Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of the meeting of the North Planning Applications Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 16 September, 2014 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr D Bremner (except Items 5.9 to 8)
Mrs I Campbell
Mrs G Coghill
Mr B Fernie
Mr M Finlayson
Mr C Fraser
Mr D MacKay
Mr A Mackinnon (substitute for Mrs M Paterson) (except Item 5.7)
Mrs A MacLean
Mrs I McCallum
Mr D Millar (except Items 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4, and 5.7 to 8)
Mr H Morrison (substitute for Mr G Farlow)(except items 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.8 to 8)
Mr G Phillips (except Items 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6 to 8)
Mr I Renwick
Mrs A Sinclair (except Items 5.3, 5.4, 5.5)
Ms M Smith (except Item 5.1)

Non-Committee Members Present:

Mr H Fraser (Items 5.2, 5.5)
Mr J Gordon (Items 5.2, 5.5)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Mackenzie, Legal Manager (Regulatory Services) and Clerk
Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Development Management
Mr M Harvey, Team Leader, Planning
Mr G Sharp, Planner
Mrs E MacArthur Principal Planner
Mr J Danby, Principal Engineer
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer
Mrs K Lyon, Principal Solicitor (Planning)
Mr P Adam, Solicitor (Planning)
Mrs T Bangor-Jones, Administrative Assistant

Business

1. Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies were intimated on behalf of Mr G Farlow, Mrs M Paterson and Mr A Rhind.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.2 – Mrs A Sinclair – non-financial
Item 5.2 Mr D Miller – non-financial
Item 5.5 Mrs A Sinclair – non-financial

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 August 2014 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN/60/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards providing 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 Report.

5. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

5.1
Applicant: Mrs M Inkin (13/03547/FUL) (PLN/061/14)
Location: Land to west of Rowan House, Badenscallie, Achiltibuie (Ward 6)
Nature of Development: Erection of house and boat shed
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLN/061/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

Mr D Jones presented the Report and recommendation.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

5.2
Applicant: Oatridge Limited Allan Campbell (13/03976/PIP) (PLN/062/14)
Location: Land 300M NW of Electricity Sub Station, Staffin Road, Portree Isle of Skye (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Retail Supermarket, petrol filling station and associated parking and servicing areas. Access road from existing Home Farm Road roundabout with new bus stop, turning head and new pedestrian crossing. New link road and roundabout from Staffin Road to Home Farm Road
Recommendation: Refuse

Mr H Fraser and Mr J Gordon had previously requested the Chairman’s permission to address the Committee on this application under Standing Order 13.1.

Mrs A Sinclair declared a non-financial interest in this item as she was a member of the Board of Lochalsh and Skye Housing Association.

Mr D Miller declared a non-financial interest in this item as he had made public statements which might be construed as supporting the application.

Both members left the chamber during determination of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/062/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that planning permission in principle be refused for the reasons stated in the Report.

Mr M Harvey presented the Report and recommendation.

In response to a question it was confirmed that:-

• the completion of the link road could not be tied to the development by either a S75 clause or by a planning condition as it was not required to mitigate the impact of the development. Consequently no weight was to be given to the link road when determining the application;
• it was an out of town development and was approximately 230 metres from the nearest housing development;
• with regard to future housing development in the northern area of the village, it was suggested that difficulties may arise in the future with the need to find suitable building land;
• it was not known if the proposed site was suitable for any development and in particular, if it was acceptable for the building of a retail development;
• it was not reasonable for the planning authority to stipulate what activities could and could not take place within the supermarket as a safeguard for town centre businesses;
• there had been peat on the Home Farm site but the peat was only to a shallow depth. It was further explained that the land going north towards the river would have peat depths increasing as it neared the water;
• in terms of retail impact assessment it was important to note that the proposed development would operate in a different manner to the Item 5.5 development application;
• as this was a planning in principle application it was not the stage in the process to decide business hours;
• the application was a developer led proposal and not by a supermarket. Indeed, even if permission was granted there was no guarantee that a supermarket would follow on;
• despite being requested on a number of occasions, the developer had not provided the required information on peat management to the planning officers; and
• in order to approve both the application and the retail application reported later on the agenda, a cumulative impact assessment was first required in order to ascertain the impact of the developments on the town centre and neighbouring town centres. In addition, if it was proposed to approve this development, a peat impact assessment would first be necessary in order to comply with the EIA Directive. To grant permission without first assessing the effect of the development on the environment would leave the decision open to a successful challenge.

