Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Special Meeting of the Highland Council held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 at 10.30am.

1. Calling of the Roll and Apologies for Absence
A’ Gairm a’ Chlàir agus Leisgeulan

Present:
Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mrs J Barclay, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner (v/c), Mr J Bruce, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs I Campbell, Miss J Campbell, Mr I Cockburn, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr M Finlayson (am only), Mr C Fraser , Mr L Fraser , Mr R Gale, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mrs P Hadley, Mr T Heggie (am only), Mr A Henderson, Mr A Jarvie, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr A MacInnes , Mrs D Mackay, Mr D Mackay, Mr W MacKay (v/c), Mrs I MacKenzie, Mr C MacLeod, Mr D MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mr R MacWilliam, Mrs B McAllister, Mr H Morrison, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr P Saggers, Mr A Sinclair, Ms N Sinclair  (v/c) (am only), Mr C Smith, Ms M Smith, and Mr B Thompson.

In Attendance:    
Mr D Mudie, Area Planning Manager – South
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr S Taylor Administration Assistant, Committee Services

Mr B Lobban in the Chair

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr B Allan, Mr I Brown, Mrs G Campbell-Sinclair, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr A Christie, Mrs M Cockburn, Ms K Currie, Mrs M Davidson, Mr J Finlayson, Mr J Gordon, Mr K Gowans, Mr R Laird, Ms E Knox, Mr R MacDonald, Mr G MacKenzie, Mr S Mackie, Mr A Mackinnon, Ms A MacLean, Mr J McGillivray, Mr N McLean, Ms L Munro, Ms P Munro, Mr I Ramon, Mr A Rhind,  Mrs F Robertson, Mr K Rosie, Mr G Ross and Mrs C Wilson.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None

3. Notice of Amendment (Planning) – Planning Applications (18/02739/FUL), (18/02742/FUL) and (18/05440/FUL)
Brath Atharrachaidh (Dealbhadh) – Iarrtas Dealbhaidh (18/02739/FUL), (18/02742/FUL) and (18/05440/FUL)

Item 3.2
Applicant: Dickins Hydro Resources Ltd (18/02739/FUL) (PLS/013/19)
Location: Land 155m south of Glen Ceitlein, Glenetive (Allt Ceitlein). (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Installation of (810kW) run-of-river hydropower system, associated plant, buildings and access roads (Allt Ceitlein)

Item 3.3
Applicant: Dickins Hydro Resources Ltd (18/02742/FUL) (PLS/014/19)
Location: Land 1000M SW of Altachaorin, Glenetive (Allt Chaorainn). (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Installation of (1,640kW) run-of-river hydropower system, including two intakes, buried pipeline, powerhouse building, outfall, and bridge (Allt Chaorainn)

Item 3.7
Applicant: Dickins Hydro Resources Ltd (18/05440/FUL) (PLS/018/19)
Location: Land 650m south west of Coiletir, Glenetive (Allt Mheuran). (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Installation of (885kW) run-of-river hydropower system, including one intake structure, buried pipeline, powerhouse building, outfall, bridges, formation of borrow pits and access tracks (Allt Mheuran)

Mr A Baxter advised that he was a Member of the John Muir Trust which had objected to the applications.  He confirmed, however, that he did not consider this to be a declarable interest and that he would take part in the deliberation and determination of the applications.

At its meeting on 20 February 2019, the South Planning Applications Committee granted planning permission for the above applications.  The following Notice of Amendment was then received on 21 February 2019:

“We the undersigned, being Elected Members of the Highland Council, hereby declare our wish that the decisions of the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 20 February 2019 on the above applications (Agenda Items 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7) be reviewed at the next scheduled meeting of the full Council.

Signed: Mr A Baxter, Mr B Lobban, Mr M Reiss, Mrs M Cockburn, Mr A Jarvie, Dr I Cockburn, Mr A Sinclair, Mr T Heggie, Mrs A MacLean, Ms P Hadley, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr C Smith, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs I MacKenzie, Mr D Macpherson, Mr D MacKay, Mr S Mackie, Mr C Fraser, Mrs M Davidson, Mr I Ramon and Mr K Rosie.”

In this context, there had been circulated the following:-

• a copy of the Minute from the special meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held on 20 February 2019, which was approved by the Committee on 12 March 2019;
• Reports Nos PLS/013/19, PLS/014/19 and PLS/018/19 by the Area Planning Manger – South;
• supplementary Appendix 3 attached to Reports Nos PLS/013/19, PLS/014/19 and PLS/018/19 containing the decision of the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 20 February in relation to each individual application; and
• a copy of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Viewpoint information for Glenetive Hydro Schemes.  

