Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee commenced at 10.30 in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 30 September 2014.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark (except Items 7.6 and 7.7)
Mr J Crawford (except Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7.8)
Mrs M Davidson (except Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1)
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows (except Item 6.1, 6.2)
Mr J Ford (except Items 6.1, 6.2, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11, 8.1 and 8.2)
Mr J Gray (except Items 6.1 and 6.2)
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird (except Items 7.6 and 7.7)
Mr B Lobban (except Item 7.6)
Mr C Macaulay
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Ms J Slater (except Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2)
Mr H Wood

Non-Committee Members Present:

Mr B Thompson (except Items 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11, 8.1 and 8.2)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr D Baldwin, Principal Planner
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mr J Danby, Principal Engineer
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer
Mr J Bromham, Aquaculture Development Officer
Mr G MacCormick, Environmental Health Officer
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor (Planning)
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mrs P Bangor-Jones, Administrative Assistant
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Business

1.  Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies for late arrival at the meeting due to other Council business had been received from Mrs M Davidson.

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 7.6 – Mr R Laird -financial

3.  Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation the minute of the Committee meeting held on 19 August 2014 which was APPROVED.

4.  Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No. PLS/064/14 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.  Major Developments – Pre-application consultation
Leasachaidhean Mòra – Co-chomhairle Ro-iarrtais

5.1
Description: Redevelopment of the existing fish farm (14/03203/PAN) (PLS/065/14)
Ward: 13 - Aird and Loch Ness
Applicant: Marine Harvest Scotland
Site Address: Inchmore Fish Farm, Glenmoriston

There had been circulated Report No. PLS/065/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that the Committee note the submission of the Proposal of Application Notice and advise of any material planning issues which should be brought to the applicant’s attention.

The Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and highlighted the following material considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-

• adequacy of access off the busy trunk road
• the size of the building which appeared to be much bigger than the existing structure, and
• the need for appropriate screening from Dalchriecart village  

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.2

Description: Formation of a 44 MW wind farm including the erection of 13 wind turbines (height to tip 149.5m), hard standings, access tracks, site access, borrow pits, erection of a meteorological mast, erection of a substation compound and control building, temporary construction compounds, drainage works, associated ancillary and engineering works.(14/03473/PAN) (PLS/066/14)

Ward: 12 - Caol and Mallaig and 13 - Aird and Loch Ness
Applicant: RES UK and Ireland Limited
Site Address: Land 6KM south east of Newtown, Invergarry

Mr B Thompson had requested the Chairman’s permission to speak on this item under Standing Order 13.1.

There had been circulated Report No. PLS/066/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that the Committee note the submission of the Proposal of Application Notice and advise of any material planning issues which should be brought to the applicant’s attention.

The Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and highlighted the following material considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-  

• Landscape, visual impact and noise, including cumulative impacts
• Residents’ concerns that insufficient study into impact on their private water supplies had been undertaken.  Better information was needed it they were to be reassured that their water supplies would be safeguarded
• Close attention to archaeology was needed as the site is one of historic importance
• Visibility from Fort Augustus and Glenmoriston
• Impact and probable increase in size for the substation at Auchterawe
• Visibility from the scheduled monument, The Corrieyairack Pass
• Impact on the road network and Fort Augustus village in particular

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

A concern was raised at the omission of Highland Councillors from the list of stakeholders identified at part 4.0 of the PAN.  The Highland Council was, however, listed as one of the stakeholders.

6.  Continued Items
Cuspair a’ Leantain

Mr C Macaulay took the Chair for the determination of Items 6.1 and 6.2 as Mr J Gray had not attended the site visits for these items.

6.1
Applicant: Measan Na Mara Ltd (14/00580/FUL) (PLS/067/14)
Location: South Channel, Loch Moidart, Eilean Shona, Acharacle (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Major Application - Marine Shellfish Farm, (Pacific Oysters) extension of existing site to create 4 plots of oyster trestles (zones 1,1a,2 and 3), consisting of a total of 21,420 trestles each 3m x 1m x 0.6m high in a site of 23.2 hectares (as amended).
Recommendation: Grant

A site visit had taken place on 9 September 2014, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr C Macaulay, Mr T Maclennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag and Mr H Wood.

