• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 18 September 2013, at 11.40 a.m.

Present

Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Dr D Alston, Mrs C Caddick (substitute), Mrs H Carmichael, Mr J Crawford, Mr C Fraser, Mr J Gordon, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Hendry, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Mackay, Mrs I McCallum, Mr J McGillivray, Mrs M Paterson (substitute), Mr I Renwick, Ms G Ross, Mr R Saxon, Dr A Sinclair

Non-Members also present:

Mr R Balfour, Ms J Campbell, Mr B Clark, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr B Fernie, Mr L Fraser (Local Member Vote [LMV] – Item 4), Mr K Gowans, Mr C Macaulay (LMV – Item 4), Mrs L MacDonald (p.m. only), Mr G MacKenzie

Officials in attendance:

Mr S Black, Director of Planning and Development
Mr M MacLeod, Head of Planning and Building Standards
Mr G Hamilton, Head of Environment and Development
Mr A McCann, Economy and Regeneration Manager
Mr S Dalgarno, Development Plans Manager
Ms N Wallace, Environment Manager
Ms S Lunn, Business Support Manager
Mr A Webster, Regeneration Adviser
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Development Management
Mr T Stott, Principal Planner
Mr B MacKenzie, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson,  Planner
Ms L Clarke, Planner
Miss K Briggs, Graduate Planner
Mr D Chisholm, Graduate Planner
Mr C Simpson, Tourism Co-ordinator
Mr J Danby, Principal Engineer, Transport, Environmental and Community Services (TECS)
Mr F McIntosh, Transport Development Officer, TECS
Mr G Robb, Trading Standards Manager
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor
Mrs R  Moir, Principal Administrator
Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Also in attendance:

Mr J Hutchinson, Executive Director, Nevis Partnership (Item 5)
Mr T Semple, Development Manager, Nevis Landscape Partnership (Item 5)

An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to the Council.  All decisions with no marking in the margin are delegated to the Committee.

Mr T Prag in the Chair

1. Apologies for Absence
Liesgeulan

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr R Greene, Mr T MacLennan, Mr D Millar, Mr G Rimell and Mr H Wood.

2. Preliminaries

The Committee NOTED that Ms Nicole Wallace had been appointed as the new Environment Manager; and that Mrs S Lunn, Business Support Manager, would be retiring after 40 years’ service in local government.  The Chair, on behalf of the Committee, thanked Mrs Lunn for her valued work, and wished both Mrs Lunn and Ms Wallace well for the future.

3. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

The Committee NOTED the following declarations of interest:

• Item 10 – Mr R Laird (non-financial)
• Item 11 – Mr B Lobban (non-financial)
• Item 15 – Mr G Farlow (non-financial)
• Item 16 – Mr T Prag (non-financial)
• Item 17 – Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Mr D Hendry, Mr R Saxon, Ms G Ross (all non-financial)

4. Notice of Amendment (Planning) – Planning Application (11/04355/FUL) 
Brath Atharrachaidh (Dealbhadh) – Iarrtas Dealbhaidh (11/04355/FUL)

Residential development comprising 319 units (232 houses and 87 flats) and associated infrastructure and public open space on land at Cawdor Road, Nairn South, Nairn (Ward 19), for Scotia Homes Ltd, Barratt North East Scotland and Robertson Homes.

Mr L Fraser and Mr C Macaulay had requested and been granted local member votes for this item pursuant to Standing Orders 13.2 and 13.3.

The South Planning Applications Committee (SPAC) had granted planning permission for the above application at its meeting on 20 August 2012. The following Notice of Amendment was then received on 23 August 2012:

“Scotia Homes Ltd, Barratt North East Scotland and Robertson Homes (11/04355/FUL).

Location: Land at Cawdor Road, Nairn South, Nairn (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Residential development consisting of 319 units (232 houses and 87 flats) and associated infrastructure and public open space.

