Agendas, reports and minutes

The Highland Council
South Planning Applications Committee

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday 7 August 2019 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter (excluding items 6.9 and 6.10), Mr B Boyd, Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson (excluding items 6.6 – 6.10), Mr J Gray, Mr T Heggie (excluding item 6.10), Mr A Jarvie (excluding item 6.5), Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr N McLean (by video-conferencing).

Non Committee Member Present:

Mr D Mackay (items 1 – 6.2 only), Mr D Macpherson (items 6.2 – 6.5 only), Mrs T Robertson (items 3 – 6.1 only)

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Mudie, Area Planning Manager – South
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr B Robertson, Team Leader
Mr S Hindson, Team Leader
Mr R Dowell, Planner
Ms L Stewart, Planner
Miss C McArthur, Principal Solicitor (Regulatory Services)
Mr I Meredith, 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 L Fraser, Ms P Hadley and Mr B Thompson.

2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 6.5 – Mr A Jarvie (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 11 June 2019 which was APPROVED.

4.  Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/049/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South, 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: Erection of 50no cabins with associated forest retreat, managers accommodation, cycle store, maintenance area, internal roads, paths and utilities and drainage infrastructure. (19/02871/PAN) (PLS/050/19)
Ward: 21 – Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Applicant: Forest Holidays
Site Address: Land 450M SW of Highland Wood Energy, Lochaber Rural Complex, Aonach Mor Access Road, Fort William.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/050/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South 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 requested that the following material issue be brought to the applicant’s attention in addition to the material considerations referred to in the report:-

• Consideration to be given to road and transport infrastructure issues arising from the development, in particular, the impact on the A82 through Fort William given the number of planning consents for housing within the area over the last year.

5.2    Description: Proposed residential development. (19/02872/PAN) (PLS/051/19)
Ward: 17 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: The Highland Council
Site Address: Land 370M SE of Balloch Farm, Cherry Park, Balloch, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/051/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South 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 further material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.3    Description: Residential development (in principle), means of access, and associated infrastructure. (19/02938/PAN) (PLS/052/19)
Ward: 19 – Inverness South
Applicant: R F More (Properties) Limited
Site Address: Inshes Small Holding (north), Wester Inshes, Inverness, IV2 5BG.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/052/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South 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 further material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.4    Description: Demolition of the existing building and erection of 162 bedroom courtyard by Marriott Hotel comprising retail unit on the ground floor. (19/03401/PAN) (PLS/053/19)
Ward: 14 – Inverness Central
Applicant: Bricks Capital
Site Address: 122B Academy Street, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/053/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South 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, the Chair suggested that specific issues in relation to the principle of development within Inverness City Centre could be raised during development briefings with local Members.

Thereafter, the Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and requested that the following material issues be brought to the applicant’s attention in addition to the material considerations referred to in the report:-

• Consideration to be given to parking on the site given the loss of car parking facilities proposed within this development including detailed description of what mode of transport people are expected to arrive at the hotel;
• Consideration given to the proposed vehicular access to the development and any reconfiguration of the signalised junction at Chapel Street, Academy Street and Friars Place and what impact it would have on the Academy Street thoroughfare; and
• Consideration as to how the proposal (both the demolition of the existing building and the proposed building) sits with the Inverness City Centre Development Brief aims as a place to live for permanent residents in addition to short term visitors.

