Agendas, reports and minutes

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 24 June 2014.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Ford (except Item 6.6)
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr C Macaulay
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Ms J Slater
Mr H Wood

Non- Committee Members Present:

Mrs G Sinclair (Item 6.7)
Mr K Gowans (observing)
Mrs H Carmichael (observing)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr A McCracken, Team Leader
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mr M Hayes, Scientific Officer
Mr D McKechnie, Integrated Transport Manager
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mrs P Bangor-Jones, Administrative Assistant

Business

1. Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies were received from Mr J Crawford.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 6.1 – Mr R Balfour (non-financial)
Item 6.2 – Mr D Fallows (non-financial)
Item 6.2 – Mr B Lobban (non-financial)
Item 6.2 – Mr T Prag (non-financial)
Item 6.6 – Mr T Prag (financial)
Item 6.6 – Mr B Lobban (financial)
Item 6.6 – Mr D Fallows (financial)
Item 6.6 – Mr T MacLennan (financial)
Item 6.7 – Mr C Macaulay (non-financial)

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation the minute of the Committee meeting held on 20 May 2014 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications

There had been circulated Report No. PLS/045/14 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. Continued Items
Cuspairean a' Leantain

5.1
Applicant: Jake Mitchell (13/01279/PIP) (PLS/046/14)
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/046/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted, without restriction on occupancy of the house, subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr A Todd presented the report and the recommendation.

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

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

The committee AGREED to take Item 6.7 first.

6.7
Applicant: Mr and Mrs G Sinclair (13/04372/FUL) (PLS/053/14)
Location: Land at Drummournie, Cawdor (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Erection of 2 dwellings
Recommendation: Grant

Mr C Macaulay declared a non-financial personal interest in this item having previously been a neighbour of the applicants and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

Mrs G Sinclair had previously requested the Chairman’s permission to address the Committee on this application under Standing Order 13.1. She confirmed, however, that she no longer wished to address the Committee and remained present in the chamber as an observer only.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/053/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr A McCracken presented the report and the recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-

• the application submitted originally indicated a surface soakaway solution but the method of assessment used had been based on unsound information and was therefore unacceptable. An engineered solution was now proposed to take partly filtered effluent from a septic tank and pump it to a raised mound filter system where it would be purified. The effluent would come out of the bottom layer of the sand mound as purified liquid. This was then clean enough to discharge into a watercourse with no detrimental effect;

• the lower lying field which lay to the south of the development site was not in the ownership of the applicant; and

• with regard to the original flood risk assessment, it had not been suitable as it was little more than a review of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency flood map. As flood risk had been raised as a material consideration by objectors it had been considered essential that percolation test trial holes be undertaken in a professional manner, in accordance with published building standards advice, to inform consideration of the risk (if any) of the proposed development contributing to flooding of objectors’ properties. These detailed trial holes had subsequently been undertaken and reviewed on site by Planning and Building Standards officers.

During debate Members commented as follows:-

• due to the location of the site there was continued concern about measures required to mitigate flooding;

• some members considered that the existing houses did not form a housing group;

• it was difficult to refuse permission, as the application fulfilled planning requirements;

• the definition of a housing group was not always clear;

• with regard to concerns about drainage and flooding, it was understood that a Building Warrant would not be issued if the development failed to meet the required technical standard.

Following discussion, Mr R Balfour, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr D Kerr, seconded by Mr A Baxter, then moved as an amendment that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

• that it was not considered that the existing houses in the location were a housing group within the meaning of the Supplementary Guidance and the application was therefore contrary to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that the proposed site lay within the hinterland area, where there was a presumption against new housing, but was not justified by any of the recognised exceptions to this Policy.

On a vote being taken, thirteen votes were cast in favour of the motion and four votes in favour of the amendment as follows:

Motion
Mr R Balfour
Mrs M Davidson
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Ford
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater
Mr H Wood

Amendment
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Kerr

The motion to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.1
Applicant: Norbord Europe Ltd (14/01763/FUL) (PLS/047/14)
Location: Dalcross OSB Mill, Dalcross, Inverness (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Preparation works for the development of a new manufacturing facility adjacent to the existing Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Mill at Dalcross, Inverness, relating to earthworks, retaining walls, elements of foundations, formation of and upgrading of internal roads, drainage works and landscaping.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr R Balfour declared a non-financial interest in this item as the Chair of the Norbord Community Forum and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/047/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and the recommendation, advising that Environmental Health had requested that noise be addressed in the Construction and Environmental Management Plan required under Condition 1 and that this request could be accommodated.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-

• the applicant was in discussion with Network Rail with regard to a method statement related to the existing sand bank and the possible retention options;

• the application was for preparatory work related to the proposed development of a new manufacturing facility;

• the transport assessment would come forward with the next application, and

• there was a condition which would cover landscaping but opportunities existed for further landscape screening in future applications. It was further acknowledged that, the size of the site and structures offered landscape challenges.

