Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee commenced at 10.30 am in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 8 April 2014.
Committee Members Present:
Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Fallows, Mr J Ford (Items 4, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 only), Mr J Gray, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr C Macaulay, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag, Ms J Slater, Mr H Wood
Substitute Members Present:
Mr L Fraser
Non- Committee Members Present:
Mr N Donald (observing)
Mrs H Carmichael (observing)
Ms L MacDonald (observing)
Miss J Campbell (Item 6.5 only)
Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr M MacLeod, Head of Planning and Building Standards
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr J Harbison, Principal Planner
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr S MacNaughton, Head of Transport and Infrastructure
Mr J Danby, Principal Engineer
Mr M Smith, Senior Engineer
Ms Z Skinner, Environmental Health Officer
Ms P Sheldon, Environmental Health Officer
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor
Mrs K Hawthorne, Conservation Officer
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mrs P Bangor-Jones, Administrative Assistant
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant
Business
1. Apologies
Leisgeulan
Apologies were received from Mr R Balfour, Mr A Duffy, Mr M Green and Mr D Kerr.
2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt
In relation to Items 6.1 and 6.2, the Clerk confirmed that although Members may have previously participated in discussion of the road link and the sports hub at strategic level at full Council and other Council committees, it was still possible for those Members to take part in the discussion and determination of the planning applications in respect of these projects. Both the courts and the Code of Conduct recognise that Members are entitled to discuss and take decisions on projects at policy or strategic level prior to planning applications being lodged.
Item 6.1 and 6.2 - Mr J Crawford (non financial)
Item 6.1 - Mr R Laird (non financial)
Item 6.1 and 6.4 – Mr H Wood (non financial)
3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais
There had been circulated for confirmation the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 25 February 2014.
Mr Todd provided Members with an update on Item 5.7(13/04835/FUL)(PLS/016/14), siting of 120 container storage units, portacabin offices, lightening, CCTV, access gates, fencing and change of use of existing Shell/Esso storage site to container storage, which had been reported to the South Planning Applications Committee meeting held on 25 February 2014.
Members were advised that Scottish Ministers were not minded to call-in the application and that the planning authority was authorised to determine the application. It was further confirmed that the decision letter had now been issued to the applicant.
Thereafter, the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 25 February, 2014 were APPROVED.
4. Major Applications
There had been circulated Report No. PLS-018-14 (118kb pdf) by the Head of Planning and Building Standards which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category, currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.
The Committee agreed to NOTE the current position.
5. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh
5.1
Applicant: Jake Mitchell (13/01279/PIP) (PLS-019-14 ))
Location: Land 361m NW of Wester Hardmuir, Nairn (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Erection of house
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/019/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission in principle be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
The Committee agreed to DEFER the application for further investigation of the claim that a mortgage could not be obtained if a s75 agreement was entered into and to consider wider policy implications.
6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh
An introductory explanation of Development Plan policy in relation to Items 6.1 and 6.2 was given to Members. The Clerk confirmed that those Members who had declared an interest in Item 6.1 were entitled to remain in the chamber to hear the introductory policy explanation.
6.1
Applicant: The Highland Council (13/03825/FUL) (PLS-020-14 Plans Part 1 (7357kb pdf) | Plans Part 2 (8297kb pdf))
Location: Land to the east and west of the River Ness and Caledonian Canal (Ward 14 and 16)
Nature of Development: The proposal is the Inverness West Link Road; the key aspects of which involve the construction of 3.2km of new single carriageway road with 5 roundabouts, a swing bridge over the Caledonian Canal and new bridge over the River Ness. The application includes details of the associated drainage, earthworks, fencing, landscaping, associated new access tracks/paths and street lighting.
Recommendation: Grant
Mr R Laird declared a non-financial interest in this item as Chairman of Inverness Civic Trust who had objected to the development and left the chamber for the duration of this item.
Mr H Wood declared a non-financial interest in this item as a Committee Member of Inverness Civic Trust who had objected to the development and left the chamber for the duration of this item.
Mr J Crawford declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application and left the chamber for the duration of this item.
There had been circulated Report No PLS/020/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mr Mudie presented the report and the recommendation.