Only those members who had attended the site visit took part in the determination of the application.  As Mrs M Davidson was not present during delivery of the presentation on this item, however, she did not participate in the determination.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/067/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr J Bromham presented the report and the recommendations.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• Scottish Natural Heritage had made no comment in their submission with regard to the saltmarsh;
• the oysters required to be underwater for at least 50% of their lifecycle to grow and to feed;
• with regard to the shore-based element of the operation this did not form part of the planning application. A further application for the shore-based element would be required at a later date, although it was possible that the applicant would only require to apply for a change of use;
• plot 1 and plot 1a would be covered with water more often than plots 2 and 3;
• the applicant had indicated that hollows in the track would be in-filled with gravel;
• if planning permission were granted, the applicant would be required to apply for a licence from Marine Scotland Science.  In addition, once a marine licence was granted, the applicant would be required to inform the Admiralty Hydrographic Office of the location of the development so that navigational charts were amended;
• it was understood that the applicant had a formal legal agreement with Shielbridge Estate to take access through the gate and the track down to the foreshore:
• all vehicles associated with the operation would park on the beach;
• under section 95 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 it was an offence to allow mud or any other material to be deposited or remain on a public road from any vehicle or development site.  The applicant would be made aware of this by an advisory note attached to the planning permission;
• Condition four required that the applicant submit details of improvement works to the access track entrance and that no development was permitted until the improvement works had been approved and carried out to the satisfaction of the planning authority.  It was not possible to determine if hard standing was appropriate until the improvement works plan had been submitted, if planning permission was granted; and
• with regard to an increased risk of disease, it was explained that Marine Scotland Science had raised no concerns. Marine Scotland Science advised that there was a legal requirement that oyster stocks could only be moved to the development site from an area of equal or higher health status. The colder offshore waters were thought to be beneficial to the health of oysters as the colder water inhibited the spread of oyster herpes.

During discussion Members commented that:- 

• the site visit was beneficial as it would have been difficult to understand the scale and size of the development and its location in the landscape from a presentation alone;
• with regard to the site access and track, there was unease about the noise  impact on the properties adjoining the track.  In this regard, one member considered it might be useful to explore the possibility of the use of electric vehicles.  Others, however, considered this impractical given that the vehicles could be affected by salt water;
• there was concern about potential over use of the access track;
• the impact on the track by the use of tractors was not easily mitigated;
• there was serious concern about the massing/scale and number of plots and their appropriateness to the location.  It was further commented that, the four plots amounted to an industrial scale development. Furthermore, the development should not be sited in an area designated as a National Scenic Area. The closeness of the site to a Site of Special Scientific Interest was also a worry;
• there was concern that the development would impact negatively on the tourist industry, specifically marine tourism;
• it was suggested that had an application for plots 1 and 1a come forward as a stand-alone application, it was possible that the scale of the project would have been more acceptable and less contentious;
• with time the trestle tables would blend into the background, becoming covered in seaweed and thereby lessening the impact on the landscape; and
• with the development covering an area equivalent to 17 international rugby pitches, the development could only be described as an industrial operation.

Mr C Macaulay, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr T MacLennan, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the following reasons:-

The cumulative scale of the proposal is:  

• contrary to Policies 49 and 50 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan in that it would have significant adverse impact on the natural heritage and amenity value of the area by reason of impact on scenic and visual amenity, particularly as a result of the scale and position of Plots 2 and 3, and
• contrary to Policy 57 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan and SPP 212 in that the scale of the proposal compromises the natural environment and amenity of the Morar, Moidart and Ardnamurchan National Scenic Area and the social or economic benefits provided by the development are not of national importance, so do not clearly outweigh any adverse impacts on the National Scenic Area.

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

Motion
Mr M Green
Mr R Laird
Mr C Macaulay
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mr H Wood

Amendment
Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan

The amendment to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.2
Applicant: Mr Steve Fox (13/03463/FUL) (PLS/056/14)
Location: Land 320M SE of Carnoch Farm, Ardgour (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Erection of a single Harbon HWT Wind Turbine (29.95m to blade tip)
Recommendation: Grant

A site visit had taken place on 9 September 2014, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr C Macaulay, Mr T Maclennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag and Mr H Wood

Only those members who had attended the site visit took part in the determination of the application.

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/056/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms L Prins presented the report and the recommendation, advising that Environmental Health had asked for an additional condition restricting noise levels and that the addition of this conditions was now included in her recommendation.

In response to a question it was confirmed that the colour of the turbine was subject to a condition whereby the choice of colour finish would require the prior approval of the Planning Authority to ensure the turbine was integrated into the landscape.

During discussion Members commented that in future it would be helpful to have more visualisations and photomontages included with the reports and plan documents.  This might obviate the need for site visits.

Thereafter the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the additional condition recommended by Environmental Health restricting noise levels.  It was further agreed that the planning service involve Local Members in the final choice of turbine colour to be approved under Condition Five.

