Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 24 February 2015 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour (excluding Item 8.1), Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford (excluding Items 7.2 and 7.3), Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr T Prag (excluding Item 8.1), Ms J Slater, Mr H Wood 

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mr M Kordas, Planner
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer
Mr G Stuart, Forestry Officer
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Mr J Gray in the Chair

Preliminaries

The Chairman confirmed that the meeting would be filmed and broadcast over the Internet on the Highland Council website and would be archived and available for viewing for 12 months.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence 
Leisgeulan

Apologies were received from Mr A Duffy, Mr J Ford, Mr C Macaulay and Mr F Parr.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None.

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the Committee meeting held on 20 January 2015 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/006/15 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.

In response to a question it was confirmed that:

• In relation to application reference 08/00080/OUTNA, a response from the applicant was imminent and it was anticipated that the application would be brought to the scheduled meeting of the Committee on 1 April 2015 if required.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

5. Major Developments – Pre-application consultation
Leasachaidhean Mòra – Co-chomhairle Ro-iarrtais

5.1
Description: Alterations to accesses to Shopping Park, alterations to internal access/circulation within car park, alterations to car parking layout, alterations to pedestrian footpaths, public areas and landscaping (15/00215/PAN) (PLS/007/15)
Ward: 18 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: Hercules Unit Trust
Site Address: Inverness Retail and Business Park, Eastfield Way, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/007/15 by the Area Planning Manager South on the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN), describing the site and setting out likely relevant policies and potential material planning considerations.

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

• the extent to which the proposal would result in a reduction in car parking provision

together with the other material planning considerations identified in the report.

5.2
Description: Change of use of Unit 3A from Class 1 (shop) to Class 3 (food and drink) to form 3 restaurants with associated external alterations, access to shopping park, alterations to internal access/circulation within car park, alterations to car parking layout, alterations to pedestrian footpaths, public areas and landscaping (15/00315/PAN) (PLS/008/15)
Ward: 18 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: Hercules Unit Trust
Site Address: Inverness Retail and Business Park, Eastfield Way, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/008/15 by the Area Planning Manager South on the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN), describing the site and setting out likely relevant policies and potential material planning considerations.

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

• the extent to which the proposal would result in a reduction in car parking provision
• traffic impact
• the importance of addressing the sequential test and the town centre first principle
• assessment of the impact on the town centre

together with the other material planning considerations identified in the report.

6. Continued Items
Cuspairean a’ Leantainn

6.1
Applicant: WPD Beinn Mhor Ltd (14/01731/FUL) (PLS/002/15)
Location: Land at Beinn Mhor, Guisachan, Tomich (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Formation of an 18 MW wind farm, including erection of 6 wind turbines on 78.5 m towers (height to tip 119.5 m) (rotor diameter 82 m), erection of control building/sub-station, erection of a meteorological mast, formation of hardstandings, access tracks and temporary assembly areas
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/002/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Following the postponement of the site visit scheduled for the previous day, the Committee was advised that a notification of an appeal against non-determination of the application had been received from the applicant. However, formal confirmation of this had not yet been received from the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). It was understood that the appeal had been brought forward by the appellant in order to protect their ability to fund the proposed development under a Renewables Obligations Certificate. Members would have to come to a view on the application to inform the appeal process going forward.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• Should the Committee proceed with a site visit, Members would have the opportunity to consider the application thereafter at a special meeting, with a view to informing the Council’s response to the appeal. However, should the appeal be withdrawn prior to the date of the site visit, the Committee could then proceed to determine the application on the day.
• The importance of Member participation in the submission of the Council’s response to the appeal was emphasised.
• It was for the DPEA reporter to decide under what process the appeal should be heard. Examples of this included public local enquiry or by written submission.
• Planning had entered into a processing agreement with the applicant. However, this expired on 24 November 2014, thereby entitling the applicant to submit a non-determination appeal, the deadline for this being 24 February 2015. An extension to the processing agreement had been explored at the time. However, the applicant had declined the opportunity to agree to this.

The Committee NOTED that a non-determination appeal had been lodged and agreed to DEFER consideration pending a site visit on 19 March 2015 with consideration of the application thereafter taking place in the Town House, Inverness on the same date with a view to informing the Council’s response to the appeal.

The Committee further NOTED that if the appeal had been withdrawn by the date of the site visit, the Committee could proceed to determine the application after the site visit.

6.2
Applicant: Falck Renewables Wind Ltd (14/02055/S36) (PLS/099/14)
Location: Millennium Wind Farm, Glenmoriston (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Construction of 10 additional wind turbines and ancillary infrastructure, height up to 132 m to blade tip
Recommendation: Raise No Objections

There had been circulated Report No PLS/099/14 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that no objection be raised subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

The Chairman advised that, following the postponement of the site visit scheduled for the previous day, it was for the Committee to decide whether to proceed to discuss the report and make a decision on the Council’s response, or to arrange a site visit prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee on 1 April 2015 where the response would be discussed.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• As this was a Section 36 application, there was no fixed timetable in terms of a planning process. However, an informal agreement had been made with the consenting parties on a deadline of the end of February as the site visit had been scheduled to take place prior to this.
• Whilst the applicant had indicated that they were keen for the Council to reach an opinion, the actual decision would rest with Scottish Ministers.
• No information had been received from the applicant regarding time limits for obtaining any subsidy from government.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Whilst there was acknowledgement that the application would ultimately be assessed by Scottish Ministers, the importance of holding a site visit was emphasised as it would enable a better visualisation of the site in the context of the current wind farm.
• A site visit was originally considered to be beneficial to the application process and therefore should take place prior to discussion of the report.
• The impact on the landscape and the potential cumulative impact would be key considerations for the application.

