (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Marine Fish Farm - Atlantic Salmon - New site comprising 12 x 120m circumference pens and feed system.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr A Baxter and Mr R MacWilliam advised that they were members of the National Trust for Scotland which had objected to the application.  However, Mr Baxter and Mr MacWilliam considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest that could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and, as such, it was not a declarable interest in terms of paragraph 5.7 of the Code.  They both intended therefore to participate in this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/005/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr M Harvey presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The work currently being undertaken by the applicant with regard to the monitoring of the impact of sea lice on wild fish had provided reassurance that regular monitoring of local wild fish populations and their migratory routes could be achieved, as per Condition 4(1)a of the recommendation.
• It was anticipated that the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) could help address a shortfall in information currently available on migration routes.
• The applicant was of the view that Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) and anti-predator or gill nets would not be necessary.
• Whilst being more expensive to construct, one of the advantages of the proposed development being within an open water site was that it could be less vulnerable to predators.
• The data obtained from the two production cycles completed at Muck were statistically significant and could be given considerable weight when assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on wild salmonids.
• The proposed development could be considered significant in terms of its scale and potential economic impact through the creation of new jobs on the Isle of Rum.
• It was understood that the feed-barge would have its own separate mooring to the sea bed.
• With regard to concern raised about the potential impact on crustaceans with the use of chemicals to treat sea lice , it was emphasised that SEPA, as the principal environmental regulator, had deemed the potential impact to be acceptable in its assessment of the application and was likely to issue a CAR license.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The potential economic benefit arising through the creation of new jobs from the proposed development was emphasised.
• The ‘offshore’ nature of the site together with the ‘flushing’ effect of sea currents could minimise the potential impact of sea lice on the wild salmonid population.
• A wider discussion was required at national level on the fish farming industry in Scotland given the changes to the industry over the years and the potential impact similar developments could have on the environment, in particular the spread of sea lice in wild fish stocks.
• It was suggested that for future fish farm applications, if applicable, greater detail of sea lice figures be provided and if there were times throughout the year when the site did not comply with the industry standard code of good practice, it be specified by how much they were outwith the parameters and the times of year when this had occurred.
• The location of the site had helped to mitigate concerns raised regarding the potential impact of the proposed development on biomass and wild salmonids.