7.  Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

7.1
Applicant: Robertson Property Ltd (14/03260/MSC) (PLS/068/14)
Location: Land at Beechwood Farm, Inverness (Inverness Campus) (Ward 17 and 20)
Nature of Development: Application for approval of Matters Specified in Condition 2(c) of Planning Permission in Principle 09/00887/PIPIN at Beechwood Farm, Inverness (Inverness Campus). Specifically this application relates to the detailed design and layout for the building on Plot 7 which is for student residences.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/068/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending approval of matters specified in conditions as recommended in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• with regard to the location of the bin storage area, it was difficult to find another appropriate site to house the bins.  It was further confirmed that, to site the bin storage area on the grass would not be suitable as this would hinder refuse collection; and
• the proposed design was in keeping with the overall design code for the campus.

During discussion Members commented that:-  

• it was difficult to predict the number of beds required, as this was dependant on the future development of the University of the Highlands and Islands;
• the design of the building was uninspiring and perhaps it would have been helpful to have had input from PLACE, the Inverness Design Review Panel; and
• views on design and architecture were subjective

Thereafter the Committee agreed to APPROVE the matters specified in Condition 2(c) of planning permission in principle 09/00887/PIPIN as recommended in the report.

7.2
Applicant: Inverness Estates Ltd (13/01049/S42) (PLS/069/14)
Location: Land at Stratton and East Seafield, Inverness (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Application to vary conditions 4, 36 and 42 of Planning Permission ref 09/00141/OUTIN; amendments to Access Management Plan, Park and Ride and amendment to timing of provision.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/069/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that planning permission in principle under section 42 in accordance with planning permission in principle ref. 09/00141/OUTIN without compliance with conditions 4, 5, 36 and 42 previously imposed be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr D Baldwin presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• there was no formal agreement that users of the Park and Ride facility would be allowed to use the adjacent supermarket toilets. It was further confirmed that dedicated toilet facilities would be provided as part of the permanent park and ride facility at Phase 2 of the development
• the Stratton town centre was an aspirational part of the development masterplan and it was the decision of the developer whether to build it out:
• with regard to completion of all phases of the development, it was confirmed that the planning authority had no control over whether the developer completed all or some of the phases. It was suggested these decisions would be taken by the developer in light of the market and the prevailing economic conditions;
• the Barn Church Road/Tower Road junction and the Tower Road/Culloden Road junction were unaffected by the application and the scheme for a junction design, signalisation, widening and/or improvement of these junctions would go ahead;
• a 500 space park and ride facility would come at the beginning of Phase 2 of the development;
• it was not possible to give a timescale for the sub-phasing of Phase 1 as the timetable would be based on market conditions;
• it was stressed that the application, if granted, did not mean that the supermarket would be developed first. It would simply build in more flexibility as to how the development progressed. It was commented that the original planning permission in principle was granted in a different economic climate and the flexibility now sought would allow the developer to re-assess the options; and
• the application was in essence an application to defer a small number of supporting infrastructure changes.   

During discussion Members commented that:-  

• it seemed illogical to build the supermarket element of the development prior to building the residential component. It was further suggested that it was not beneficial to build a further supermarket on the limits of the city, which did not have a community to use it;
• the original application made sense in the coherent progression of the development and any change to that common-sense progress would result in an unbalanced development; and
• it appeared that the planning permission was being unpicked to allow the developer to bring forward the lucrative commercial element of the development.  

Thereafter the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle under section 42 in accordance with planning permission in principle ref. 09/00141/OUTIN without compliance with conditions 4, 5, 36 and 42 previously imposed, but subject to the following:  

• the prior modification of the existing section 75 obligation to ensure its provisions applied to the planning permission in principle granted under section 42,
• the other existing conditions of planning permission in principle 09/00141/OUTIN,
• the conditions recommended in the report,
• a direction as to time limits, as recommended in the report,
• the existing informatives and notes in planning permission in principle 09/00141/OUTIN, and
• the additional informatives recommended in the report.  

7.3
Applicant: Robertson Property Ltd (14/02567/FUL) (PLS/070/14)
Location: Land 70m NE of Lidl Food Store, Camanachd Crescent, Fort William (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Erection of 40 bed student accommodation with ancillary services and storage
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/070/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms L Prins presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• the application proposed one car space per five bed spaces, which was the same ratio as had been required in the previous permission for the same site and was in line with Transport Planning’s guidelines;
• the roofing material was appropriate for the development and had been used successfully on other buildings;
• with regard to concerns about the lack of car parking spaces, it was possible for students to apply for a free residents car parking permit for use in the adjacent public car parks;
• the building would be classed as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and would therefore require an HMO licence;
• bicycle storage was provided within a shelter; and
• the horizontal timber panels would be Siberian larch, which was considered suitable for the local weather conditions.  