In addition, copies of additional correspondence which had been received following the meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee on 20 February 2019 were distributed to Members.

The case officer’s assessments of the planning applications were contained in the South Planning Applications Committee reports and the plans contained as an appendix.

The Chair reminded Members that, in order to take part in the decision, they required to be present for the whole of the item.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the reports and recommendations as follows:-

Item 3.2 – Planning Application Reference: 18/02739/FUL

In response to questions, clarification was provided on the following:-

• It was proposed that the access track would be reinstated to a 1.5m all-terrain vehicle (ATV) track following construction as it was likely to see continued use by ATV-type vehicles and would help to prevent further erosion;
• Mitigation measures had been included within the recommendation to protect eagles from any potential disturbances arising from construction work;
• The buried penstock was located between the main intake and the powerhouse;
• Works to widen the access track route from the powerhouse to the bridge over the Ceitlein did not involve any pipework being buried beside the route;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that there had been previous examples of hydro schemes in Highland which had required enforcement action to be taken to address issues in relation to poor reinstatement works, there was now a better understanding of what was considered best practice and it was highlighted that an Ecological Clerk of Works and Landscape Clerk of Works were required to be onsite and to report any issues directly to the Council;
• The CAR Licence application had taken into account any restrictions to power generation arising from the requirement to regulate water flow levels and to protect the water environment;
• It was estimated that the majority of the existing access track was located within the Wild Land Area;
• The existing access track was not predominately engineered along the route of the proposed penstock from the intake to the powerhouse;
• The Ecological Clerk of Works and Landscape Clerk of Works would be funded by the developer; however, their role would be to report to the Council in the first instance;
• The intention of the drone footage was to provide Members with views of the intake and the access track in the context of the Wild Land Area;
• The highest position of the proposed development was located at the secondary intake at 117m AOD;
• The access track could be restored to its previous condition provided the right drainage was installed and the right materials were used;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that there had been varying levels of experience with contractors during the construction of hydro schemes in Lochaber, it was emphasised that the Clerks of Works were there to ensure that works would be done in accordance with the agreed standards;
• Whilst the Tree Planting Plan had not been submitted, it was confirmed that the Council was seeking compensatory planting on a one for one basis;
• The photos of examples of restoration shown during the presentation were within Lochaber and on similar ground to that of the proposed development; and
• It was proposed that the design of the powerhouse would follow the design principle of the example buildings shown during presentation of the report.

Item 3.3 – Planning Application Reference: 18/02742/FUL

In response to questions, clarification was provided on the following:-

• There was currently no engineered access track along the proposed route of the penstock and the footpath next to river would not be affected by the proposed development;
• No assessment had been undertaken into the potential impact of the proposed development on visitors to the Glen as a result of the estimated two year period for construction works;
• Whilst the intakes would be permanently visible following construction, with appropriate reinstatement, there would be no permanent impact arising from the construction of the penstock and the temporary access track;
• Whilst the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) had not discounted the potential for hillwalkers in Wild Land Areas to use different routes, it was acknowledged that the views from known footpaths could be affected by construction work;
• As there was currently no access track, the terrain, particularly in the upland areas, could be considered rough;
• The route of the proposed development was on steady rise;
• Restoration of the land form could take place rapidly using the proposed restoration methods;
• Whilst the intakes would be built of concrete, the applicant had come forward with proposals to face the walls with stone and natural vegetation and high quality screening of the intakes would be sought by condition;
• Mitigation measures had been included within the recommendation to protect eagles from any potential disturbances arising from construction work; and
• The highest position of the proposed development was located at the main intake at 182m AOD.

Item 3.7 – Planning Application Reference: 18/05440/FUL

In response to questions, clarification was provided on the following:-

• Whilst it was acknowledged that reinstatement could be affected by the weather, appropriate measures had been put in place to ensure quick and sensitive reinstatement of the penstock and construction access track;
• As the powerhouse would be located in an open and exposed landscape, it was proposed that it should read as a ‘building’ rather than attempt to hide it artificially;
• Due to the nature of the roads, larger vehicles such as lorries would not be able to use the access tracks and it was proposed that equipment in relation to the penstock would be taken in by tractor and trailer; and
• The highest position of the proposed development was located at the intake at 105m AOD.