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

6.3
Applicant: Kirkwood Homes Ltd (17/03396/FUL) (PLS/006/18)
Location: Viewhill, Inverness. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Discharge of Planning Conditions attached to planning consent Ref 11/04653/FUL, including those relating to house design, infrastructure and landscaping, proposed development of 16 houses.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/006/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The recommendation included a condition requiring an updated Construction Method Statement to be submitted to safeguard the surrounding environment and that in terms of the proposed order of construction, the applicant would seek to identify any archaeological information prior to submitting proposals for surface water drainage.
• The applicant had taken into consideration concerns raised regarding illumination of the site in the wider countryside and it was proposed that low level street lighting could be used within the site.
• For housing developments of the scale proposed in this application, it was considered beneficial to have adequate street lighting around the development in the interests of public safety and security.
• In terms of pedestrian access, no investment or developer contribution was expected or required for improvements to the railway bridge to provide improved access to the nearby primary school.
• The design of the proposed housing had taken into consideration the decision of the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and the subsequent design brief which set out an expectation that high quality design would be used.
• The existing commercial forestry provided tree cover along the B9006 and could provide screening of the development site for a number of years before it could be subject to felling and replanting.
• There were currently no proposals to provide access from the North West boundary of the site to the nearby area of woodland.  However, there could be potential for discussion to take place with the applicant regarding the provision of a pedestrian link.  Members requested that there be further discussions with the applicant in relation to the continued access through the Culloden walk path.
• With regard to the density of the application site, the proposed houses to the south side of the proposed development contained fairly large gardens and were considered to be of an acceptable design and size in terms of the policies as set out in the Council’s Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design supplementary guidance.
• The design of the proposed houses incorporated modern elements on traditional features of house design.
• Following demolition of the disused agricultural buildings, there was now an opportunity for a full archaeological survey to be undertaken on the site.
• The total parking provision proposed within the development was 44 parking spaces within the curtilage of the houses and 6 on street (visitor bay) parking spaces.
• The principle of development on the site had already been established and it was for the Committee to consider only the design merits and layout of the proposed houses.
• The height of the proposed houses was lower than the 2.5 storeys permitted within the design brief approved by the DPEA.
• The proposal contained within the recommendation a requirement for an archaeological watching brief which reflected the need to be aware and be sensitive when dealing with known areas of archaeological significance and represented best practice.
• The Council’s housing guidelines required two car parking spaces for up to four bedroomed properties and three car parking spaces for five or more bedrooms.
• Refusal to determine the application could be considered unreasonable conduct and consequently could give rise to an award of expenses against the Council.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Disappointment was expressed at the DPEA’s decision to grant planning consent on the site and that the Council had now been forced to take a decision on the layout and design of the development in which it would be unable to satisfy the general consensus of the area, which was strongly opposed to the proposal.
• In highlighting the National Trust for Scotland’s response to the consultation that it did not object to the proposals, it was suggested that further dialogue take place with the organisation to seek expansion of the current Conservation Area.
• The design of the proposed houses was not considered appropriate in the context of the site being a former battlefield site and was not in keeping with the surrounding rural landscape.
• Whilst the application technically met a lot of the criteria in the design brief and could be considered an improvement on the agricultural buildings which were previously on the site, concern was expressed regarding the height of the proposed houses and the view was expressed that the requirement for street lighting was not necessary.
• It was emphasised that in addition to the representations listed within the report, an online petition containing 72,000 signatures was circulating expressing opposition to the proposed development and it was queried why this had not been included within the report.
• Disappointment was expressed that the applicant had not taken into consideration the historic nature of the site when designing the proposed houses and it was suggested that designs for traditional housing based on 18th century highland architecture could have been produced and would have been more appropriate within this setting.
• It was suggested that there could have been an opportunity to purchase the application site and restore it into the natural battlefield when it had previously been placed on the open market.
• The DPEA’s decision to grant permission for a development that the Council had previously refused and the subsequent obligation the Council had to determine the design of the development highlighted a major flaw with the planning system in Scotland and it was considered unfit for purpose.
• Disappointment was expressed that the historical and archaeological importance of the site had not been taken into consideration by the DPEA in its decision to grant planning consent.

Following discussion, Mr A Jarvie, seconded by Ms C Caddick, then moved that the application be deferred to give the developer an opportunity to revisit the external finishes to better reflect the Highland context and the Conservation Area, in particular with regard to the use of external materials, the proportions of the roofs to wall and external detailing.

There being no amendment, the motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to DEFER the application for the above reasons.  It was further agreed that the application would come back to a future South Planning Applications Committee for a final decision.

6.4
Applicant: Kirkwood Homes Ltd (17/03395/FUL) (PLS/007/18)
Location: Viewhill, Inverness. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Amendment to road layout and provision of drainage infrastructure.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/007/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and a further suspensive condition preventing commencement of the road works until planning permission (17/03396/FUL) for the housing design had been granted.

6.11
Applicant: Mrs Ann Edwards (17/02345/S42) (PLS/014/18)
Location: Angelshare, Abriachan, Inverness. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of 10 camping wooden shelters, camp kitchen, toilets and shower block without compliance with Condition 6 of planning permission 14/04549/FUL in order to retain the temporary toilet/shower block for a further 1 year period.
Recommendation: Grant