During discussion Members commented that:-  

• there was a concern that the number of car parking spaces would not be enough to satisfy demands.  It was further commented that the lack of car parking spaces at student accommodation was a recurring issue.  In this regard, it was requested that Transport Planning reconsider their guideline on parking provision for student accommodation given the increasing tendency of students to have cars.

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

7.4
Applicant: Fort William Car Hire (14/02685/FUL) (PLS/071/14)
Location: Ambulance Depot, Nevis Road, Inverlochy, Fort William, PH33 6LY (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: The proposal is for planning permission for alterations and change of use of a former ambulance station to car hire centre.
Recommendation: GrantThere had been circulated Report No PLS/071/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr A Todd presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• the current access to the site was a private road. Historically the private access was used by local residents to park their cars to the rear of their houses. The applicant had indicated that there was no intention to close off the private road, provided his access was not blocked. It was further confirmed that parking on or use of private land was a civil matter which was not a material planning consideration when determining the application;
• conditions one and two would safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties and occupants;
• with regard to Neighbour Notification, it was acknowledged that with regard to this and other applications, the process followed required to be made more robust.  To ensure that the process was improved the issues had been identified and measures were being put in place to tighten up the procedures;
• Nevis Road was an adopted road;
• the applicant would have permitted development rights to erect a gate at the entrance to the access road if the gate was no more than 1 m in height; and
• no objection had been raised by the Contaminated Land team with regard to the re-use of the on-site fuel tanks.  It was further confirmed that the re-use of the fuel tanks would not require a separate planning application though might require to be licensed.

During discussion Members commented that:-  

• the application had generated a large number of concerns among local residents. In particular they were concerned that the operation of a car hire business would impact on their amenity and their ability to continue to use the private access road; and
• there was disquiet that the Neighbour Notification process was not operationally sound and it was agreed that the process required to be reviewed, as a matter of urgency.

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

7.5
Applicant: Mr and Mrs M Hall (14/03040/MSC) (PLS/072/14)
Location: House Plot to South of Annesfield House, Glencoe (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Proposed new croft house
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/072/14 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending approval of matters specified in conditions as recommended in the report.

Mr A Todd presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-  

• planning permission in principle had originally been refused under delegated powers.  Subsequently the application was subject to a review by the Planning Review Body and planning permission in principle was granted. The principle of development was established by the decision of the Planning Review Body.  Consequently, the only matters for consideration by the Committee were those specified in the conditions on the planning in principle. The matters specified in those conditions related to the design, materials, siting, orientation and landscaping of the building.

During discussion Members expressed surprise that the Planning Review Body had granted planning permission in principle for the building.  Members further commented that it was disappointing to be able to comment only on the design of the development and there was no other option than to agree the recommendation.

Thereafter the Committee agreed to APPROVE the matters specified in conditions subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

7.6
Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc (14/00071/FUL) (PLS/073/14)
Location: Land 50M North of Bochruben Farm, Torness, Inverness (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Construction of 275/132kV substation incorporating outdoor electrical switchgear and transformers, control/welfare building, access road from B862 and associated drainage, earthworks and landscaping
Recommendation: Grant

Mr R Laird declared a financial interest as a shareholder of SSE and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/073/14 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 recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:-

• it would be possible to specify by condition the colour of the control building; and
• the landscaping and planting followed the linear line of the land. 

During discussion Members commented that:-  

• there was a need to take a cautious approach to possible noise mitigation in light of the recent events at the Wester Balblair and Auchteraw sub-stations. In this regard it was necessary to ensure that acoustic barriers were fitted prior to the operation of the sub-station;
• the construction of the sub-station and associated buildings would without doubt have a substantial impact on the surrounding properties and villages;
• it was easy to underestimate the additional infrastructure required to make a wind farm operational.  The wind farm was only the beginning of the process; and
• the control building occupied only a small area of the site and it would be beneficial to condition the maintenance of the planted areas  surrounding the building and the treatment of the bund;

Thereafter the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report, with:- 

• correction of conditions 17 and 18 to delete reference to conditions 13 and 14, and 14 and 15, and substitute reference to conditions 15 and 16;
• inclusion of a requirement that the control building colour be faded peat brown;
• specification of maintenance requirements for the planted area and of treatment of the bund form to be included in the landscaping condition; and
• an additional condition requiring installation of acoustic barriers to be in place prior to operation of the substation.

The Committee further agreed that local members would be consulted on all matters to be submitted for approval in terms of the conditions.