During discussion Members commented that:-

• the application was welcomed as the residents of Skye, and north Skye in particular, had waited far too long for another supermarket;
• the retail circumstances provided no competition to the existing supermarket and this had led to a reduced level of merchandise available to be purchased;
• the inclusion of the Dunvegan Road – Staffin Road link road in the application was much appreciated, as it was seen a vital to the development of Portree;
• with regard to the siting of the proposed development, it did not detract from Portree and was indeed integrated into the area, it was a natural extension to the village. It was further hoped that the proposed development would act as a catalyst to further business expansion;
• Scottish Natural Heritage had offered no objection and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency appeared to have no objection, if the peat management and wetland ecology was dealt with appropriately. It seemed reasonable that the peat management plan detailed in Item 5.5 could be applied to the Staffin Road application;
• it was paramount for the population of Skye to have access to an improved range of goods. This would do away with the need for long journeys to the mainland to purchase both food and non-food items;
• it was possible to condition peat removal at the planning in principle stage and allow the development to continue;
• whilst a supermarket was to be welcomed, it was important not to lose sight of the possible impact on established Portree town centre businesses;
• with regard to peat, it was suggested that any peat removal problem was not insurmountable and should not be allowed to stand in the way of a much needed development;
• the proposed development site was approximately one mile from Portree town centre, a 20 minute walk;
• in recent years new methods of shopping had had an impact on town centres. It was important to acknowledge that a large amount of purchasing was now done online;
• with regard to the link road, there was concern about why it had appeared in the application, when it was clearly not required as part of the application process;
• the application was not robust and lacked detail in some areas and because of this it raised doubts on the developers ability to deliver the project; and
• to refuse the application would not protect town centres as van deliveries by the major supermarkets was being rolled out with to cover the whole of the Highland area.

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mrs M Smith, MOVED that the the recommendation be agreed.

Mr I Renwick, seconded by Mr A Mackinnon, moved as an AMENDMENT that the application be deferred for the applicant to submit:

• a peat management and wetland ecology plan; and
• a revised cumulative retail impact assessment.

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

Motion
Mr C Fraser
Mrs A MacLean
Mrs I McCallum
Mr G Phillips
Mr M Smith

Amendment
Mr D Bremner
Mrs I Campbell
Mrs G Coghill
Mr B Fernie
Mr M Finlayson
Mr D Mackay
Mr A Mackinnon
Mr H Morrison
Mr I Renwick

The motion to DEFER planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

The Committee AGREED to take Items 5.3 and 5.4 together

5.3
Applicant: Mr Gordon Adam (14/00909/FUL) (PLN/063/14)
Location: Land 180m NE of Hillockhead Rosemarkie (Ward 10)
Nature of Development: Change of use of land to yurt campsite and erection of facilities block and associated services
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No. PLN/063/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

Mrs E MacArthur presented the Report and the recommendation.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

5.4
Applicant: Mr Gordon Adam (14/00912/PIP) (PLN/064/14)
Location: Land 180m NE of Hillockhead Rosemarkie (Ward 10)
Nature of Development: Erection of House (Planning Permission in Principal)
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No. PLN/064/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that planning permission be granted subject to prior conclusion of a section 75 Agreement to tie the house to the landholding and further subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation subject to the section 75 Agreement being at the Applicant’s expense.

5.5
Applicant: Rubicon Land Ltd and Lochalsh and Skye Housing Association (14/01464/PIP) (PLN/065/14)
Location: Land 100M NW of 10 Bealach nan Ciobairean, Home Farm, Cearn An Leth-Uillt, Portree (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of a Class 1 foodstore and petrol filling station with associated car parking, landscaping and access
Recommendation: Grant

Mr H Fraser and Mr J Gordon had previously requested the Chairman’s permission to address the Committee on this application under Standing Order 13.1.

Mrs A Sinclair declared a non-financial interest in this item as she was a member of the Board of Lochalsh and Skye Housing Association and left the meeting during determination of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/065/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

Before any presentation of the Report and recommendation took place, Members debated and sought advice on whether or not to defer the application for further information. Legal advice was given that the application was competent and that there was no reason not to determine the application.

Mr D Miller, seconded by Mr A Mackinnon, then MOVED that the application be deferred to the next Committee to allow for further information on the cumulative retail impact to be lodged.

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Ms M Smith, moved as an AMENDMENT that the Committee proceed to consider and determine the application.