In accordance with Standing Order 18, the Committee AGREED that this item be taken at this point of the meeting.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/014/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the delay in constructing the new toilet block, which had been outstanding for some time, and that the reason given by the applicant for this delay was unacceptable.
• There were currently a number of issues regarding poor drainage and sewage on the site and it was hoped that by granting permission these issues could be addressed.
• Concern was expressed regarding a lack of clarity regarding ownership of some of the land required for construction work and that this should have been addressed prior to granting the previous planning permission.
• The applicant should be made fully aware of the consequences of not completing the required construction works by 30 June 2018 and that should this deadline pass without completion of the works, then a stop notice should be served on the business until the works were completed.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The provision of a new toilet block was a requirement of the planning permission which had been granted in 2011.
• Enforcement opportunities were available should a breach of the planning conditions occur and consultation with Environmental Health could take place to consider what the appropriate action should be.
• If Members were minded to refuse the application, the applicant would have the option to appeal the decision, during which time the business could continue to operate pending a decision being reached by the reporter.  Should the appeal subsequently be dismissed, an enforcement notice would be served on the business which could also be subject to appeal, during which time the business could continue to operate pending a final decision.
• It was emphasised that should the 30 June 2018 timescale not be adhered to, it would be a case of deciding what type of enforcement action would be the most appropriate to take forward to ensure completion of the construction of the toilet block including the possibility that the use of the business ceases until such time that toilet facilities were provided.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report.  It was further agreed that if the applicant does not comply with the 30 June 2018 timescale as set out in Condition 1, local Members would be consulted at this time with regard to agreeing the most appropriate enforcement procedure.

6.5
Applicant: Canmac Developments Ltd (16/05283/FUL) (PLS/008/18)
Location: Land 50M NW of Mehalah Tirindrish, Spean Bridge. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erect 9(no) dwellings (including affordable houses) and farm shop/cafe.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/008/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement.

Ms L Prins presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Additional information that required to be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority to satisfy a number of conditions within the recommendation could be published through the Council’s ePlanning portal, with the exception of information protected by exemption.
• Whilst there were other allocated development sites within Spean Bridge, there was no requirement for any of these sites to be developed first.  However, the applicant would have to take into consideration the number of houses being built within this site as part of the aggregate number of any proposed future housing developments within the other allocated development sites.
• The recommendation included a condition requiring the design of the boundary treatments, including fencing, wall and landscaping, to be appropriate in terms of their setting and public amenity and also to relate to neighbouring land uses.
• Affordable housing could be secured by a section 75 legal agreement and it was suggested that a timescale could be incorporated within the agreement specifying that the first affordable housing had to be developed in line with a certain number of market housing.
• The Council’s Roads and Transportation Guidelines had been used as a reference in terms of the provision of adequately sized parking spaces.
• As the ancient woodland was a map-based designation, it was possible that whilst the woodland had historically contained trees, this might not necessarily be the case now.
• Condition 2 of the recommendation contained the standard wording used to restrict permission to a certain use and any changes to this would require the submission of an application for a change of use by the current or any future occupant.
• The site had been allocated within the Local Development Plan and therefore the impact on the proposed development on the ancient woodland had been assessed as to whether it was possible to develop within the site whilst seeking to retain as many trees as possible.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The application site was located beside a gateway into Spean Bridge and it was highlighted that there were two other gateways into the village that were also currently subject to housing development. 
• Spean Bridge was growing rapidly and careful management was required to ensure that high quality developments were being built.
• In highlighting a lack of affordable housing in Lochaber, it was emphasised that, in addition to social housing, there was a need for housing that could fulfil the requirements of young families and people moving to the area for employment opportunities.
• The proximity of the proposed development to the school could be attractive to young families.
• Whilst concern had been raised regarding over-development of the site, it was suggested that if wider house spacing had been pushed for, house prices could deter the people most likely seeking housing in this area.
• It was requested that local Members and Spean Bridge, Roy Bridge, and Achnacarry Community Council be notified when the information required to be submitted to satisfy conditions 4, 12, 19 and 23 within the recommendation had been submitted by the applicant.
• The applicant should be encouraged to work with planning officers and the local community in order to achieve the most appropriate finish for the design of the farm shop and café.
• The proposed development was welcomed as it could provide Lochaber with necessary housing and the housing design was imaginative
• It was requested that the layout of the report at section 5.8 outlining the calculations used to determine the required level of developer contributions be used for future reports to Committee where there was a developer contribution of similar magnitude.