During debate Members were supportive of the application.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and with condition one amended to require that noise be addressed in the Construction and Environmental Management Plan.

6.2
Applicant: RWE Innogy UK Limited (13/02441/FUL) (PLS/048/14)
Location: 6km West of Findhorn Bridge, Glen Kyllachy, by Tomatin (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Wind farm (50MW) consisting of 20 turbines, 110m maximum height to blade tip, associated infrastructure, access tracks and 3 borrow pits.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item having had dealings with the landowner in relation to charitable works and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban each declared a non-financial interest in this item as Board Members of the Cairngorms National Park Authority Board. They confirmed, however, that they had not participated in, or been present during, the CNPA’s decision to comment on this application and that accordingly, in accordance with the terms of the Specific Exclusion for CNPA membership provided in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, they would take part in the deliberation and determination of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/048/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to hold a site inspection before determining the application. Members further discussed whether there was a need for additional viewpoint visualisations to be provided to aid with determination of the application.

Mr D Kerr, seconded by Mrs M Davidson, then moved that the application be deferred to the next Committee to allow a site inspection to take place in the interim.

Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr D Fallows, moved as an amendment that the Committee proceed to consider and determine the application without a site inspection.

On a vote being taken, 11 votes were cast in favour of the motion and six votes in favour of the amendment as follows:-

Motion
Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr J Ford
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr H Wood

Amendment
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr R Laird
Mr C Macaulay
Mrs J Slater

The motion to hold a site inspection prior to the determination of the application therefore became the finding of the meeting and Committee AGREED to defer consideration of the application to the meeting of the Committee on 19 August 2014 and to conduct a site inspection at 09.30 am on 18 August 2014. It was further AGREED that, where possible, visualisations from the additional viewpoints requested in representations would be circulated in advance of the site inspection.

6.3
Applicant: Kearney Donald Partnership (14/01350/FUL) (PLS/049/14)
Location: Heathercroft Development Site, Connochie Road, Fort William (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Erection of 21 unit residential development
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/049/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and the recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• no discussion had taken place with regard to the location of cycle storage within the development. In this regard, it would be possible to discuss storage location with the developer during the Road Construction Consent phase;

• with regard to the location of the car parking, there had been no adverse comments received from colleagues. The proposed layout for parking and turning was considered acceptable and final detail would be covered in the Road Construction Consent. It was further confirmed that a fence had been proposed along the top of the bank to address safety concerns;

• the two-bedroomed houses had been moved back from the edge of the embankment and the location was not further forward than units approved in the current live consent. It was considered that the proposed location caused no issues and that the reduction in the scale of the buildings was considered to represent an improvement to that area of the development;

• the distance to the bottom of the embankment from the car park was estimated at 20 metres. Given the amount of screening, the change in levels and the live consent, it was considered that normal parking activity would not to raise any noise or amenity issues;

• whilst the proposed site was not recorded on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Flood Map, SEPA had recorded flooding due to drainage problems in the residential area adjacent to the site. It was acknowledged that due to the challenging topography of the site a Drainage Impact Assessment and full drainage blueprint required to be submitted for approval; and,

• the flats to the rear had a 42 degree roof pitch and it was possible to enter into discussion with the developer with a view to achieving a reduction to a 35 degree pitch.

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

6.4
Applicant: Mrs S Cameron (13/04744/PIP) (PLS/050/14)
Location: Land 50m west of 72 Camaghael, Fort William (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of a house
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/050/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and the recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that the site formed part of a Mixed Use allocation in the West Highland and Islands Local Plan. It was further clarified that each application should be taken on merit.

During debate Members commented on the suitability of the location. It was further suggested by one Member that the development did not fit into the local landscape or reflect the architectural character of the area.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr D Fallows, then moved that planning permission in principle be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr B Clark, seconded by Mr A Baxter, moved as an amendment that planning permission in principle be refused on the following grounds:

1. The application was contrary to Policy 34 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that the proposed site lay within the Settlement Development Area but was judged not to be compatible with the existing pattern of development.

2. The application was contrary to Policy 47 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that the proposal did not minimise the loss of apportioned croft land and the site was located on the better part of the croft in terms of its agricultural value.