During debate Members commented as follows:-
•it was vital that a local liaison group be set up comprising local members, community councils, as well as representatives from Inverness Rugby Club, Torvean Golf Club and any other relevant group;
•with regard to a liaison group it was important that meetings were held regularly and that the group was given administration support;
•the project had attracted a number of detractors and it was essential to understand the need to win hearts and minds of the Inverness community;
•as a major gateway into Inverness, it was crucial that during construction the maintenance of and around the site continued. The appearance was vital to maintain an attractive entrance into the city;
•such major developments happen rarely and as such, it was vital that all elements of the project were managed to highest standards;
•or such a significant project it was imperative that care was taken over design, landscaping and planting.
The use of public art was encouraged.
In response to questions it was confirmed that:-
•the visualisations provided to Members were sufficient in the context of an urban setting;
•with regard to the design of the second swing bridge, condition 8 in the report confirmed that the designs for the associated buildings had not been approved. It was further confirmed that it was possible to insert the design of the second swing bridge into the condition;
•condition 11 would allow a process of liaison to take place as part of the Construction Environmental Management Document. However, if Members so wished, a separate condition could be added to make provision for a Local Liaison Group;
•to safeguard landscape and tree planting, five conditions had been included to ensure control over large species tree planting and that landscaping was location appropriate;
•there would always be one bridge open and motorists would be informed by variable signage; and
•the Project Design Unit and Capita had not been able to accommodate a direct link to the Aquadome and the sports centre from the link road. However, the access from Glenurquhart Road would be upgraded.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and with the following additional conditions:-
•adjustment of conditions 2-7 if required once these have been discussed with SportScotland;
•an additional condition requiring post-construction traffic monitoring, and
•inclusion of specific reference to compensatory planting in condition 24.
•that formation of a liaison group with community councils, sports clubs and other affected parties to keep them informed of expected construction impacts and timescales would be provided for in the Construction Environmental Management Document required by condition 11, and
•that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Standards to make such further adjustment to conditions as considered necessary.
6.2
Applicant: The Highland Council (14/00049/PIP) (PLS-021-14 (2638kb pdf))
Location: Torvean, Inverness (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: The proposal is a mixed use development consisting of (1) an 18 hole golf course, practice area, new golf club house and maintenance building, (2) the formation of a ‘Sports Hub’ comprising sports pitches, fitness trails, car parking, and a building to accommodate changing/shower facilities, (3) Parkland areas and ancillary works at Torvean, Inverness
Recommendation: Grant:
Mr J Crawford declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application and left the chamber for the duration of this item.
There had been circulated Report No PLS/021/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission in principle be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mr Hindson presented the report and the recommendation.
During debate Members comments as follows:-
•the proposal was an exciting and welcomed project, which presented an opportunity to greatly enhance the facilities which were presently available;
•it provided an excellent opportunity to improve the health and well-being of the community;
•combined with new facilities at Inverness Royal Academy, and the university campus, the sporting amenities on offer in Inverness would be exceptional;
•it was important to recognise the importance to Inverness of the A82 gateway;
•welcomed the opportunities which would flow from the project and their importance to the local economy and community; and
•the benefits from an enhanced “Sports Hub” would not only be valuable to Inverness but benefits would be Highland wide.
In response to questions it was confirmed that:-
•the footpaths and fitness trails shown on the plans were indicative at this stage of the project; and
•in terms of indoor facilities this would need to be part of wider discussions with the project board for the West Link and associated project.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
6.3
Applicant: Inverness Properties Ltd (13/04137/FUL) (PLS-022-14 | Plans Part 1 | Plans Part 2 (4619kb pdf) | Plans Part 3 (1995kb pdf) | Plans Part 4 ()
Location: South and West of Rose Street, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Demolition of Rose Street Hall & decked Car Park & phased redevelopment to provide multi-storey student accommodation, shops, public space & environmental enhancement (as amended).
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/022/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mrs Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.
During debate Members commented as follows:-
•there was serious concern over the proposed civic space, which would be overshadowed, dark, uninviting, and not practical;
•apprehension that there may be disturbance issues from a large concentration of student accommodation;
•three disabled parking spaces was not enough for the size of the development;
•the height of proposed buildings was out of keeping and disproportionate with existing city roofscape;
•it was important to strive for exceptional, high quality and innovative design;
•there was support for student accommodation in the city centre and in principle the location was right but the scale was not appropriate;
•with regard to city centre regeneration, it was important that new developments were of a high quality;
•it was an over ambitious project;
•the scale and massing was wrong; and
•there was support in principle for a student hub in the city centre, which would go some way to helping with the rejuvenation of the city centre.