In response to further questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Information submitted in relation to the discharge of a condition could be made available online.
• Whilst it was important to seek the views of the community council in terms of the provision of public art, this could not be on a consultative basis.
• Statutory consultees, such as Transport Scotland, would be required to be consulted on issues such as a technical matter.
• An undertaking could be made by officers that the information submitted to discharge the conditions be provided to local Members in order to seek the views of Spean Bridge, Roy Bridge, and Achnacarry Community Council and provide any comments on their behalf.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement.  It was also agreed that local Members would be consulted on any new information provided by the applicant and/or consultees in relation to the discharging of conditions and that any comments provided by the Community Council on this information, through their local Members, would be considered by the Planning Authority.

6.6
Applicant: Black Corries Estate Management Ltd (17/03703/FUL) (PLS/009/18)
Location: Kingshouse Hotel, Glencoe, Ballachulish, PH49 4HY. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Alterations and extension of Hotel, Landscaping and upgrade of drainage system.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr A Baxter and Mr R MacWilliam both advised that they were members of the National Trust for Scotland which had objected to the application.  However, Mr Baxter and Mr MacWilliam both considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest that could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and, as such, it was not a declarable interest in terms of paragraph 5.7 of the Code.  They both intended therefore to participate in this item.

Mr A Baxter also advised that he was a member of the John Muir Trust which had objected to the application.  However, Mr Baxter considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest that could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and, as such, it was not a declarable interest in terms of paragraph 5.7 of the Code.  He intended therefore to participate in this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/009/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

n response to questions, it was confirmed that the proposal to extend the parking area to 103 parking spaces reflected the popularity of the hotel and its various other uses with tourists and hill walkers visiting the area.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The concerns previously raised by Members regarding the original application had been addressed in the revised application.
• Whilst concern had been raised on the potential impact of the proposed development on the wider mountainous area, it was emphasised that the size and scale of the extension was acceptable in comparison with the surrounding mountains and moorland.
• In response to concern that the proposal could add an additional human influence on Glen Coe, the presence of the nearby Ski Centre was highlighted and the view expressed that the A82 trunk road created more of a distraction due to the movement of lorries rather than the existing Kingshouse site.
• The scale of the proposed extension in comparison with the original Kingshouse building which was to be retained was highlighted.
• Whilst the original Kinghouse Hotel was not befitting for an area proclaiming to be the outdoor capital of the United Kingdom, the proposed development could potentially offer a more welcoming facility for visitors and provide a wider economic benefit through the creation of new jobs in the area.
• In highlighting recent traffic delays on the A82, it was suggested that the proposed development could make an important contribution towards easing traffic problems arising from people only visiting the Ski Centre for a day as the increased availability of accommodation could encourage people to stay longer in the area.
• It was highlighted that other European countries, such as Norway, made use of similar styles of building when constructing accommodation for outdoor activities.  Therefore, the style and massing of the proposed development was considered appropriate in the context of the surrounding Glen Coe landscape and its use by hillwalkers and skiers.
• The condition of the original building had not been a welcoming experience for visitors to the hotel over the years.
• Whilst the appearance of the original building and the proposed extension could be considered incongruous, the proposal was deemed acceptable.
• In highlighting a lack of visitor accommodation within the area, it was suggested that by increasing the number of bedrooms available, there was a likelihood of visitors being more inclined to stay in the area for longer and subsequently contributing more to the local economy than they would if they were only visiting for a day.