6.  Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1    Applicant: Ossian Developments Ltd (18/05376/FUL) (PLS/054/19)
Location: Land 80M South of Bratach Ban, Lettermore, Ballachulish. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development:      Installation of 7 holiday pods and associated services.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/054/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The ePlanning system currently did not require the inclusion of the correspondent’s home address within an e-mailed representation; however, in light of  Member concern regarding this, the Council would look into the issue and highlight it as part of the Scottish Government’s review of the ePlanning system;
• The applicant had not provided details as to why consideration of an alternative access through the golf course to the site had not been made; however, it was suggested that this could have been due to potential logistical issues in creating vehicular access through the existing path network within the golf course;
• The “treasured open space” was not located within the local development plan designation and would not be impacted by the proposed development as the application site was located away from this space on lower lying ground;
• In relation to the proximity of the application site boundary to Bratach Ban, it was confirmed that the orientation of some of the pods has been adjusted to focus their principal elevations towards the loch and that the property was approximately located 17 metres from the nearest edge of the stone boundary wall with a mix of the trunk road and vegetation between this distance;
• The applicant had expressed a willingness to address any concerns raised regarding road safety;  and
• Additional conditions could be drafted, in discussion with Transport Planning, to address the following:-
  • potential white lining of the pedestrian route on the Glenachulish Road to the bus shelter;
  • signage to manage access through the site which would encourage visitors to avoid the public road could; and
  • a passing place on the private internal track in addition to the allocated parking spaces.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The importance of mitigating road safety issues on Glenachulish Road and the need for a clearly marked pedestrian route to the bus shelter for school children was emphasised;
• The site was located within an area which the Local Plan supported for further tourism development and would have a relatively low impact;
• The approach suggested by the Forestry Officer in relation to tree protection within the site was welcomed; and
• The proposed development would have a significantly lower impact in terms of siting and design in comparison with the previous  planning application for four holiday cottages within the site which had been granted and had subsequently lapsed.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report together with additional conditions, to be drafted in consultation with Local Members, to address the following:

• Exploring the white lining for a pedestrian route on the Glenachulish Road to the bus shelter;
• Signage to manage the access through the site for visitors to encourage them to stay away from the public road; and
• Inclusion of a passing place on the private internal track in addition to the allocated parking spaces.

6.2    Applicant: ILI (Highlands PSH) Ltd (18/05427/S36) (PLS/055/19)
Location: Land 630m east of Park Cottage, Dores. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: To construct and operate a pumped storage hydro scheme approximately 14km SW of Inverness.
Recommendation: Raise no Objection.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/055/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending that the Council raise no objection to the Section 36 application and submit this to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consent and Development Unit, subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms L Stewart presented the report and recommendation, during which she made reference the following:-

