• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee held in the Duthac Centre, Tain on Tuesday 4 March 2008 at 10.30am

Present:

Mr D Mackay, Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Lady M Thurso, Mr W Fernie, Mr G Smith, Mr R Coghill, Mr J McGillivray, Mr W Ross, Mr M Rattray, Mr A Torrance

Non-Members also present:

Mr D Flear, Mr M Finlayson (Item 3.1)

In Attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager

Mrs F Sinclair, Area Solicitor

Mr I Ewart, Team Leader, Planning and Development Service

Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner

Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner

Mr I Moncrieff, Principal Engineer, TEC Services

Miss A Macrae, Administrator

Mr D Mackay in the Chair.

1. Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies for absence were intimated from Mrs C Wilson, Mr R Durham and Mrs L Munro.  Lady M Thurso declared a non financial interest in item 3.4, for the erection of fabrication workshop, offices, store extension to existing building at land to the south of The Smiddy, Bower, By Wick, on the basis that her husband Lord Thurso MP, in his capacity as Member of the Westminster Parliament for the area, had submitted a letter to the Council in support of the application.

2. Minute of Meeting

The Minute of the Meeting of the Committee held on 29 January 2008, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, was approved.

3. Planning Applications

3.1 Erection of Warehouses, in Outline, at Invergordon Distillery, Golf View Terrace, Invergordon for Whyte & Mackay Ltd (07/00231/OUTRC)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-08-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 07/00231/OUTRC for the erection of warehouses, in outline, at Invergordon Distillery for Whyte & Mackay Ltd.

The Area Solicitor pointed out that Mr M Finlayson had requested and been granted a local member vote in relation to this item of business

The Chairman confirmed that the application would proceed under the Hearings Procedure.

Mrs Stott, Principal Planner, summarised the application, the consultations carried out and the representations received. She reported that the majority of the site is designated for industrial use within the Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan, apart from an area of trees which had been zoned as land of amenity value.

Mr I Mackie, representing the applicant, explained that the nature of the Company’s business had changed to meet market demand for ten year old blended whisky, rather than the three year old blend which had traditionally been produced, and therefore additional warehouses were required to store the product.  The proposed location was attractive given its proximity to the Distillery, and would be sufficient to transform the business as outlined.  He expressed his resistance to the proposal that additional tree planting be undertaken on the site advising that the storage of flammable liquid in the warehouses so close to the trees constituted a fire hazard, and that there were also security issues with planting near to the perimeter fence.  However he said that he would be willing to undertake compensatory planting on other parts of the site away from the warehouses.

Mr Mackie referred to the condition set out in the report which required the warehouse buildings to be set down within the site.  He explained that the application site is two metres higher than the existing site and that to achieve the same levels would require the removal of substantial quantities of material involving between 800 and 1,000 lorry movements with associated financial and environmental costs. 

Responding to questions from Members, the applicant advised that;

• The recommended distance for trees to be located away from the warehouses is 15 metres
• The finger of trees currently on the site will be removed, noting that this area was swampy, and that some of the trees had been damaged during recent storms.  The area was not easily accessible for the public and was not used as an amenity area. 
• The site would be developed over a period of three years
• It was anticipated that the development would create between five and ten new jobs
• There is a 10 metre gap between the warehouses and the trees on the existing site
• It was proposed to plant broadleaf trees on the site of an old dump located within the site, explaining that it was not proposed to site warehouses in this area due to concerns about potential land contamination
• Referring to drainage it was confirmed that the soil structure would be investigated.  A full environmental survey would also be carried out, including on site gas monitoring, and precautions taken as necessary in relation to land contamination
• Responding to a question regarding whether there were any proposals to protect the amenity of Inverbreakie Farm House, it was reported that the applicant’s preference would be to plant a hedge rather than the planting of broad leaf trees as required by the Council, for reasons of safety and security as previously explained. 
• To protect the neighbours’ amenity it would be feasible to reduce the number of warehouses by making some of them larger, however this would necessitate the installation of a sprinkler protection system, which would be expensive
• The applicant would ensure that CCTV cameras would not look onto the neighbours’ land, and security lights would also be aligned along the perimeter fence away from Inverbreakie Farm House

The Chairman then invited the objectors to state their case.