At its meeting on Tuesday 20 August 2013 the South Planning Applications Committee of the Council agreed to grant planning permission in respect of the application referred to above subject to matters being secured by s.75 agreement and subject to conditions.

We, the undersigned, being members of the Committee and elected members of the Highland Council, hereby declare our wish that this decision be subject of a Notice of Amendment (Planning) in accordance with Standing Order 10(4) and be reconsidered at a forthcoming meeting of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee of the Council.

Signed: Mr J Gray, Mr C Macaulay, Mr D Fallows, Ms J Slater, Mr H Wood, Mr F Parr, Mr R Balfour, Mr J Ford, Mr T Prag, Mr M Green.”

In this context, there had been circulated Report No. PED-53-13 (53kb pdf) dated 26 August 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the current position and asking Members to grant planning permission subject to the recommendation set out in Appendix 1 to the Report.  Appendix 1 (4401kb pdf) comprised the earlier report previously considered by the South Planning Applications Committee (SPAC) on 20 August 2013, updated as explained.

Representations received were circulated at Appendix 2 (998kb pdf).  A Masterplan for Nairn South had been approved by the Planning, Environment and Development (PED) Committee on 15 May 2013 and was a material planning consideration; this was circulated at Appendix 3 (2132kb pdf), along with a copy of the report that had been submitted to the PED Committee in May.  A copy of Nairn South Community Council’s response to the Masterplan was circulated at Appendix 4 (304kb pdf).   The relevant extract of the draft Minutes of the SPAC Committee held on 20 August 2013 was circulated at Appendix 5 (44kb pdf).

The Committee had held a site inspection earlier in the day.  At the commencement of this, the Chair had ensured that Members were aware of the purpose of the site inspection and the protocol relating to how and when members of the public could address the Committee.  A large-scale plan of the site was tabled.  The site inspection viewed the site from a number of locations around the proposed development site.  Around 50 members of the public were present at the first viewing point, close to the railway bridge.  They were given the opportunity to point out features of the site relevant in planning terms, and drew attention to the railway bridge, the main road, and the nearby health centre and school.  Discussion of the merits/demerits of the application was not permitted.

On returning to Council Headquarters, Members considered the application.  Prior to discussion, in response to a question, clarification was given that the status of the Inner Moray Firth Proposed Local Development Plan, to be considered at Item 11 on the agenda, did not require any delay in the Committee’s consideration of the Notice of Amendment.

The Head of Planning and Building Standards explained the reasons the application had been brought to this Committee and apologised for the inaccuracies in the earlier report relating to the representation of Community Council views.  He gave a presentation illustrating the key features of the proposed development, including numbers and types of buildings, landscaping, potential problems and associated mitigating actions, including the “pause and review” strategy, the relevant planning policies, and longer term future development and infrastructure requirements.   Statutory consultees had no objections to the proposals.  Whilst Community Councils had objected to the Nairn South Masterplan, it was his view that their concerns had been sufficiently addressed to allow the application to be brought forward.  The key considerations for Members were (i) whether the application complied with the Development Plan, and (ii) the terms of the conditions and legal agreement.

The Team Leader, Development Management, showed slides illustrating features of the housing development, drawing attention to the design of roads, the layout of streets and landscaping, open space, allotments, and house design, which reflected the historic house styles in Nairn.  Houses were of various sizes and styles and included affordable housing.

The Principal Engineer, TECS, detailed the proposed improvements to road safety for Cawdor and Balblair Roads junction, and the railway bridge.  He also explained how the traffic assessment had been carried out and drew attention to the “pause and review” strategy - once 100 houses were constructed, this would allow traffic levels to be reassessed and, should problems be identified, further development would be halted pending a solution being found.