On a vote being taken, 6 votes were cast in favour of the motion, eight votes in favour of the amendment and one abstention as follows:-

Motion
Mrs I Campbell
Mrs G Coghill
Mr B Fernie
Mr A Mackinnon
Mr D Millar
Mr I Renwick

Amendment
Mr M Finlayson
Mr C Fraser
Mr D Mackay
Mrs A MacLean
Mrs I McCallum
Mr H Morrison
Mr G Phillips
Mr M Smith

Abstention
Mr D Bremner

Mr G Sharp presented the Report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-

• because the proportion of affordable housing with the current total of units at Home Farm was well in excess of the policy requirement of 25%, the loss of 27 units was not considered to represent a reason for refusal;
• with regard to the disposal of peat, a revised Peat Management Strategy had been submitted. The revised plan addressed the concerns raised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, who had objected on the grounds of insufficient information in relation to how the surplus peat might be disposed of. It was further confirmed that the peat disposal was to take place in an environmentally sensitive way. This information allowed SEPA to withdraw their objection but a suspensive condition would be required to ensure that peat was disposed of to the satisfaction of SEPA;
• the Report did not comment on the ability of local community groups to deliver the community woodland but suggested that a suspensive condition would be the best method to ensure the woodland was delivered for the local community;
• with regard to the disposal of peat in Drummuie Quarry, planning consent goes with the land and therefore the identity of the landowner was not required. It was further confirmed that peat would not be dumped in the quarry; the Scottish Environment Protection Agency would not allow peat to be disposed of in a manner which would adversely affect the environment. If the quarry was to be in-filled it would be with inert materials and topped with a covering of peat and not filled in solely with peat;
• the butcher was not material to the retail impact assessment, the anchor store in Portree was the existing Co-operative store;
• the link road was not a material consideration as it did not form part of the application;
• in terms of the Retail Impact Assessment the Kyle of Lochalsh Co-operative store was included because the assessment was based on a telephone survey of shopping habits in the Skye and western Lochalsh catchment area. During the survey a number of shoppers indicated that they shopped in the Kyle of Lochalsh Co-operative and had to be included in the assessment;
• The reasons for the non-development of previous retail consents were not material to the assessment of this application:with regard to housing to accommodate future growth in the village, it was confirmed that a large site off the Staffin Road was allocated for development in the Local Plan. The Staffin Road site was comparable to the Home Farm site in terms of area. It was suggested that the current allocation was sufficient until the new Local Plan went live; and
• the Retail Impact Assessment did take into account van deliveries from the mainland supermarket chains.

During discussion Members commented that:

• with regard to the Home Farm development, it was a disappointment the development would lose up to 27 affordable homes. It was also mentioned that pockets of land had been sold off for a dental surgery and a hostel;
• the butcher in Portree would not continue in business beyond 2015;
• it was preferable that any developer contribution was allocated to the completion of the link road, this would ease Portree traffic congestion;
• it would appear that the Retail Impact Assessment did not take into account supermarket deliveries from the mainland;
• unhappy to know that with regard to peat disposal, that the planning consent went with the land;
• there was no planning reason not to determine the application; and
• the developer had made every effort to mitigate the effects from building on the site and this was welcomed.

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mrs M Smith, then MOVED that the recommendation be agreed.

Mr D Miller seconded by Mr A Mackinnon, moved as an AMENDMENT that the application be deferred for the following reason:

• “To allow a cumulative retail assessment impact survey to be carried out on the two applications which resulted in the previous deferral to allow the Applicant to furnish the Committee with a full proposal which would infer a positive outcome.”.

The Clerk confirmed that the reasons for deferment were not competent and that the Committee had all the information before it which was required to determine the application.

On a vote being taken, 7 votes were cast in favour of the MOTION and eight votes in favour of the AMENDMENT as follows:-

Motion
Mr D Bremner
Mr M Finlayson
Mr C Fraser
Mrs A MacLean
Mrs I McCallum
Mr G Phillips
Mrs M Smith

Amendment
Mrs I Campbell
Mrs G Coghill
Mr B Fernie
Mr D Mackay
Mr A Mackinnon
Mr D Millar
Mr H Morrison
Mr I Renwick

The motion to DEFER planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

5.6
Applicant: Highland and Islands Enterprise (14/01532/S42) (PLN/066/14)
Location: Land at Broadford Surrounding, Pairc nan Craobh Industrial Estate, Broadford (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Application for non-compliance with Condition 1 of Planning Permission 12/02781/FUL
Recommendation: Approve

There had been circulated Report No PLN/066/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that approval of non-compliance with Condition 1 of planning permission 12/02781/FUL be garnted subject to the condition detailed in the Report.

Mr M Harvey presented the Report and recommendation.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

5.7
Applicant: Mr Julian Richmond-Watson (14/02266/FUL) (PLN/067/14)
Location: Island Cottage, Camusbane, Arnisdale, Kyle (Ward 6)
Nature of Development: Demolition of ruin and erection of two houses (renewal of 08/00906/FULRC)
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLN/067/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

Mr M Harvey presented the Report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• the renewal application was received before the previous permissions had lapsed. When the previous permissions had been granted it was minor departure from policy, it was further commented that application complied with current policy;
• the proposed site, although it sat within the common grazings, was not considered to be detrimental to the common grazings or to uses associated with crofting;
• the planning authority cannot control who lives in the proposed houses;
• it was necessary to be clear on the Crofters Commission role in the planning process. It was also commented that, the Crofters Commission would have further involvement with regard to de-crofting process and possibly the Land Court;
• the local plan encouraged and promoted crofting.