Mr Coston outlined his objections to the proposals acknowledging that a balance had to be achieved in terms of economic prosperity and protecting amenity.  However he expressed concern at the applicant’s negative approach to the planting of trees to compensate for the loss of the woodland area which included mature oak trees.  He suggested that the Council’s Forestry Officer should therefore be fully involved in achieving a landscaping solution, and all neighbouring properties and businesses should have the opportunity to comment on a landscaping plan and the detailed proposal for the development of the site.  Mr Coston expressed concern at the impact CCTV cameras would have on his privacy, and advised that the proposed floor area of the development had increased from the original estimate and raised capacity issues in relation to the site. The development may also conflict with existing business in the area in terms of traffic flow.  He requested that it be a condition of permission that a detailed planning application for the site as a whole be submitted, incorporating specific proposals for the number of warehouses, drainage, and landscaping, as opposed to a piecemeal approach being adopted.  Finally he referred to the fact that the Planning Authority had written to the applicant on a number of occasions without response, and therefore he suggested that the applicant was responsible for the period of time it had taken to process the application.

The Area Solicitor read a letter received from the objector Mr Davd Wilson, Inverbreakie Farm Lodge, Invergordon, who had been unable to attend the hearing.  The main points detailed in his letter related to a claim that he had not received formal neighbour notification which should render the application null and void; the proposal to plant trees to the rear of Inverbreakie Farm Steading had been deleted; and a suggestion that any planning consent to be issued should include a condition to say that planting should take place on land owned by the applicant so that a screen can be maintained between the two developments.  The letter also said that there had been conflicting information  concerning the number of warehouses to be constructed, which brought into question the capacity of the site.  Mr Wilson submitted that it was important that at the detailed planning stage all concerned parties have the opportunity to view the extent of the development, its layout and the planting plan that is to be agreed.  He said that the application is contrary to the Local Plan on the basis that the amenity woodland is to be removed and therefore the application should be refused or appealed to the Scottish Executive so that he could state his case.  Whilst not against the expansion plans for the Distillery in principle, his concerns related to the process and possible negative effects the development may have on his business and plans for the future.

The applicant responded to the points raised, Mr Sanders Fraser for the applicant took issue with the point raised in regard to neighbour notification, advising that he had a copy of the signature for the recorded delivery slip.  He said that the Post Office delivers to the property and not the person on the address and  refuted the claim that the objector had not received neighbour notification.  Mr Coston advised the meeting that the letter had been signed for by his daughter.

Mr I Mackie denied that the Company had been negative in its approach to tree planting, indicating that he had responded to the Principal Planner explaining the health and safety issues associated with such planting, however if it was the will of the Committee to require such planting then this would be progressed.  The ground work for a detailed application had been initiated and he confirmed that the detailed application would be for the site as a whole.

In accordance with the procedure, the Chairman declared the Hearing to be at an end and sought confirmation that (i) there were no further parties wishing to speak, and (ii) the parties had been satisfied with the way the Hearing had been conducted.  There were no members of the public wishing to speak and the applicant and the objectors confirmed that they were satisfied with the way that the Hearing had been conducted.

The Principal Planner summarised the application and advised that the principal issue in respect of the application related to the area of woodland on the site which had been specifically excluded from the industrial allocation identified in the Local Plan. The Forestry Officer had conceded the loss of the woodland area on the grounds that substantial new areas of planting would be undertaken and significant boundary planting would be undertaken as a prerequisite of approval.   There were no technical objections to the application, and she recommended that the application be approved subject to relevant conditions, on the basis that Condition 8 be amended to ensure that the CCTV cameras on the perimeter were aligned so as not to impact on the neighbours privacy.  Mrs Stott explained that a condition had been included requiring that cross sections through the site be provided to ensure that the development would be set down to reduce its prominence, stressing that it was not recommended that construction should be at the same level as the existing development.

Members proceeded to debate the application and the following views were expressed;

• The objectors’ concerns had been met through the conditions contained in the report
• The Industrial Estate forms a key part of the town and the development would add to the sustainability of the Industrial Estate
• The planning conditions concerning the tree planting should be fulfilled, and the amenity of the neighbouring properties should be protected as much as possible
• Consideration should be given to creating two larger warehouses to protect the amenity of the neighbours
• It was incongruous that the buildings were to be set down on the site, given that the buildings at a nearby site were to be set at a considerably higher level
• The developer should be more innovative at the detailed planning stage, and an appropriate threshold of amenity planting would be expected.
•  While sympathising with the security concerns identified by the developer, the alleged dangers associated with the trees were not convincing, and the developer should be dissuaded from planting a hedge

Following discussion, the Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report, subject to Condition 8 detailed in the report being amended to provide for measures that will minimise the impact of the on-site CCTV cameras on the amenity of the neighbours.  