In response to general questions, clarification was provided on the following:-

• Details had been provided of the bridges proposed to be used during construction;
• Whilst high levels of water from rainfall could affect the restoration of the access track due to potential issues with drainage on higher gradients, it could also have a positive effect as it could keep stored vegetation wet;
• The immediate sections of rock at the weir would require clearing to construct the intake;
• The life expectancy of penstocks in other developments was estimated at 25 years; although this could increase significantly with maintenance
• As most of the development works were on the floor of the Glen, the LVIA had focused on the “long and green” qualities of Glenetive;
• Conditions had been included within the recommendations to help integrate the intakes into their landscape setting as far as is practicable;
• The inclusion of a restoration bond could be included within the permissions to ensure the sites were reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority however these were usually used for restoration of a site at the end of its life, rather than as part of the construction process;
• The reports had focused on the Scottish Energy Strategy and not UK energy targets;
• Whilst Scottish Natural Heritage had not responded to the most recent LVIA, it was considered that this did not add more as the amended details were to test the originally submitted Zone of Theoretical Visibility;
• The upgrading of the existing overhead line would be determined under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 by Scottish Ministers and the Council would be a consultee on a section 37 application;
• Control measures were proposed to prevent water pollution, including a Construction Environmental Plan, the CAR Licence and a Construction Site Licence;
• Fisheries interests were covered within the CAR Licence;
• Input had been received by SEPA from the Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board  in its preparation of the draft CAR Licence; and
• The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had not been consulted as Scottish Natural Heritage was the Council’s statutory consultee.

Lunch Break 12.45 – 1.30pm – Mr T Heggie, Mr M Finlayson and Ms N Sinclair did not return to the meeting.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• It emphasised that there had been considerable public interest in the applications and that whilst it was acknowledged that petitions were not a material consideration, it emphasised that there had been 13k signatories to two separate petitions against the proposed developments;
• Concern was expressed regarding the visual impact of the proposed developments on the surrounding landscape in what was a designated Wild Land Area;
• The restoration methods proposed would not mitigate the impact of the intakes and powerhouse structures on the small scale qualities of the landscape;
• Concern was expressed regarding Scottish Natural Heritage’s response as it did not address the potential impact of the proposed schemes on the Wild Land Area;
• The surrounding area was undeveloped and the introduction of man-made concrete structures would look artificial;
• There was uncertainty with the proposed restoration as the harsh climate could make the terrain difficult to restore;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that hydro schemes could make a significant contribution towards future energy production, the design of the proposed intakes and powerhouses would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area and the retention of the engineered track in the Allt Ceitlein scheme would leave a substantial scar within a Wild Land Area;
• Concern was expressed that there was a lack of detail regarding the proposed design and finish of the intakes and powerhouses;
• Whilst the height of the Allt Chaorainn scheme could make it difficult for reinstatement works to successfully renew the surrounding terrain, the proposed monitoring measures were robust and the timescale for regeneration was feasible;
• It was emphasised that the continued use of fossil fuels was no longer a viable option due to the impact on health from air pollution and whilst the proposed developments could be considered small-scale, they could make a positive contribution towards energy production;
• The proposed developments could make a positive economic impact on Estates and therefore enable better management and conservation going forward;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed schemes could have a visual impact on Glenetive, there was an opportunity for regeneration of the area from the schemes;
• It was emphasised that the main issues surrounding the applications were around the potential visual impact and the impact on fisheries activities and tourism;
• The wild landscape was one of the main attractions for tourists to visit the area and it was important to protect the natural heritage;
• Whilst the community council had raised valid points, there was no guarantee of community benefit arising from the proposed development;
• It was highlighted that there was already existing infrastructure within the area such as commercial forestry and whilst there were a significant number of tourists to the area, there was currently a lack of provision to deal with waste and rubbish left behind by hillwalkers;
• The proposed CAR Licence would deal with any impact arising from the schemes on fisheries interest and other water users;
• The Ecological Clerk of Works and Landscape Clerk of Works would be in a position to report any issues arising from construction directly to the Council;
• None of the statutory consultees had objected to the proposed developments;
• In the context of localism, it would be inconsiderate to reject the view of the community council, who were supportive of the proposals;
• In highlighting that there was a variation in the perception of how wild land should be used for outdoor pursuits, it was emphasised that the creation of man-made structures in Lochaber had helped improve access in the area;
• Whilst it was likely that remediation work would take longer than anticipated, the use of the appropriate machinery would help to restore the land;
• The surrounding area was well used and therefore was not considered pristine as there were deer grazing on the lower side, powerlines running down the glen, commercial forestry and examples of man-made structures such as a road bridge and advisory signage on the A82;
• There were examples of natural scarring on the sides of the glen from avalanches, floods and windfall trees glens;
• It was emphasised that glens had previously been harvested and the proposed developments represented the modern way of achieving this;
• The LVIA had considered that the recreational enjoyment from the large majority of hill slopes and summits across the Wild Land Area would be unaffected by the proposed developments;
• It was highlighted that Scottish Natural Heritage considered that the proposals would have a localised effect but would not affect the experience or result in significant effects on the wider appreciation of the WLA or qualities of the area;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the surrounding environmental area had spectacular views and was appreciated by residents and tourists, it was Council position and policy to promote the use of renewable in energy production;
• The scale of energy production from the proposed hydro schemes was not considered significant enough to mitigate for the likely visual impact on the surrounding Wild Land Area;
• The views of the local community should be given greater weight than tourists and visitors who would only be in the area for a short period and it was suggested that it was invariably local people who had to deal with cleaning up waste left behind;
• The scale of the proposed development would be lost in the context of the surrounding landscape;
• It was highlighted that with good landscaping the proposed powerhouses and intakes could blend in with the surrounding environment; and
• Whilst Glenetive was a stunning mountainous area, it was considered that with the appropriate mitigation measures as recommended in the report, the proposals meet the requirements of Policy 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