In response to questions it was confirmed that:-
•with regard to disabled parking spaces, there was an assumption that most student residents would not have cars, and therefore three disabled spaces would be sufficient;
•the loss of the two deck car park in Rose Street amounted to 149 spaces and once the development was completed there would be a net loss in the number of parking spaces;
•it was envisaged there would be an increased pressure on parking, as more city centre developments came to fruition;
•each block would have a covered and secured cycle storage unit and additional outdoor storage would be provided for visitors;
•Highland and Islands Airport Authority had never previously asked for the red obstacle light requirement for any other development;
•a degree of overshadowing was inevitable given the location, massing and height of the development;
•the lower floors of Blocks B1 and B2 would have limited natural light and outlook due to the close proximity of the buildings to the Rose Street car park and the Spectrum Centre;
•the civic space must be reasonable, useable, functional and be of an appropriate environmental quality. Furthermore, it was important that linkages into the development were maintained;
•the developer was required to complete all civic spaces by 2020;
•the development was phased but there was no guarantee that all phases after the first would commence; and
•there was no requirement for an affordable housing element to the development as the accommodation was restricted to students only.
Following discussion Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr T Prag then moved a motion that planning permission be refused for the following reason:-
Owing to the scale, height, massing and design of the proposed buildings, the inadequate area of civic space proposed and the degree of overshadowing of the civic space which will be caused by the proposed buildings, which together result in over-development of the site, it is considered that the proposed development would have a significantly detrimental impact on the townscape of the city centre, the skyline of the city, the setting of nearby listed buildings and the setting of the neighbouring Inverness (Riverside) Conservation Area. As such:
•the proposed development is contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it is judged to be significantly detrimental in failing to demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with local character and historic environment;
•the proposed development is contrary to Policy 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it would not make a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of the locality in which it would be located;
•the proposed development fails to meet the terms of the Inverness City Centre Development Brief in that it is not development of the highest quality and it had not been demonstrated that it will complement the surrounding area, including the neighbouring Conservation Area; and
•having regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the neighbouring Conservation Area, the degree of adverse impact which the proposed development would have on those historic assets and their setting is considered unacceptable.
No amendment was put forward and therefore, the motion to REFUSE planning permission for the reason stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.
6.4
Applicant: HUB North Scotland Ltd (13/04414/FUL) ( PLS-023-14 (120kb pdf) | Plans Part 1 (3892kb pdf) | Plans Part 2 )
Location: Inverness Royal Academy (Ward 16)
Nature of Development: Demolition and erection of secondary school, external sports provision, bus drop off & car parking
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/023/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mr Harbison presented the report and the recommendation.
During debate Members welcomed the new school building and acknowledged that the limitations of the site influenced the design. Concern was expressed about pedestrian safety and assurance was sought that all necessary precautions would be taken to ensure protection for users of the school.
In response to questions it was confirmed that:-
• no concerns had been raised or noted over the proximity of pylons to the school;
• during the consultation process, both informal and formal events had been well attended;
• the bus drop-off location would be separate from the school car park;
• the school grounds would accommodate two full sized artificial pitches; and
• with regard to noise and the effects on residents who live adjacent to the site, in order to mitigate excessive noise, Condition 11 had been included to ensure the interests of residential amenity.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report, with an amendment to condition 10 to require minimum finished floor levels of 150 mm above surrounding ground levels
6.5
Applicant: The Highland Council (13/04024/FUL and 13/04159/LBC) (PLS-024-14 (1385kb pdf))
Location: Huntly House, 1-2 Huntly Place, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Erection of new flatted development and renovation of 2 No. existing buildings
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/024/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mr Harbison presented the report and the recommendation, including two additional conditions as follows:-
• that the road be lined and signposted at the applicant’s expense to make clear that it was two–way; and
• that before development commenced, a plan showing the revisions to the road layout would be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority.
During debate Members commented as follows:-
• the design was inappropriate for an established residential setting;
• the proposed design had not demonstrated how it would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area;
• noted that the Conservation Officer did not object to the proposal and that PLACE, the Inverness Design Review Panel, was supportive of the design;
• that good design was subjective and that a pastiche was not always appropriate; and
• it was possible for innovative and contemporary design to sit happily with traditional vernacular buildings.
Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr T Prag then moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and that an application be made to Scottish Ministers for Listed Building Consent.
Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr A Baxter, then moved as an amendment that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-
The design of the new building included in the proposed development is unacceptable in this location as the scale, modern design and flat roof are not sympathetic to the Conservation Area and neighbouring listed buildings. As such:
• the proposed development is contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it is judged to be significantly detrimental in failing to demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with local character and historic environment;
• the proposed development is contrary to Policy 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it would not make a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of the locality in which it would be located;
• having regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in which the development would be located, the degree of adverse impact which the proposed development would have on these historic assets and their setting is considered unacceptable.
On a vote being taken, ten votes were cast in favour of the amendment and five votes in favour of the motion as follows:-
Motion
Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr C Macaulay, Mr T MacLennan, Mr T Prag
Amendment
Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mr M Davidson, Mr D Fallows, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr F Parr, Mrs J Slater, Mr H Wood
The amendment to REFUSE planning permission and decline to make an application to Scottish Ministers for Listed Building Consent for the reasons stated above accordingly became the finding of the meeting.
6.6
Applicant: Scottish Canals (13/02876/FUL) (PLS-025-14 )
Location: Land 100M SE Of Ivy Cottage, Laggan Locks, North Laggan (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of Two Visitor Accommodation Pods and a Services Building
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/025/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mrs Macmillan presented the report and the recommendation.
During debate, Members were supportive of the development.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
6.7
Applicant: Scottish Canals (13/04649/FUL) (PLS-026-14 (998kb pdf))
Location: North East Of Aldersyde, Gairlochy, Spean Bridge, PH34 4EQ (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of Six Visitor Accommodation Pods and a Services Building
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/026/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
6.8
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Zakir Khan (13/04078/FUL) ( PLS-027-14 (193kb pdf))
Location: 5-6 Cradlehall Court, Cradlehall, Inverness (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Change of use to restaurant and hot-food takeaway
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/027/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mrs Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.
During debate, Members were supportive of the development.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
6.9
Applicant: SPA (Scottish Planning & Architecture Ltd) (13/04242/FUL) ( PLS-028-14 (848kb pdf))
Location: Land 60M NW of Drumoak, Inshes, Inverness (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Erection of new house
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/028/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mrs Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.
Members queried why a Construction Hours and Noise-Generating Activities Advisory Note was not included in the Report.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional Advisory Note to cover Construction Hours and Noise-Generating Activities.
6.10
Applicant: Mr William Crawford (13/03013/FUL) (PLS-029-14 )
Location: Land 65M West of The Cottage, Leanassie, Beauly (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of dwellinghouse
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/029/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
The Committee agreed to DEFER for neighbour re-notification.
6.11
Applicant: Mr N. Baxter (14/00536/FUL) (PLS-030-14
Location: River Cottage, Station Road, Nethybridge (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Demolition and erection of replacement house
Recommendation: Grant
There had been circulated Report No PLS/030/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.
Mrs Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.
The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional Advisory Note to cover Construction Hours and Noise-Generating Activities.
7. Decisions of the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals, Energy and Climate Change Directorate, and Directorate for Local Government and Communities
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh is Àrainneachd, Buidheann-stiùiridh Cumhachd agus Atharrachadh Gnàth-shìde, agus Buidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas Ionadail is Coimhearsnachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba
7.1
Applicant: David MacLean – PPA-270-2100 (13/02461/FUL) (PLS/051/13)
Location: 50 A Lochalsh Road, Inverness
Nature of Development: Erection of house
The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission in full.
7.2
Applicant: Inverness Properties Limited – PPA-270-2093 (11/04653/FUL) (PLS-043-13))
Location: Viewhill, Balloch, Inverness
Nature of Development: Demolition of Agricultural Buildings, Formation Of 16 House Plots, Upgrade of Access & Associated Works
Mrs Lyons advised Members that the Reporter awarded expenses against the Highland Council in respect of this appeal. The sum awarded and paid to the appellant was £11,250 excluding VAT.
Thereafter, the Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission in full. A planning obligation to secure affordable housing and developer contributions to footpath/cycle improvements had been agreed in accordance with the Reporter’s “minded to grant” decision dated 24 December 2013.
The meeting ended at 3.30 pm.