3.2 Erection of Garage/Store at 6 Shore Street, Hilton, Tain for Mr Robert Ross (07/01185/FULRC)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-09-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 07/01185/FULRC for the erection of a garage/store at 6 Shore Street, Hilton for Mr Robert Ross.

The local Member, Mr A Torrance expressed concern that the application would represent over development of the garden, and said that achieving the stated floor level could be difficult, depending on the underlying ground conditions.  He noted that there were eight objections from neighbours and that the community council had also expressed concern in relation to the development. He said that the development would significantly impact on the outlook of the neighbours, and flooding could be an issue given the tidal conditions in the area.  He suggested that policing the development to ensure the building is used as a store and not a workshop could be problematic.  Concluding, he expressed the opinion that the development would spoil the character of the village, and the view out to the Moray Firth enjoyed by local residents.

Further comments from Members related to the fact that while the Manager’s report stated that the development would have no detrimental effects on the amenity of the surrounding area, this assertion was subjective.  Confirmation was also sought as to whether it could be a condition of permission that the existing garage could not be used as a workshop.

The Manager responded that the site lay within a cluttered busy environment, and in his opinion it would not affect the character of the area, and that the use of the existing garage could not be covered by condition.  However, its use as a workshop would involve a material change of use for which planning permission would be required.

The Chairman seconded by Mr R Coghill moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

Mr A Torrance seconded by Mr G Smith moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the reason that the development would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Votes were cast by roll call as follows:-

For the motion: Mr D Mackay, Mr R Rowantree, Lady M Thurso, Mr W Fernie, Mr R Coghill, Mr J McGillivray, Mr W Ross, Mr M Rattray.

For the amendment: Mr G Farlow, Mr G Smith and Mr A Torrance.

Accordingly, the motion by the Chairman was carried by eight votes to three and became the decision of the Committee.

3.3 Erection of a One and a Half Storey House with Services, Extension of Existing Access at Land to North of Sunny Brae, Balvoolich, Durness for Mr K G Thomson (08/00005/FULSU)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-10-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending refusal of the application 08/00005/FULSU for the erection of a one and a half storey house with services, and extension of existing access at land to north of Sunny Brae, Balvoolich, Durness for Mr K G Thomson.  A copy of a decision notice issued by the Inquiry Reporter’s Unit in April 2007 dismissing an appeal against refusal of a previous similar application referred to at paragraph 2 of the Report was circulated to members at the meeting.   

During discussion on this item the local Members, Mr G Farlow and Mr R Rowantree spoke in support of the application expressing the view that the pattern of development in Durness is straggling in nature, not linear, and that social and economic justice should be considerations in this case given that it involved a family who lived and worked locally.  The nature of local crofting settlements did not lend itself to the limits set by settlement development areas in the Local Plan, and it was suggested that the former North West Sutherland Plan had presided over the stagnation of crofting communities. The new Local Plan should therefore seek to create opportunities for new development to allow local people to continue to live locally.  It was noted that over the past six years only one house had been constructed, which did not provide for a sustainable community.

Reference was also made to letters which had been received from the Crofter’s Commission confirming that the applicant had been registered as a tenant of the croft on which the house will be sited, and from the Scottish Agricultural College confirming that the land had been classified as Grade 5, the poorest quality. Therefore there would be no conflict with new or existing policy, and further that the Local Plan provided for the reduction in the outward migration of young people from the area. The local grazings committee had written in support of the application. Confirmation had also been received from the relevant medical practitioners that the wife of the applicant was the main carer for a family member, and that the removal of a significant carer from the village would increase demand on an already overstretched budget and in an area where there was difficultly in meeting demand for care packages.

During the debate a number of points were raised;

• There had been no refusals of planning permission for housing development in Durness over the past six years
• Concern about approving an application which did not accord with policy, it being observed that planning permission is issued in respect of the property and not the person.  The question was also posed as to whether the same view would be adopted should the developer live outwith the area, advising that preferential treatment for local people could leave the Committee open to challenge
• The new Local Plan contained a policy to reduce the outward migration of young people and therefore this was a material consideration
• The relevant planning policies referred to operational need, and the evidence in this case proved that a house on the site is required in order that the householder can work the croft
• There were significant parts of the village which had been allocated for housing in the new Local Plan, taking issue with the point raised in respect of the outward migration of young people

Responding, the Principal Planner stressed that the specific text within the Local Plan made it clear that the development did not accord with policy. Approval could also make it difficult to resist further developments of this nature.  The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager clarified that there was no presumption against development in Durine and advised that the boundary of the settlement development area had been drawn to reflect the staggered building line.