• Paragraph 5.11 to be amended to read “Forestry Officer has no objections subject to conditions.”;
• Paragraph 8.89 stated that “the plans identify two areas within the head pond which shows the direction water would flow away from Dores village”.  It was confirmed that was in relation to the breach location and did not imply that Dores would not flood in the event of a breach in the reservoir; and
• It was requested that, should Members raise no objection, the Committee agree to delegate authority to the Area Planning Manager (South) to enable minor revisions and corrections to be made to the proposed conditions.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• It was estimated that the total construction period of the Upper Reservoir/Headpond and the associated embankments would take 6 years to complete;
• The visualisations provided during the presentation showed how the area would look after the first year of operation following commencement of development;
• The applicant was of the view that it would not be possible to provide visualisations of the total construction period due to uncertainty as to how each phase of the proposed development would be constructed;
• Transport Planning had originally objected due to concerns regarding the validity of the  estimated traffic figure assumptions submitted by the applicant; however, documentation was subsequently submitted by the applicant to verify the figures;
• Transport Planning recognised that the proposed development would have a significant and protracted impact on traffic for the duration of the 6-year construction period;
• The applicant had not put forward mitigation measures to address the likely impact on road traffic as they did not have the detail as to how this aspect would be constructed; therefore,  a condition had been included within the recommendation requiring the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP);
• The breach analysis of the reservoir structure had been regarded as confidential under the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011 due to the potential risk to national security as it was an active dam;
• Whilst there would be no direct spillway into Dores village, the spillways to the side and around the village could eventually inundate Dores in the event of a serious failure;
• The differences between the hydro scheme within this location and the dam at Whaley Bridge were outlined, during which it was confirmed that the proposed development had no natural catchment and therefore rainfall and flood events on the water fill levels within the reservoir would be minimal;
• The proposed development would be actively managed and continually monitored through water level sensors linked to the permanently staff control room;
• Dams associated with the reservoir come under the jurisdiction of the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011, which employed strict standards and was regulated by SEPA;
• The proposed Upper Reservoir/Headpond measured 39 metres in height at its extent;
• Electricity would not be constantly supplied to the national grid and would only be used to provide extra electricity when demand was required;
• Traffic surveys had been undertaken by the applicant on a number of potential routes for construction traffic;
• Information was provided on the worse case scenario traffic impacts and the number of geavy goods vehicles (HGV) trips likely to be generated during construction;
• In relation to a shortfall of 12.1 hectares of compensatory planting which had been identified within the Environmental Impact Assessment report, thiscould be mitigated  by condition and the submission of further detail regarding the location of the compensatory planting could be secured by condition;
• A concluded agreement in accordance with Section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 was proposed within the CTMP requiring pre-start and post-construction road condition surveys to be undertaken and, given the protracted period of construction, intermediate surveys would also be sought during construction to ensure mitigation measures were in place should any issues be identified;
• The CTMP would require any damage from construction traffic on already upgraded roads to be repaired and for sections of road which were not currently suitable for carrying HGVs to be upgraded during all periods of construction and decommissioning;
• It was anticipated that work undertaken in relation to the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be done in phases as required; and
• Condition 5 could be strengthened to ensure that the CEMP would be submitted at the earliest possible time.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The application had failed to provide commitment and clarity regarding the construction of the proposed development;
• The applicant had shown a lack of awareness of the area’s various Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);
• The proposed development would significantly impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding natural landscape;
• A request was made that that additional conditions be included within the recommendation should the Committee raise no objection to the application:- which could be circulated to the Planning Authority to merge with the current conditions.  These included further aspects on safety, roads, landscape, tracks, layout and size of the work camp, building finishes, noise, lighting and materials.
• It was further suggested that any internal development tracks which had the biggest visual impact be removed if they couldn’t be restored to a satisfactory standard.The cost of the proposed development was disproportionate to the amount of electricity it was likely to generate for the National Grid as it would only be required to supply electricity during times of increased demand;
• The Highlands had played a major role in the drive towards self-sufficiency and carbon natural electrical power, and, in light of the huge demands currently faced in terms of infrastructure, it was considered that the application had failed to demonstrate how the community of the wider Highlands would benefit from its construction;
• Applicants should have the needs and desires of the Highlands firmly in mind when submitting applications of this type;
• The significant number of HGV trips required during the construction period would have a negative impact on the surrounding road network, in particular the B862 single track road which had already been damaged by HGVs serving other construction sites in the area;
• Given the significant increase in construction traffic arising from the proposed development, concern was expressed that the applicant had failed to submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan and had not provided information on how workers would be transported to and from the construction site;
• The impact of construction traffic would not just be confined to the B862 single track road;
• The proposed redesign of the A9(T) junction at Daviot could lead to further traffic problems due to the road works which would be required to be undertaken for that project;
• Until the outcome of inquiries into the Whaley Bridge dam failure were identified and new standards recognised, there should be a suspension of applications for hydro storage developments;
• Concern was expressed as to whether the issues raised by Members would be recognised during a Public Local Enquiry should an objection be raised;
• It was important to approve mitigation measures with the applicant as soon as possible to prevent any long-lasting visual impact on the amenity of the landscape during and following construction;
• A two-way traffic system was required on the road network upon leaving the A9(T) junction at Daviot to the construction site to mitigate the negative impact an increase of HGVs would have as it had already been subject to damage from construction traffic serving other developments;
• The use of the Caledonian Canal to transport materials to the construction site could impact on the road infrastructure in Inverness as swing bridges on the canal route would be required to open more frequently and a request was made that utilisation of the canal be held over until completion of phase 2 of the Westlink road development;
• More information was required within the Environmental Impact Assessment with regard to the impact the proposed development could have on areas of Inverness which were not currently protected by the River Ness flood alleviation schemes;
• Given the number of unanswered material concerns and questions raised both by Members and the local community, the view was expressed that an objection should be raised to the application and that a Public Local Inquiry could enable the outstanding issues raised to be addressed;
• Whether the use of any material taken out of the site,  could be used onsite  to lessen the impact and
• Serious questions had not been addressed in relation to issues of security and the safety of the proposed development.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, moved a motion that the Council raise an objection to the Section 36 application and submit this to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consent and Development Unit for the following reason:-

• The proposal was contrary to Policies 56 and 67 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan on the basis of the lack of a traffic management plan and the unacceptable increase in proposed traffic which would have a significantly detrimental impact on the road infrastructure and had not been appropriately mitigated; and
• The proposal was contrary to Policies 57, 61 and 67 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan based on the proposed visual impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area, in particular the north side of Loch Ness and the A82, but also the wider impact on the Loch Ness and Duntelchaig Special Landscape Area, particularly in relation to the construction and remediation stages.