Decisions

3.2
Applicant: Dickins Hydro Resources Ltd (18/02739/FUL) (PLS/013/19)
Location: Land 155m south of Glen Ceitlein, Glenetive (Allt Ceitlein). (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Installation of (810kW) run-of-river hydropower system, associated plant, buildings and access roads (Allt Ceitlein)

No consensus having been reached by the Members, Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• the proposed development was contrary to Paragraph 200 of the Scottish Planning policy National Planning Framework 3 and Policy 57 of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan as it would have an unacceptable impact on the wild land characteristics displayed in wild land area 9 which was an area very sensitive to any form of intrusive human activity and had no capacity to accept this development, in particular, it would erode the sense of remoteness within the wild land area by extending built development and other man-made features beyond the glen floor thereby challenging the integrity of wild land qualities.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mrs T Robertson, moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and to the following amendments, as per the decision of the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 20 February 2019:-

• Condition 3(b) to read as “weekly” rather than “monthly”; 
• Condition 3 to include an additional sub condition: “Provision made for a point of contact with the contractor within Glen Etive for members of the public for the duration of the construction works.”; 
• The inclusion of the following sentence at the end of Condition 5: “Thereafter the passing place improvements shall be fully undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of any other part of the development.”; and
• The inclusion of the following sentence at the end of Condition 20: “For the avoidance of doubt the Access Management Plan shall include provision for temporary signage close to the junction with the A82 advertising the temporary bridge closure.”

On a vote being taken, 14 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 28 votes in favour of the amendment, with one abstention as follows:-

For the Motion:
Mr A Baxter, Miss J Campbell, Mr I Cockburn, Mr C Fraser, Mrs P Hadley, Mr A Jarvie, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Mackay, Mr C MacLeod, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mr P Saggers and Mr C Smith

For the Amendment:
Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mrs J Barclay, Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner, Mr J Bruce, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr L Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mr A Henderson, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr A MacInnes, Mrs D Mackay, Mr W MacKay, Mr D MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mr R MacWilliam, Mrs B McAllister, Mr H Morrison, Mrs T Robertson, Mr A Sinclair, Ms M Smith and Mr B Thompson

Abstention:
Mrs I MacKenzie

Decision

The Council AGREED to GRANT planning permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in section 11 of the 20 February 2019 South Planning Applications Committee report, subject to the inclusion of the previously agreed amendments to the recommendation contained in supplementary Appendix 3 to the report and subject to Plans 27 - 42 contained within the report.

3.3
Applicant: Dickins Hydro Resources Ltd (18/02742/FUL) (PLS/014/19)
Location: Land 1000M SW of Altachaorin, Glenetive (Allt Chaorainn). (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Installation of (1,640kW) run-of-river hydropower system, including two intakes, buried pipeline, powerhouse building, outfall, and bridge (Allt Chaorainn)

No consensus having been reached by the Members, Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• the proposed development was contrary to Paragraph 200 of the Scottish Planning policy National Planning Framework 3 and Policy 57 of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan as it would have an unacceptable impact on the wild land characteristics displayed in wild land area 9 which was an area very sensitive to any form of intrusive human activity and had no capacity to accept this development, in particular, it would erode the sense of remoteness within the wild land area by extending built development and other man-made features beyond the glen floor thereby challenging the integrity of wild land qualities.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr B Boyd, moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and to the following amendments, as per the decision of the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 20 February 2019:-

• Condition 3(b) to read as “weekly” rather than “monthly”; 
• Condition 3 to include an additional sub condition: “Provision made for a point of contact with the contractor within Glen Etive for members of the public for the duration of the construction works.”; 
• The inclusion of the following sentence at the end of Condition 6: “Thereafter the passing place improvements shall be fully undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of any other part of the development.”; and
• The inclusion of the following sentence at the end of Condition 18: “For the avoidance of doubt the Access Management Plan shall include provision for temporary signage close to the junction with the A82 advertising the temporary bridge closure.”