Mr G Farlow seconded by Mr R Rowantree moved that the application be approved subject to conditions to be framed by the relevant officials under delegated authority, on the grounds that the development was consistent with the staggered nature of the building line in the village of Durness; it had been demonstrated that the applicant was the tenant of the croft, and had a clear agricultural need to be located within its boundaries, the land having been classified as of poorer quality, thereby conforming to Policy CV6.38 of the North and West Local Plan; and that the proposal accords with the policy contained in the draft Sutherland Local Plan which sought to prevent the outward migration of young people from the area.

Mr G Smith moved as an amendment that the application be refused, in line with the recommendation contained in the report, on the grounds that there were no justifiable reasons for departing from policy, but on failing to find a seconder the amendment fell.  There were no further amendments. 

Accordingly Mr Farlow’s motion became the decision of the Committee.

Mr G Smith requested that his dissent from the decision be recorded.

3.4 Erection of Fabrication Workshop/Offices/Store Extension to Existing Building, Installation of Surface Water Drainage Scheme at land to the South of The Smiddy, Bower, By Wick for Nicolson Engineering Ltd (07/00583/FULCA)

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-12-08 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager concerning the application 07/00583/FULCA for the erection of fabrication workshop/offices/store extension to existing building, installation of surface water drainage scheme at land to the south  of The Smiddy, Bower, By Wick for Nicolson Engineering Ltd.  The report contained no recommendation pending a response from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

The Area Solicitor pointed out that Mr D Flear had requested and been granted a local Member vote in respect of this item.

The Team Leader reported that SEPA had now evaluated the Flood Risk Assessment submitted by the applicants and confirmed that the development would not increase the flood problems in the area and therefore they had no objections to the application.  He recommended to the Committee that the application be approved subject to conditions to mitigate against any potential adverse impacts, the conditions to be drafted by the relevant officials under delegated authority.

The local Members, Mr R Coghill and Mr D Flear observed that this was a major development for the area which would maintain jobs in the community, while expressing sympathy for neighbouring residents.  It was suggested that the conditions attached to the permission include provision for tree planting to the south of the development to provide screening for the residents of Bower Tower.

The Team Leader confirmed that a range of conditions would be attached to the permission covering landscaping, external lighting etc with a view to softening the impact of the building.

The Committee agreed to grant the application subject to appropriate conditions, to be framed by the relevant officials under delegated authority as had been recommended.

4. Formation of Roads and Site Services, Creation of Nominal 41 Plot Housing Development on Land to the North West of the Village of Keiss, Caithness (07/00072/FULCA)

There had been circulated Report Nos. PLC-11-08 and PLC-33-07 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager concerning the application 07/00072/FULCA for the formation of roads and site services and the change of use of agricultural land to create a nominal 41 plot housing development on land to the north west of the village of Keiss.  The report indicated that the applicant had confirmed in writing that he did not agree to the creation of an amenity area on plots 7 and 8, and therefore had not submitted proposals for a landscaping scheme to form the basis of a Section 75 Agreement as had been required by the Committee.  The Committee was invited to consider how it wished to proceed in relation to the application on the basis that its previous decision could not be implemented.  Mr Ewart recommended to the Committee that, following consideration of the applicant’s letter they agree to grant consent as had been recommended in the original report to Committee.

Responding to Members, the Area Solicitor reminded the Committee that the applicant had not been represented at the original Hearing held on 20 November 2007, when the Committee had taken the decision to open discussions with the developer regarding the Section 75 Agreement. She explained that normally the practice would be to establish at that stage whether the applicant would be willing to enter into an Agreement.  As the developer had not been present at the meeting this had not been possible.  However she advised that it would be possible to impose a condition that Plots 7 and 8 on the development be amenity land and the applicant invited to submit a landscaping plan by condition rather than through a Section 75 Agreement.  Should the Committee either refuse the application or insist that plots 7 and 8 be retained as an amenity area then the applicant would have a right of appeal against the decision of the Committee. 