Ms C Caddick then moved as an amendment that the Council raise no objection to the Section 36 application, subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the additional suggested conditions, but, having failed to find a seconder, the amendment fell.

Decision

The Committee agreed to Raise an Objection to the Section 36 application and submit this to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consent and Development Unit.

It was noted that at any scheduled Public Local Inquiry that the additional conditions suggested by Councillor Davidson would be merged with the current conditions.  A further draft of the proposed conditions could be in consultation with Local Members.

6.3    Applicant: Millers of Speyside Ltd (19/01264/FUL) (PLS/056/19)
Location: 9 Castle Road East, Grantown-On-Spey, PH26 3HS. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Change of use from residential to HMO (Class 7).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/056/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mr B Robertson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The purpose of the change of use was to provide accommodation for workers who had key roles within the applicant’s business;
• As a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO), the accommodation would be run as a business and therefore generate revenue for the applicant;
• The Council’s Road and Transport Guidelines for New Developments stated that, for car parking in residential developments, HMOs would be assessed on merit;
• Residential car parking standards for a new build accommodation within the curtilage of a property were 2 parking spaces for a three-bedroom house and 1.5 spaces per unit for a development with shared car parking; and
• In relation to Policy 2 of Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan (Supporting Economic Growth), the application had been assessed on the basis that it was seeking to deal with a new use for a local business and the economic impact it could have.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of local residents;
• Transport Planning had raised an objection on the basis of a lack of car parking provision;
• The proposed development did not have off-street parking and therefore did not comply with Policy 1(7)(c) of the Cairngorm National Park Authority Local Development Plan;
• It was difficult for businesses in the Cairngorms to find accommodation for employees given the number of Airbnbs and self-catering facilities which were being rented out to tourists;
• Whilst the report stated that the Cairngorms National Park Authority had not raised an objection to the proposed development, this was due to its procedure of not commenting on applications unless they were required to be called-in; and
• The application supported economic growth, as per Policy 2 of Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan (Supporting Economic Growth).

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Ms C Caddick, moved a motion that the application be granted, subject to the condition recommended in the report.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by Mr A Baxter, moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed use would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity due to the lack of parking facilities and was therefore contrary to Policy 1(7)(c) of the Cairngorm National Park Authority Local Development Plan.

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

Motion

Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr J Gray and Mr T Heggie. 

Amendment

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Boyd, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R Laird and Mr B Lobban. 

Abstain

Mr N McLean

Decision

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission.

6.4    Applicant: Millers of Speyside Ltd (19/01265/FUL) (PLS/057/19)
Location: 14 Castle Road East, Grantown-On-Spey, PH26 3HS. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Change of use from residential to HMO (Class 7).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/057/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mr B Robertson presented the report and recommendation.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Ms C Caddick, moved a motion that the application be granted, subject to the condition recommended in the report.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by Mr A Baxter, moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed use would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity due to the lack of parking facilities and was therefore contrary to Policy 1(7)(c) of the Cairngorm National Park Authority Local Development Plan

On a vote being taken, three votes were cast in favour of the motion and seven votes in favour of the amendment, with two abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Ms C Caddick, Mr J Gray and Mr T Heggie. 

Amendment

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Boyd, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R Laird and Mr B Lobban. 

Abstain

Mr G Cruickshank
Mr N McLean

Decision

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission.

6.5    Applicant: B & L Properties Ltd (19/02069/FUL) (PLS/058/19)
Location: Ross House, 14 Ardross Street, Inverness, IV3 5NS. (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Construction of 8 new mews style serviced apartments to the rear of Ross House.
Recommendation: Grant.

Declaration of Interest – Mr A Jarvie declared a non-financial interest in this item as an office bearer for the Conservative Partywho were the former tenant of the property currently located within the application site and left the Chamber for the duration of the item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/058/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a Section 75 agreement.