The Head of Planning and Building Standards summarised the position, referring to the Development Plan, actions to mitigate technical problems and sawmill noise, “pause and review” points, the professional advice given with regard to traffic issues, the position with regard to the proposed bypass, and the high quality of the development.  Further to the report considered by the SPAC, three more conditions had been added: (i) with regard to car parking at the allotments; (ii) requiring the developers to set up a Community Liaison group; and (iii) requiring the upgrade of Balblair Road to accommodate development traffic and cycle and pedestrian access to the sawmill.  The application complied with the Development Plan and was recommended for approval.  Should the Committee refuse the application, it was very likely that the developer would appeal the decision and the matter would then be determined by the Reporter.  If this happened, and the Reporter granted planning permission, the Council would have no say with regard to any conditions.

In discussion, points raised against the application, included:

• the railway bridge pinch point: Policy 18 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HWLDP) stated that this pinch point would need to be addressed in order to open up the first phase of housing - the proposed traffic measures did not adequately do this; education, health and sport facilities in the vicinity placed additional pressure on the roads; Balblair Road was not a feasible alternative  to Cawdor Road, due to the high number of lorries (130 per day) accessing the sawmill; recent temporary traffic lights on Cawdor Road had led to long tailbacks
• the traffic assessment: as the survey had been carried out during January, the figures could not be relied on; this unreliability was compounded by traffic and census figures being out of date; it was clear that traffic levels would be much higher than estimated
• the pause and review condition: pausing after 100 houses would not address any traffic problems which had arisen during the first phase of construction
• sawmill noise: the 70m buffer zone would not be sufficient; it was foreseeable that future residents would complain about noise levels, leading to possible implications for the sawmill and a threat to employment
• the bypass: no development should go ahead until the bypass was complete
• access onto the A96 and town centre parking: traffic generated by the development would cause problems in both these areas
• housing supply: the HWLDP significantly overestimated what was needed in Nairn; there was no recent evidence of demand
• democracy: local views had been ignored when compiling the Development Plan and the Nairn South Masterplan.

In response to the above points and to questions raised, clarification was given regarding: the road safety aspects of the “home zone” design; access to Balblair Road from the development; the arrangement of road and pavement under the railway bridge; and the pedestrian crossing.  A detailed explanation was given as to how the traffic assessment had been carried out, including reference to standard practice for data gathering and the growth factors applied.  Members were advised that the junction between Cawdor Road and Balblair Road had significant spare capacity; even if the survey had recorded higher numbers of vehicles, there would not have been an issue.  Talks with Transport Scotland with regard to the A96 and the bypass would continue.

Points raised in support of the application included:

• the need for development: Nairn’s demographic profile was ageing and more young people were needed; school rolls had dropped by around 150 over the last 20 years; there was a need for affordable housing
• construction jobs would be provided
• there had been full public consultation during the preparation of the Council’s A96 Corridor Masterplan, the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and the Nairn South Masterplan; the Council had approved these documents and must use them - they could not now be changed
• if the application was refused it was likely to be appealed; the Council’s position would be very difficult and costly to defend; the Council would have no control over conditions attached to approval by the Reporter – there was a risk that mitigation measures would be lost
• Councillors were not experts in traffic assessment and had to rely on the judgement of those who were
• the design was excellent
• the pause and review condition would mean that traffic levels would be kept under review; should problems arise development would cease until the problems were resolved
• whilst Councillors represented their constituents, they had to judge planning applications on their merits - doing the right thing could be unpopular, but Members must decide the best on-balance position for the future of Nairn
• the condition requiring the developer to set up a Community Liaison group would ensure appropriate phasing.

The Council Convener and Leader emphasised the need to make decisions in accordance with the agreed planning policies, and drew attention to the likely consequences in terms of appeal costs and loss of control of conditions, should the application be refused.  The Chair also drew attention to the HWLDP and the Nairn South Masterplan, and stated that a refusal would be hard to defend on appeal.  Whilst the traffic issue was crucial, the assessment of the traffic experts had to be trusted.  The “pause and review” condition offered a good additional safeguard.

The view was expressed that it would be beneficial for the Council to bring forward Transport Assessment Guidelines, so that developers would have a clear understanding of what was required and the public could trust the findings.