Members’ comments related to the fact that because the applicant had not attended the Hearing, the decision had been informed by the Committee report and the additional information provided by the objector.   It was noted that the applicant’s letter, a copy of which was attached to the report, explained that sacrificing two building plots was regarded as unreasonable and would make the development as a whole less financially viable.  To address the concerns of the objectors, the applicant proposed that two semi detached houses, restricted to single storey in height be constructed on Plots 7 and 8, thereby minimising the adverse impact of the development on the objector. 

The Committee expressed the view that the information provided by the applicant raised important additional material considerations in relation to the application, and provided for an acceptable level of mitigation against the impact of the development on the amenity of the neighbouring property.

A contrary view was expressed by the Chairman, who said that the applicant had previously had the opportunity to present his case to the Committee and therefore that the application should be granted in line with the decision taken by the Committee on 20 November 2007, subject to a condition that plots 7 and 8 be deleted from the development and an amenity area provided in their place.

Responding to questions from Members, the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager confirmed that the deletion of two plots in the context of a 41 plot development constituted a minor amendment, and that this could be imposed as a condition. He also stressed that a Section 75 Agreement could not be imposed on the applicant.

Discussion followed on the developer’s offer to provide land to improve the access, and the Area Solicitor confirmed that this offer could not be imposed as a condition which would be legally binding.

Following further discussion, Mr R Coghill seconded by Mr R Rowantree proposed that on the grounds that the information provided by the applicant detailing his proposals to minimise the impact of the development on the property ‘Southview’, raised significant additional material considerations in relation to the application, planning permission for the proposed development be granted (1) subject to additional conditions to be attached to the consent to ensure that any dwellinghouses to be constructed on plots seven and eight be semi detached, restricted to single storey in height and that the rear of these properties face onto ‘Southview’; (2) subject to the conditions contained in the original report submitted to the Committee on 20 November 2007, amended by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager  to ensure: (i) the road running past plots 25 and 26 will terminate 5 metres short of the site boundary; (ii) that the footpath along the U104 is kerbed, and (iii) appropriate traffic calming measures  be included as part of the development. And that a letter be sent to the applicant encouraging his commitment to negotiate with the owner of “Southview” in relation to  improved ingress and egress to the property to the north tip of plot 8.   The Committee so agreed.

5. Appeal – Erection of House, with Septic Tank and Soakway at Land to the South of Bonnygates, Reiss/Killimster, Wick for Mr and Mrs W Larnach

There had been circulated appeal decision notice dated 14 February 2008 from The Scottish Government dismissing the appeal against refusal of planning permission for the erection of a house, with septic tank and soakaway at land to south of Bonnygates, Reiss/Killimster, Wick for Mr and Mrs W Larnach. 

The Committee agreed to note the terms of the decision notice.

6. Appeal – Erection of Single Storey House, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway, and Formation of New Access at Land to the North of Catreff, Newton Row, Wick for Mr A J Palmer

There had been circulated appeal decision notice dated 14 February 2008 from The Scottish Government dismissing the appeal against refusal of planning permission for the erection of a single storey house, installation of septic tank and soakaway, and formation of new access at land to the north of Catreff, Newton Row, Wick for Mr A J Palmer. 

The Committee agreed to note the terms of the decision notice.

7. Appeal – Demolition of Existing Buildings and the Erection of a Class 1 Retail Store, Petrol Filling Station, Housing, Parking, Landscaping and Associated Works at Thurso Auction Mart, Ormlie Road, Thurso for Miller Developments Ltd

There had been circulated decision notice dated 18 January 2008 from The Scottish Government upholding the appeal, and granting planning permission subject to conditions, against the non determination of an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a retail store, petrol filling station, housing, parking, landscaping and associated works at Thurso Auction Mary, Ormlie Road, Thurso for Miller Developments Ltd. 

The Committee agreed to note the terms of the decision notice.

8. Appeal – Erection of Class 1 Retail Foodstore, Petrol Filling Station, Associated Car Parking, Landscaping, Access Road and Roundabout, Servicing, Playing Field Provision and Associated Community Facilities and Car Parking at Pennyland Farm, Thurso for Asda Stores Ltd

There had been circulated decision notice dated 18 January 2008 from The Scottish Government refusing outline planning permission for the erection of a Class 1 retail foodstore, petrol filling station, associated car parking, landscaping, access road and roundabout, servicing, playing field provision and associated community facilities and car parking at Pennyland Farm, Thurso for Asda Stores Ltd.

The Committee agreed to note the terms of the decision notice.