Mr B Robertson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The four units located on the first floor of the proposed development had windows to the rear which were perpendicular to the rear wall onto Ardross Place and looked in opposite directions, enabling daylight into the kitchen/lounge area;
• A storage facility for the provision of waste bins and bicycles was located to the right of the proposed building;
• The Council promoted active travel including the use of trains and buses and whilst it was recognised that there was a shortfall in parking within the site, this could be addressed through the conclusion of a section 75 legal agreement to provide a developer contribution towards active travel provision.
• It was estimated that the distance between the back of Ross House and the front wall of the proposed development was around 2 metres in length;
• Whilst there was an expectation that higher density buildings could be built within the city centre, the proposed development was comparable to a domestic scale house and was smaller in height than the existing Ross House building and the houses in Ardross Place;
• Information was provided on parking permits for businesses and residents within Inverness city centre, during which it was confirmed that businesses were allowed to apply for up to two parking spaces for the business and one parking space for visitors;
• Serviced apartments were defined as self-catering facilities that were serviced and cleaned by a management group and were marketed at the holiday and tourist market;
• The gap of between 6 to 7 metres between the back end of the car parking spaces and Ross House was earmarked for vehicle manoeuvring/reversing space and was based on Council guidelines;
• Cars parked against Ross House and the opposite wall would interfere with the 6-metre clear buffer and reduce manoeuvrability in and out of the parking spaces;
• Daylight was hemi-spherical and came in from different angles and was not affected by sunlight;
• There were existing buildings within the site that already took in a lot of natural daylight;
• An overview was provided of the assessment undertaken in relation to the proposed car parking arrangements for the whole site, during which, it was confirmed that, taking into account the proposed development and Ross House, the required number of car parking spaces for the whole of the site was estimated at 18 spaces including staff parking; however, whilst the proposal represented a shortfall of 9 spaces, the Council’s Roads and Transport Guidelines for New Developments allowed for parking requirements within town and centres to be assessed on merit and following assessment of Tourism Scotland data on hotel occupancy numbers and a modal split of people travelling to the Highlands by car, it was estimated that a total of 11 car parking spaces would be required, and therefore, a developer contribution towards the outstanding two spaces would be sought; and
• It was considered that the impact of the proposed development in terms of overshadowing would be marginal in terms of the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines and would not affect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Whilst there was a need for new housing and apartments in Inverness, concern was expressed that the proposed development would have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the properties on Ardross Place due to overshadowing;
• The importance of ensuring that precise calculations had been made in relation to the daylight and sunlight impact on Ardross Place was emphasised;
• In the context of its location within a conservation area and proximity to a listed building (Ross House), the proposed building would have a negative visual impact on the existing buildings in the surrounding area and represented a backyard residential development in a conservation area where no other similar developments existed;
• The proposed development would significantly change the nature of the streetscape in Ardross Place and represented over-development;
• The proposed apartments located behind Ross House would be dark and claustrophobic due to their proximity to the existing building;
• The proposed development was not in keeping with the Inverness Riverside Conservation Area and would impact on the visual amenity of at least two houses on Ardross Place due to the loss of sunlight; and
• There was already considerable pressure on car parking availability for residents in Ardross Street and the lack of suitable car parking arrangements for the proposed development would add to this problem.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr B Boyd, moved a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed development was contrary to Policies 28, 29 and 57 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan as it was not considered to make a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of the area, in particular on the character of Ardross Street and Ardross Place, due to the overdevelopment of the site creating a design that would not be sympathetic to the historic pattern and quality of this part of the Riverside Conservation Area.  Neither would it respect the setting of the B listed Ross House. In addition, the siting and design of the proposed development was considered to have a significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of residents on the adjacent properties in Ardross Place.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr R Balfour, moved as an amendment that the application be granted, subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

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

Motion

Mr A Baxter, Mr B Boyd, Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson, Mr T Heggie, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban and Mr N McLean.

Amendment

Mr R Balfour and Mr J Gray. 

Decision

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission.