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

6.7
Applicant: Lochaline Quartz Sand Ltd (17/05495/S42) (PLS/010/18)
Location: Lochaline Mine, Lochaline, Morvern. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Application for Non-Compliance with Condition 1 of Planning Permission LO/1993/590 - Time extension for continued underground mining, processing and dispatch of silica sand for a further period of 20 years.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/010/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a Section 75 obligation.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure financial provision for the decommissioning and site restoration measures outlined in the Decommissioning and Restoration Plan to be approved under condition 2 recommended in the report.

6.8
Applicant: Mr and Mrs Mark McSherry (16/02606/FUL) (PLS/011/18)
Location: Land South of The Meadows, Meikle Geddes, Nairn. (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Erection of 3 houses and garages, and formation of access.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/011/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the inclusion of an informative note advising the applicant that any future applications on neighbouring land would trigger the provision of affordable housing and would be subject to the policies within the new Developers Contribution Supplementary Guidance.

6.9
Applicant: Brian MacGregor & Sons Ltd (16/00592/FUL) (PLS/012/18)
Location: Land 970M NE of Gloonan, Daviot, Inverness. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Extraction of peat on approx. 13.3ha from existing area including use of an existing storage building and vehicle accessed operational area.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/012/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The application was for planning permission to continue the extraction of deep-dug peat for a further 10 year period in the area identified as Area 6 within the plans submitted by the applicant.
• A further separate application for planning permission would be required to be submitted for assessment against the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations 2017 should the applicant seek to extend extraction of deep-dug peat into Area 5 of the wider site.
• The application site currently extracted between 10,000 and 20,000 tonnes of deep-dug peat per year and it was proposed to limit consent to 100,000 tonnes of deep-dug peat over the 10 year period.
• It was anticipated that extraction of the 100,000 tonnes of deep-dug peat could take between 5 and 8 years to complete and that restoration of the site could be undertaken on a phased basis during this period.
• Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 241) states that: “Policies should protect areas of peatland and only permit commercial extraction in areas suffering historic, significant damage through human activity and where the conservation value is low and restoration is impossible”.
• Whilst planners were of the view that a level of full restoration of the site could be possible, SNH had viewed the site as degraded peatland that had been significantly damaged due to human intervention following removal of forestry in order to progress peat extraction.
• The recommendation included a condition requiring an Outdoor Access Plan for the site and it was suggested that this could include a map highlighting areas of the site which contained deep water.
• It was explained that the complete strip back of peat to bedrock was required as wet peat would be unable to withstand the weight of heavy machinery without it sinking and that following its storage in an appropriate manner to keep its form, a 1 metre deep strip of peat would reinstated above the bedrock to enable restoration of the site.
• Advice could be sought from the Project Design Unit as to the level of bond required for a site of this size.
• The recommendation included a condition requiring the appointment of an Environmental Clerk of Works with the ability to stop work if so required to ensure that restoration was being taken forward appropriately and that the proposed development did not impact on any protected species.
• It was suggested that a condition could be included within the recommendation requiring the appointment of a Planning Monitoring Officer to inspect the site as to compliance on a bi-monthly basis.

During discussion, the Chair welcomed the suggestion that the appointment of a Planning Monitoring Officer be included within the recommendations and emphasised the importance of the inclusion of a bond within the conditions of the planning permission.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to:-

• the conditions recommended in the report.
• an additional condition requiring a Planning Monitoring Officer to seek reports on the site on a bi-monthly basis.
• the prior conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement to secure financial provision for the decommissioning and site restoration measures outlined in the Decommissioning and Restoration Plan to be approved under Condition 3 recommended in the report

6.10
Applicant: Scotia Homes Ltd (17/02509/FUL) (PLS/013/18)
Location: Land 150M SW of Salix, Dalcroy Road, Croy. (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: Erection of 100 houses, retail unit and cafe.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/013/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, the Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the application pending a site visit to take place prior to the next meeting of the Committee on 13 March 2018 to allow Members to fully appreciate the layout of the site in the context of some of the more complex issued raised in the report.        

The meeting ended at 5.00 pm