After thorough discussion, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr G Farlow, MOVED that the application be granted, subject to the recommendation within the Report at Appendix 1, and to the additional conditions now being recommended by Planning officials, as set out above.

As an AMENDMENT, notwithstanding having been given legal advice that their reason for refusal was entirely unsupported by the professional evidence of the roads officers and would therefore be difficult to support on appeal, Mr M Green, seconded by Mr L Fraser, moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the roads infrastructure would not support the development; the Cawdor Road Railway Bridge underpass would not accommodate the additional traffic created by the Development; and Balblair Road was still single track in places.

On the vote being taken, 8 votes were cast for the motion, 13 votes for the amendment, with 2 abstentions as follows:

Motion

Dr D Alston, Mr G Farlow, Mr C Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr D Hendry, Mr T Prag, Mr I Renwick, Mr R Saxon.

Amendment

Mr J Crawford, Mr J Gordon, Mr M Green, Mr R Laird, Mr C Macaulay, Mr L Fraser, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Mackay, Mrs I McCallum, Mr J McGillivray, Mrs M Paterson, Ms G Ross, Dr A Sinclair.

Abstentions

Mrs H Carmichael, Mrs C Caddick.

The Committee thus AGREED to REFUSE planning permission, on the grounds that the roads infrastructure would not support the development; the Cawdor Road Railway Bridge underpass would not accommodate the additional traffic created by the Development; and Balblair Road was still single track in places.

The Committee also AGREED that a report be brought to a future meeting on how Transport Assessments were carried out, with a view to the Council setting guidelines to provide clarity for developers and improve public confidence.

The Committee adjourned for lunch between 1.40 p.m. and 2.15 p.m.

5. Presentation by Nevis Partnership
Taisbeanadh le Com-pàirteachas Nibheis

A presentation was given by Mr John Hutchinson, Executive Director, Nevis Partnership, and Mr T Semple, Development Manager, Nevis Landscape Partnership, on the work of the Partnership.

Information was provided on the way the Partnership had developed and on its achievements over the past 15 years.  Initial objectives had been taken forward, but it had become clear that the group must either extend its activities and take on larger projects, or close.  Working with partners, a bid had been compiled for a £3.85m Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) award, which had been given Stage 1 approval.  The five-year project would be in the development stage until January 2014, after which it was hoped that delivery could commence.  £1.3m had been raised so far; however, a further £130,000 match funding had still to be found before HLF would release their funds.

Although the Nevis area was a nationally iconic area, development was being taken forward through a local framework.  Partnership working was crucial to this – HLF required that all parts of the project supported each other, creating layers of added value.  Public consultation had shown that people valued scenery and natural beauty; ecology and wildlife; low level walks; peace and wild character; historical events; and challenge and adventure.  This had informed emergent project themes such as archaeology, heritage, Gaelic, events, paths and trails, public transport and parking, bio- and geo-diversity, art, interpretation, training and education.   The benefits of the project included the Ben Nevis Path, lower paths, the economy, tourism, schools and the community, and, on a wider scale, public health.  The Forestry Commission was also working to re-naturalise swathes of forest to improve habitat resilience.  Many of the project goals reflected Single Outcome Agreement aims.

Remaining challenges included: finding further funding, particularly for future years; issues relating to land ownership of the Path; and parking and transport.  The Highland Council had been very supportive, providing funding of £43,000 over two years, and assistance with archaeology, tourism, Gaelic, public transport information, education, management and rangers.  This was greatly appreciated, and it was hoped would continue.

In discussion, Members commented that the Ben Nevis area was often taken for granted, and asked what the Council could do to assist the project.  In response, Mr Semple advised that, while financial help was of prime importance, in-kind contributions, such as Council expertise in negotiating the Path lease, or applying for Scottish Rural Development Plan funding, would also be very welcome.  The project relied greatly on volunteers and the community, but the population of Fort William was only 10,000.  There was a need to tap into the national volunteer framework; however, transport and logistics were a problem.