On a vote being taken, 15* votes were cast in favour of the motion and 27 votes in favour of the amendment, with one abstention as follows:-

For the Motion:
Mr A Baxter, Miss J Campbell, Mr I Cockburn*, Mr C Fraser, Mrs P Hadley, Mr A Jarvie, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Mackay, Mr C MacLeod, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mr P Saggers, Mr A Sinclair and Mr C Smith

For the Amendment:
Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mrs J Barclay, Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner, Mr J Bruce, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr L Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mr A Henderson, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr A MacInnes, Mrs D Mackay, Mr W MacKay, Mr D MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mr R MacWilliam, Mrs B McAllister, Mr H Morrison, Mrs T Robertson, Ms M Smith and Mr B Thompson

Abstention:
Mrs I MacKenzie

* Mr I Cockburn was not present for the presentation of item 3.3 and therefore not eligible to participate in the determination of the application; therefore, the result of the vote was 14 votes cast in favour of the motion and 27 votes in favour of the amendment, with one abstention.

Decision

The Council AGREED to GRANT planning permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in section 11 of the 20 February 2019 South Planning Applications Committee report, subject to the inclusion of the previously agreed amendments to the recommendation contained in supplementary Appendix 3 to the report and subject to Plans 43 – 55 contained within the report.

3.7
Applicant: Dickins Hydro Resources Ltd (18/05440/FUL) (PLS/018/19)
Location: Land 650m south west of Coiletir, Glenetive (Allt Mheuran). (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Installation of (885kW) run-of-river hydropower system, including one intake structure, buried pipeline, powerhouse building, outfall, bridges, formation of borrow pits and access tracks (Allt Mheuran)

No consensus having been reached by the Members, Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• the proposed development was contrary to Paragraph 200 of the Scottish Planning policy National Planning Framework 3 and Policy 57 of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan as it would have an unacceptable impact on the wild land characteristics displayed in wild land area 9 which was an area very sensitive to any form of intrusive human activity and had no capacity to accept this development, in particular, it would erode the sense of remoteness within the wild land area by extending built development and other man-made features beyond the glen floor thereby challenging the integrity of wild land qualities.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mrs T Robertson, moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and to the following amendments, as per the decision of the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 20 February 2019:-

• Condition 3(b) to read as “weekly” rather than “monthly”; 
• Condition 3 to include an additional sub condition: “Provision made for a point of contact with the contractor within Glen Etive for members of the public for the duration of the construction works.”;
• The inclusion of the following sentence at the end of Condition 5: “Thereafter the passing place improvements shall be fully undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of any other part of the development.”; and
• The inclusion of the following sentence at the end of Condition 18: “For the avoidance of doubt the Access Management Plan shall include provision for temporary signage close to the junction with the A82 advertising the temporary bridge closure.”

On a vote being taken, 17 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 25 votes in favour of the amendment, with one abstention as follows:-

For the Motion:
Mr G Adam, Mr A Baxter, Miss J Campbell, Mr I Cockburn, Mr C Fraser, Mrs P Hadley, Mr A Jarvie, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Mackay, Mr C MacLeod, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mr P Saggers, Mr A Sinclair, Mr C Smith and Mr B Thompson

For the Amendment:
Mr R Balfour, Mrs J Barclay, Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner, Mr J Bruce, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr L Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mr A Henderson, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr A MacInnes, Mrs D Mackay, Mr W MacKay, Mr D MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mr R MacWilliam, Mrs B McAllister, Mr H Morrison, Mrs T Robertson and Ms M Smith

Abstention:
Mrs I MacKenzie

Decision

The Council AGREED to GRANT planning permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in section 11 of the 20 February 2019 South Planning Applications Committee report, subject to the inclusion of the previously agreed amendments to the recommendation contained in supplementary Appendix 3 to the report and subject to Plans 56 – 73 contained within the report.

The meeting ended at 2.55pm.