On a vote being taken, nine votes were cast in favour of the motion and nine votes in favour of the amendment as follows:

Motion
Mr R Balfour
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Ford
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr B Lobban
Mr C Macaulay
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag

Amendment
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird
Mr T MacLennan
Mrs J Slater
Mr H Wood

The Chairman used his casting vote in favour for the MOTION and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED.

Thereafter, Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

6.5
Applicant: Intertrust Trustees Limited (14/01463/FUL) (PLS/051/14)
Location: Eastgate Shopping Centre, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Extension to existing shopping centre outwards into Falcon Square at ground floor & first floor to accommodate retail & restaurants, combined with redevelopment/expansion of second floor storage & plant to accommodate 8 screen cinema and change of use of two existing class 1 retail to class 3 restaurant
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/051/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• the development would mean a reduction in width of the link between Falcon Square and the railway station. The gap would be reduced to 7.5 metres;

• with regard to the proposed use of metal cladding on the elevations, assurance had been given by the applicant that similar high quality materials had been used on other developments in the UK.and there had been no problems with discolouration or degradation;

• the height of the building would be raised by approximately seven metres, 1.5 metres above the existing cupola sited above the main entrance. The additional height would be used to house plant associated with the proposed cinema;

• no indication of build time had been received but the Eastgate Centre would continue commercial operations during the building work; and

• the applicant had indicated that they would be willing to relocate the existing clock to elsewhere on the façade of the Eastgate Centre or to another appropriate location within the city centre and offered four possible locations.

During debate Members commented as follows:-

• the proposed development was an exciting development towards the regeneration of Inverness city centre. It was further commented that other Scottish cities which had centrally located cinema and restaurant complexes had been hugely successful;

• due to the nature of the development, it was vital that the existing bus lay-by was upgraded to take account of the additional footfall. It was hoped that bus lay-bys and carriageway improvements would be covered by developer contributions;

• whilst there was concern over the narrowing of the access to and from the railway station via Falcon Square, it was hoped that strategic signage would guarantee that the link between Falcon Square and the station continued in use;

• it was important to ensure that all advertising and signage was site appropriate;

• the proposed development would mean a loss of public space but it was an exciting opportunity to remodel Falcon Square. It was further commented that it was essential that any public art incorporated into the public realm enhancements should be covered by a maintenance programme; and

• the existing clock on the façade of the building had become a local landmark and it was important to ensure the clock was relocated to a suitable and prominent city centre location.

Members further debated the composition of a Member consultative group with which the Planning Service would consult on outstanding planning matters, as agreed by the Committee.

Following discussion, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr T Prag, moved that the consultative group comprise Mr J Gray, Mr T Prag and the four local Members for the ward.

Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved as an amendment that the consultative group comprise only the four local Members for the ward.

On a vote being taken, ten votes were cast in favour of the motion and eight votes in favour of the amendment as follows:

Motion
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Ford
Mr J Gray
Mr B Lobban
Mr C Macaulay
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mr H Wood

Amendment
Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mr M Davidson
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird
Mrs J Slater

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to condition 19 being amended to require the car parking to be available for 30 minutes after the last closing of the cinema.

The Committee further AGREED that the Planning Service would consult with the four ward Members, Mr J Gray and Mr T Prag before approving:

• the new location of the existing clock to be agreed under condition 1;

• the plan for enhancement of Falcon Square to be agreed under condition 15;

• the revised plan for the Falcon Square façade to be agreed under condition 22; and

• the separate application required for signage (unless this required to go to full Committee)

6.6
Applicant: Renewable Design and Development Ltd (14/01222/FUL) (PLS/052/14)
Location: Land 1740m North East of Munerigie, Invergarry (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: The proposal is for the development of a run of river hydro power scheme including the construction of three intakes, a buried pipeline and a powerhouse to the north east of Munerigie, Invergarry
Recommendation: Grant

Mr T MacLennan, Mr B Lobban, Mr T Prag and Mr D Fallows all declared a financial interest in this item as directors of Highland Opportunity Ltd (which derived income from a neighbouring scheme, the owners of which had objected to this application) and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/052/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and the recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-

• with regard to the impact of the proposed development on private water supplies for local residences, businesses or agricultural purposes, mitigation measures included no abstraction when the river was flowing lower than a certain level. It was further confirmed that the proposed development required consent from Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and

• to ensure that noise did not exceed permissible levels, Environmental Health recommended that a condition be attached to any planning permission which was granted.

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

The meeting ended at 2.55 pm