The Director of Planning and Development having undertaken to look into ways the Council could assist the project and support the Nevis Partnership, in either financial or “in kind” terms, the Committee NOTED the presentation.

6. Revenue Monitoring Statement to 31 July 2013
Cunntas Buidseat Teachd-a-steach gu 31 Iuchar 2013

There had been circulated Report No. PED-54-13 (39kb pdf) dated 6 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development commenting on the Revenue Monitoring Statement for the period to the end of July 2013 and forecasting a budget under-spend of £0.664m at the year end.

The Committee NOTED the monitoring report to the end of July 2013; and AGREED the management action which had been taken to date.

7. Monitoring of Capital Expenditure to 31 July 2013
Sgrùdadh Caiteachais Calpa gu 31 Iuchar 2013

There had been circulated Report No. PED-55-13 (58kb pdf) dated 6 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the expenditure and income to 31 July 2013 for the 2012/13 capital programme.  An update on Vacant and Derelict Land Fund expenditure was also provided.

The Committee NOTED that year-end outturn for core projects was below that forecast due to staff resource limitations.

8. Planning & Development Service - Service Plan 2013/14
Seirbheis Dealbhaidh agus Leasachaidh – Plana Seirbheis 2013/14

There had been circulated Report No. PED-56-13 (346kb pdf) dated 6 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the enabling actions and the key performance results to deliver the Programme for the Highland Council, and the statutory and core functions of the Planning and Development Service, including the Single Outcome Agreement.  The draft Service Plan was circulated at Appendix 1 to the report.

The Head of Environment and Development summarised the content of the report.  In response to questions, he advised that, although the targets shown for a number of actions gave an end-date of the current Council, progress was in practice measured quarterly; the risks relating to employability data management related to the adequacy of the data base – this was being addressed; numbers of cruise ships to ports was recorded as this was a measurable indicator – other, more industrial, activity in ports and harbours was harder to record but work was in hand to monitor this.  The Head of Planning and Building Standards explained that the reason the report only listed two of the five forthcoming development briefs was because the other three were unlikely to progress in the current financial year; they could however be added in.

The Committee APPROVED the draft Planning and Development Service - Service Plan 2013/17, subject to the inclusion of the three development briefs referred to in the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HWLDP) and in the Inverness City Vision but not mentioned in the draft Service Plan as circulated (i.e. Muirton and South Kessock, East Longman and Longman Core).

9. Lochaber Tourism BID (Business Improvement District)
Sgìre Leasachadh Gnothachais Turasachd Loch Abar

There had been circulated Report No. PED-57-13 (57kb pdf) dated 2 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development offering a formal assessment of the Lochaber Tourism Business Improvement District proposal relative to the Council’s right of veto in accordance with the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Business Improvement Districts (Scotland) Regulations 2007.

The Tourism Co-ordinator clarified the distinction between the circulated report, which related to the Council’s right of veto for the BID proposal, and a report which would be brought to the full Council for consideration of the BID proposal’s merits.  An assessment of the BID proposal against the Council’s Power of Veto was set out in Appendix 1 to the report.  This indicated that there were no grounds for the Council to exercise its veto in this instance.

The Committee APPROVED the assessment made in Appendix 1 relative to the Lochaber BID proposal and AGREED not to exercise the Council’s right of veto.

10. Employability Service
Seirbheisean Cosnaidh

Declaration of Interest - Mr R Laird, as a Director of both Merkinch Enterprise and the Merkinch Partnership, declared a non-financial interest in this item but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. PED-58-13 (20kb pdf) dated 2 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development updating Members on Employability Services activity during 2013/14 and 2014/15 and setting out budget proposals to manage this activity over both financial years prior to the introduction of the new 2014-2020 European Programmes.