6.6    Applicant: Mr S. Dickson (19/01133/FUL) (PLS/059/19)
Location: Land 30m North of Balnastraid, Duthil, Carrbridge. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development:      Part change of use of outbuilding to staff welfare accommodation (in retrospect).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/059/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The planning history of the site included previous applications for welfare accommodation and separate planning applications for the siting of caravans in connection with the operational use for the site;
• Complaints had been received that the use of the building as a welfare facility had not been authorised and it had taken time for an application to be submitted in a format that could now be deemed acceptable;
• Whilst the farm was comparatively small in size (9.56 hectares), there were currently no welfare facilities within the site.

During discussion, Members acknowledged the concerns raised by local residents and emphasised the need to ensure that robust planning conditions were in place to ensure the proposed development did not become living accommodation.

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

6.7    Applicant: Mr S. Dickson (19/01136/FUL) (PLS/060/19)
Location: Land 30m North of Balnastraid, Duthil, Carrbridge. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Temporary storage of two static caravans.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/060/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, Members considered the proposal to be acceptable as the proposed caravans would only be used for storage and not for living accommodation.

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

6.8    Applicant: Macdonald Ground Works Ltd (19/00347/FUL) (PLS/061/19)
Location: Lairgandour, Daviot, Inverness, IV2 6XN. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Internal recycling facility.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/061/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed that the site had gradually been allowed to develop from an operating farm into a de facto commercial industrial site;
• The importance of adhering to the recommended working hours was emphasised due to concerns raised regarding increased noise, light and traffic generated by the proposed development.

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

6.9    Applicant: Mr Matthew Hamlet (19/01281/FUL) (PLS/062/19)
Location: Little Mockbeggar, Woodside Avenue, Grantown-On-Spey, PH26 3JR. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Conversion of existing garage and accommodation over, and erection of single storey extension to form house.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/062/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The proposed development was for a relatively small house in an in-fill site and represented an improvement on the previously granted planning permission; and
• Whilst the existing access road was narrow, it was considered that the volume of traffic generated by the proposed development would be small.

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

6.10  Applicant: Clash Gour Holdings Limited (18/05996/S36) (PLS/063/19)
Location: Clash Gour Wind Farm, South of Forres. (Within Moray Council Area – adjacent to Highland Council Wards 18 and 20)
Nature of Development: Construction of Clash Gour Wind Farm - comprised of 48 turbines with a ground to blade tip height of between 136m and 176m, with an installed capacity in excess of 50MW.
Recommendation: Raise an Objection.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/063/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending that the Council raise an objection to the application and submit this to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consent and Development Unit.

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• Whilst there was existing surrounding windfarm development in the wider area, this did not necessarily suggest that the landscape was suitable for a further windfarm in the Moray area due to the following:-
  • the cumulative impact the proposed development could have on the Drynachan, Lochindorb, and Dava Moor Special Landscape Area (SLA) and the Cromarty, Rosemarkie and Fort George SLA;
  • the proposed turbines in Scenario A to the eastern array were 176 metres in tip height and would be substantially higher than any other on shore renewable development in the wider area, which generally comprised of turbines ranging from 100 – 120 metres in tip height;
  • whilst Scenario B proposed turbines with tip heights of up to 149.5 metres, this could also be considered significantly high in comparison with existing turbines;
  • the lack of respite when viewed with other turbines as the proposed development would be filling in other existing windfarms that had clear definition and separation from each other.
• Whilst the result of various studies carried out by Visit Scotland and other agencies had shown some ambivalence from contributers as to whether or not they would be put off from visiting areas which contained windfarms, the impact on tourism was not the reason for the recommendation in the report to raise an objection;
• The proposed development could have an impact on the landscape and local people’s enjoyment of the SLAs, including for hillwalkers accessing higher viewpoints, as it would fill-in a number of gaps which currently provided a degree of separation between existing windfarm developments;
• Whilst the Environmental Impact Assessment report made recognition of the significant adverse impact arising from the proposed development, it was considered that this had been downplayed and it was suggested that there would be even more of a negative impact than what had been reported.

Following discussion, during which Members expressed support for the recommendation, the Committee agreed to RAISE AN OBJECTION to the application and submit this to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consent and Development Unit for the reasons set out in Section 11 of the report.

The meeting ended at 3.20 pm.