During discussion Members commented that:

• with regard to this application it was difficult not to support the crofting interesting within the recently active township ;
• the strong contribution from the Crofting Commission was welcomed;
• was it not possible to re-site the proposed houses in an alternative site? It was further commented that, to build a house on common grazing was not in accord with Highland Wide Local Development Policy 47, as the development would be detrimental to crofting in the township;
• there had been a significant change in circumstance since the original application. Crofters had started to work the crofts, fencing had been erected to stop the deer encroachment and considerably money and efforts had been expended to bring the township crofts back into work;
• crofting legislation meant that this application may have to go to the Land Court; and
• there was no reason not to grant permission, permission had been granted previously and whilst it was always the preference that the site was used to build a croft house, to refuse permission should not be at the expense of impeding housing development.

Mrs I Campbell, seconded by Mrs A Sinclair, MOVED that the application be refused for the following reason:

• Policy 47 of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan states that a proposal must not be detrimental to the loss of common grazings or uses associated with crofting. The proposed houses will be detrimental to the loss of the crofters’ common grazing and the loss of an area to put up a fank and dipper for their crofting operations.

Mrs M Smith, seconded by Mrs A MacLean, moved as an AMENDMENT that the recommendation be agreed.

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

Motion
Mr D Bremner
Mrs I Campbell
Mrs G Coghill
Mr M Finlayson
Mr C Fraser
Mr D Mackay
Mrs I McCallum
Mr H Morrison
Mrs A Sinclair

Amendment
Mr B Fernie
Mrs A MacLean
Mr I Renwick
Mrs M Smith

The motion to REFUSE planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

5.8
Applicant: MeyGen Ltd (14/02735/FUL) (PLN/068/14)
Location: Ness of Huna and Ness of Quoys, Huna (Ward 4)
Nature of Development: Amended design and finish for 3 Power Conversion Unit Buildings (PCUBs) previously approved (ref 12/02874/FUL)
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLN/068/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

Mr D Jones presented the Report and recommendation.

During discussion Members commented that whilst the reduction in massing was welcomed, the design change from an architect designed building to an agricultural type shed was disappointing.

Thereafter the Committee AGREED to express the Committee’s disappointment with the amended design and to defer consideration of the application to allow the Applicant to review the design. The Applicant is asked to consider alternatives including a design similar to the one previously approved, allowing for the change in scale of the proposed buildings.

5.9
Applicant: Mr Trevor Crowe (14/02857/FUL) (PLN/069/14)
Location: Eilean Òir, 1A Edinbane, Portree, IV51 9PR (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Proposed Retail and Training Unit (including. demolition of old shed)
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLN/069/14 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

Mr G Sharp presented the Report and recommendation.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

6. Decisions of Appeals to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh agus Àrainneachd

6.1
Applicant: Wind Prospects Developments Limited (13/02749/FUL) (PPA-270-2103)
Location: Land 1600 metres west of Craiggiemore, Tressady Estate, Rogart
Nature of Development: The construction and operation of a wind farm consisting of thirteen wind turbines and associated infrastructure including site entrance, access tracks, switchgear building and compound, permanent meteorological mast, temporary construction compound, water crossings and upgrading to the access route to the wind farm site.

The Committee NOTED that the appeal had been dismissed.

6.2
Section 36 Application for the Glenmorie Wind Powered Electricity Generating Station, approximately 10km South-West of Bonar Bridge

There was circulated a letter from the Energy and Climate Change Directorate, Electricity Division which set out the decision of the Scottish Ministers to refuse the application for consent under the section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for construction and operation of the Glenmorie Wind Farm.

The Committee NOTED the decision to refuse the application.

7. Application 12/02872/S36 Glencassley Wind Farm and Application 11/04718/S36 Sallachy Wind Farm, Both By Lairg, Sutherland Further Representations Following Updated National Planning Framework and Scottish Planning Policy (June 2014)

Report No. PLN/070/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards was withdrawn.

8. Dates of Meetings in 2015
Cinn-latha Choinneamhan ann an 2015

The Committee NOTED the following dates of meetings in 2015:

13 January
17 February
24 March
28 April
9 June
4 August
15 September
13 October
10 November
15 December

The meeting closed at 15.40