A number of the Council’s Employability projects received European Social Fund (ESF) match funding.  This would cease at the end of September 2014; however, it was anticipated that the new ESF funding scheme would not commence until April 2015, leaving a gap in funding.  In order that the projects could continue to operate, the Council’s Finance Service had suggested that £400,000 be set aside in the current year’s budget and used to bridge the gap in ESF funding.

The Committee AGREED that a request be made to the Finance, Housing and Resources Committee that £400k from the 2013/14 Employability budget be earmarked for use in 2014/15, to sustain employability activity during the period when there would be no match funding remaining from the 2007-2014 European Social Fund; and NOTED that the final earmarked figure would be revised at year end and reported to Committee.

11. Inner Moray Firth Proposed Local Development Plan
Plana Leasachadh Ionadail Linne Mhoireibh A-staigh a Thathar a’ Moladh

Declaration of Interest - as a Board Member of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, Mr B Lobban declared a non-financial interest in this item but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

Declaration of Interest - Mrs L MacDonald declared a financial interest in this item as a landowner within the Plan area and left the room for the duration of the item.

There had been circulated Report No. PED-59-13 (222kb pdf) dated 9 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development presenting the Inner Moray Firth Proposed Local Development Plan (IMFLDP) (Appendix 1 to the report) for approval as the Council’s settled position on the land use planning framework for the Inner Moray Firth area.  The Proposed Plan included a vision and spatial strategy for the area, and details of the locations and types of development considered to be suitable to deliver that vision.  The Proposed Plan was accompanied by an Action Programme (Appendix 2 to the report) that set out actions required to deliver the developments and policies in the Plan.

This Proposed Plan had been informed by comments received during the Main Issues Report consultation held the previous year.  A summary of the comments and the proposed Council responses (Appendix 3 to the report) was available on the Council’s website (here) and also in the Members’ library.

With reference to slides, the Development Plans Manager advised that the IMFLDP would show where and how the Inner Moray Firth should grow in the next 20 years, and, together with the HWLDP and supplementary guidance, would inform Planning decisions.  He summarised the stages the Plan had gone through to date, and drew attention to a number of key issues, including: providing housing land for 24,000 homes and employment land of 1,400ha, environmental issues and an update on the Hinterland, emphasis on the importance of city and town centres, and support for growth areas.  In addition to minor typographical etc. changes, he sought Committee approval for two more major changes to the draft plan as set out at (i) below.

He also demonstrated the on-line facility for viewing and commenting on the Plan.  Consultation on the Plan would be advertised, and neighbour notifications would be sent to people living adjacent to sites allocated for development.  Comments would be reported back to the Committee and then submitted to the Scottish Government, who would identify an independent Reporter to determine whether the Plan should be amended.  Once the Reporter had made his/her final recommendations, the Plan could be formally adopted by the Council.

Members welcomed the on-line facility which they had found to be user-friendly. They encouraged the public to comment on the Plan as this was the last opportunity to do so.  Clarification was given that the on-line facility was additional to the existing ways of responding to the consultation; people did not have to use IT, although this would make it quicker and easier for comments to be dealt with.

In discussion, Members supported measures to strengthen town centres, and sought and were given information relating to a number of specific areas, including that housing would be possible in a designated flood area if mitigation was put in place; and that area IN83 was not the same area for which planning permission for retail use had previously been twice refused.  More detailed maps of Special Landscape Areas were requested.  A comment was also made on the potential alarm when villages saw the housing allocation figures, notwithstanding that these were for a 20 year period.  In this regard it was suggested that a “pause and review” clause could be included in the Plan, and that areas for housing allocations could be split, so that smaller building businesses would be able to develop them.

In response, the Development Plans Manager gave an assurance that the Plan would be revisited every five years, but that phasing for housing development could be included if wished.  Clarification having been given that Committee approval of the Plan prior to final consultation was a statutory step, and that it was standard practice to then accept the Plan as the settled view of the Council pending final adoption, it having been considered in detail by the Committee on previous occasions, the Committee NOTED the comments received on the Main Issues Report and the proposed responses as set out in Appendix 3; and AGREED:

i.  the Proposed Plan and Action Programme as set out in Appendices 1 and 2
    for a 6 week public consultation, subject to minor post-Committee changes
    including formatting, typographic and illustrative amendments agreed in
    consultation with the Chair of the Committee, and subject to the following
    officer recommendations:
a. a change in the allocation at site IN85 to Business Use only, rather than
    Retail and Business Use; and
b. a change to Policy 1 to strengthen the protection and enhancement of city
    and town centres, as detailed in the presentation to the Committee; and
ii. in response to Member comment, the inclusion of more detailed maps of
    Special Landscape Areas, similar in style to the Main Issues map.

The Committee also NOTED that, as the settled view of the Council, the Proposed Plan as approved would be treated as a material planning consideration for development management purposes as of 18 September 2013.

12. Torvean and Ness-side Development Brief
Brath-leasachaidh Thòrr Bheathain agus Taobh Nis

There had been circulated Report No. PED-60-13 (33kb pdf) dated 26 August 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development seeking a decision to statutorily adopt and issue the Torvean and Ness-side Development Brief (1277kb pdf) (Appendix 1) as Supplementary Guidance to the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.  This was in exercise of powers delegated to the Planning, Environment and Development Committee by the full Council at its meeting on 13 December 2012.

Members were reminded that the City of Inverness and Area Committee had approved the Development Brief for its interest at its meeting held on 12 August 2013.

The Committee AGREED to statutorily adopt and issue the Torvean and Ness-side Development Brief as Supplementary Guidance to the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

13. Rural Fuel Rebate Pilot Scheme Extension
Leudachadh Sgeama Pìolait Ais-phàigheadh Connadh Dùthchail

There had been circulated Report No. PED-61-13 (99kb pdf) dated 28 August 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development bringing Members up to date with UK Government proposals to extend the Rural Fuel Rebate Scheme to remote rural service stations in the Highlands.

The Economy and Regeneration Manager summarised the main points of the report and expressed concern that some fuel station owners/site operators had not been able to respond to the Scottish Government’s call for information, potentially leading to exclusion of their area from the rebate scheme.  The Trading Standards Manager explained that the reasons for operators not replying included that the summer months were very busy, and that the operators did not expect any increase in throughput from the scheme.  The consequences of this for local people could be significant, particularly where a large postcode area held only one site operator.

The Vice Chair reported that fuel in North West Sutherland was 18p per litre more expensive than in Inverness, and that the cost of living in rural areas was from 10% to 40% higher than in urban areas, with fuel costs being a major contributor to the higher cost of living.  He urged all Members to lobby for the rebate scheme, to ensure no qualifying areas were left out because an operator had not responded.

The Committee welcomed the proposal to extend the rural fuel rebate scheme to the Highland mainland and AGREED to homologate the submission sent to HM Treasury, as contained in Appendix 1 of the report.

14. Land Reform Update and Work Programme
Fios as Ùr agus Prògram Obrach Ath-leasachadh Fearainn

There had been circulated Report No. PED-62-13 (161kb pdf) dated 9 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development summarising the Council’s recent contributions in support of land reform in the Highlands.  It also introduced the Government’s new target for community ownership and a recent UK Scottish Affairs Committee briefing paper.  The paper then proposed a short-term work programme undertaken jointly with Community Land Scotland, which would influence the final report of the Land Reform Review Group and increase awareness of the benefits of land reform.

The Head of Environment and Development drew attention to the main points in the report.  The Scottish Government’s target was to double the area of land in community ownership by 2020.  It was proposed to hold a seminar on how the targets could be achieved.  A meeting with the authors of the briefing paper was also proposed.

In discussion, points made included that it was important for the Council to respond to the briefing paper, but that arranging a meeting prior to the deadline of 30 September 2013 was unlikely to be achievable.  The Council’s response should therefore simply indicate the Council’s support for the review, and acknowledge that the issues that needed to be looked at were as set out in the briefing paper.  The issues could be more fully discussed at the proposed seminar.

Comments were also made with regard to: the potential benefits of land value taxation; that community land purchase applications took a long time to process - the Council could support communities by acting as a facilitator; and that the major factor in achieving community land ownership was finance.  It was also suggested that the Council should develop an Assets Transfer Policy to provide communities with clear guidance on what to do, and that the Council should lobby for change in the Scottish Government’s interpretation of State Aid Policies, which currently made it more difficult for communities to purchase land.

The Committee NOTED the extent of Council involvement in supporting land reform in the Highlands, as set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report; and APPROVED:

i.  the proposed autumn seminar themed around the Government’s additional
    500,000 acre target; and
ii. the request from Community Land Scotland for financial support (£6,000
    maximum in each of the financial years 2013/14 and 2014/15) and
    partnership for the delivery of 8 community seminars and the provision of
    practical advice and guidance to community groups during 2013/14 and 2014/15.

The Committee also AGREED that:

i.  in view of the UK Scottish Affairs Committee’s deadline for responses to its
    briefing paper being 30 September 2013, a meeting with the authors of
    the paper to discuss their vision for land reform in Scotland was probably
    not achievable prior to this date; the Council should therefore submit a
    response indicating that the Council agreed that the issues to be resolved
    were as set out in the briefing paper, with further discussion taking place at
    the seminar agreed above; and
ii. the link to the briefing paper be circulated to Committee Members.

15. EFF Axis 4 – Highland FLAG – Progress
EFF Aisil 4 – FLAG na Gàidhealtachd - Adhartas

Declaration of Interest - as Chairman of the Highland Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG), Mr G Farlow declared a non-financial interest in this item but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. PED-63-13 (167kb pdf) dated 3 September 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development providing an update on the delivery of the Axis 4 European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in the Highlands.

Members congratulated local groups who had been successful in securing EFF funding and thanked the Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Marine Scotland officers for their support to communities in this regard.

The Committee NOTED the good progress being made on the delivery of the EFF Axis 4 Fund in Highland and that a further report on progress would be presented to the Committee in January 2014; and AGREED that the Council explore the possibility of securing additional EFF funding from Marine Scotland on behalf of the Highland FLAG and that this be delegated to the Director of Planning and Development in consultation with the Committee Chair.

16. Inverness Airport Business Park – Annual Report
Pàirc Ghnothachais Port-adhair Inbhir Nis – Aithisg Bhliadhnail

Declaration of Interest - as the Council-appointed Director on the Inverness Airport Business Park, Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. PED-64-13 (23kb pdf) dated 22 August 2013 by the Director of Planning and Development providing Members with updated information on the current financial position of Inverness Airport Business Park Limited.

In response to questions raised, Members were advised that it was not possible for the Council to charge interest on the loan, and that the Director would clarify the position relating to loan security arrangements.  It had been thought in 2005 that development would proceed quickly; while this had proved not to be the case, activity levels were now starting to improve.

The Committee NOTED the report and the information given.

17. Caithness and North Sutherland Regeneration Partnership Minutes
Geàrr-chunntas Com-pàirteachas Ath-bheothachaidh Ghallaibh agus Chataibh a Tuath

Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Mr D Hendry, Mr R Saxon and Ms G Ross, as Board members of the Advisory Board of the Caithness and North Sutherland Regeneration Partnership, declared non-financial interests in this item but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that their interests did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated and were NOTED minutes of the meeting of the Caithness and North Sutherland Regeneration Forum held on 11 June 2013 (128kb pdf).

18. Minutes
Geàrr-chunntas

There had been circulated and were NOTED Minutes of the Planning Applications Committees (PACs) for:-

i. North PAC - 18 June, 2013
ii. South PAC - 25 June, 2013

The meeting ended at 4.05 p.m., having adjourned for lunch between 1.40 p.m. and 2.15 p.m.