The Committee agreed to DEFER decision on the Council’s consultation response pending a site visit to be held prior to the next scheduled meeting of the South PAC on 1 April 2015.

7. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

7.1
Applicant: Ossian Development Ltd (14/00357/FUL) (PLS/009/15)
Location: Dragon’s Tooth Golf Course, Ballachulish (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Siting of 8 camping pods
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/009/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending refusal of the application for the reasons detailed therein.

The following matters were clarified in response to questions:

• Whilst the site of the proposed development was within a 1 in 200 year flood plain, alternative sites within the golf course and outwith the flood risk areas had been identified.
• The river was likely to rise quickly in the event of a flood due to its short catchment area.
• SEPA were of the view that it would be inadvisable to install warning systems in emergency evacuation procedures as the risk to people should be principally avoided.
• Transport Scotland was satisfied that the entrance to the site complied with regulations following recent improvements to the access from the trunk road.
• There was currently no information as to whether the concept of floating pods had been tried elsewhere.
• The foundation of each unit comprised of a pillar in each corner standing on a concrete base.
• It was estimated that out of the 93 trees surveyed, 55 would be removed as a consequence of providing individual pathway access to each of the 8 pods.
• Originally it had been proposed that a service trench constructed through the middle of a boulder mound formed some 30 years ago would be used to provide electricity, water and drainage. However, it was now intended that these services would be provided through trenches located underneath the paths to the individual pods. Further details on this proposal had not been provided by the applicant.
• There were no cross-section illustrations available to compare the height of the finished floor levels with the 1 in 200 year flood level.
• The height of each pod would vary across the length of the site.
• The tree report highlighted the differing qualities of individual trees, describing it as typical riparian woodland whereby the sum of its parts was greater than the quality of the individual specimens.
• SEPA’s advice that there was a risk of flooding was contrary to the applicant’s consultant’s opinion that “the area was not at risk of flooding”.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Precedent had been set by the Council to over-ride objections from SEPA for similar developments, including camping and caravan sites, located within 1 in 200 year flood plains. A 2013 decision of the North Planning Applications Committee was cited as an example.
• If SEPA’s view were adhered to rigidly, a number of high-profile events in the Highlands would not take place, such as the Black-Isle Show.
• The Council should be encouraging similar tourism development on a small scale along the west coast.
• By adhering to SEPA’s advice, the Council was potentially closing off development in a number of places that would be relatively suitable otherwise.
• Whilst the views of the Planning officers were acknowledged, the Committee had the ability to ignore this advice. Ultimately the final decision would be made by the Scottish Government.
• Examples of flooding in caravan sites in other parts of the country should be examined.
• The Council’s Flood Team had raised similar objections to those made by SEPA and it would be extraordinary of the Committee to go against this advice.
• The river bank opposite the proposed development was higher and in the event of a flood would cause an overspill of flood water within the development area.
• The consequences of a severe flash flood included:

o boulders from the bank rolling through very heavy flood water
o the pods floating out into the water
o foul water entering the burn

• Whilst the site was a good place to locate the pods from a visitor point of view, there were other suitable alternative sites located within the golf course site.
• Alternative sites identified were more obtrusive from the road side and the proposed site would sit comfortably within the landscape.
• The provision of disability access to one of the pods was welcomed.
• Provision of an alarm system and training regime should be included as one of the conditions of approval.
• There had been no objections raised by the local community council or Scottish National Heritage.

The Chairman, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds as set out in the report.

Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr T MacLennan, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to notification to Scottish Ministers, contrary to recommendation and the advice of SEPA and the Flood Team on the grounds that the benefit of the proposal to developing tourism in the area justified departing from policy and that flood risk and associated risk to buildings and persons could be mitigated by attaching appropriate conditions to the planning permission.

Suggested conditions were:

• provision of a flood alarm system, and
• a training requirement for staff.

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

Motion

Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr R Laird, Mr T Prag, Ms J Slater, Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mrs M Davidson, Mr M Green, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan

Abstention

Mr D Kerr

The motion to GRANT planning permission for the reasons stated, subject to prior notification to Scottish Ministers, accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

7.2
Applicant: West Highland College UHI (14/02638/FUL) (PLS/010/15) 
Location: Land 70 m NE of Lidl Food Store, Camanachd Crescent, Fort William (Ward 22) 
Nature of Development: Proposed erection of Outdoor Activity Centre – Equipment Storage Facility for University of Highlands and Islands Adventure Tourism Management course 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/010/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

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

7.3
Applicant: Mr Ben Thompson (15/00004/FUL) (PLS/011/15) 
Location: 2 Erracht, Banavie, Fort William (Ward 12) 
Nature of Development: 1.5 Storey extension to cottage
Recommendation: Grant 

There had been circulated Report No PLS/011/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the condition recommended in the report, the reason to be amended to refer to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan rather than to Policy 36.

7.4
Applicant: Mr Hamish Towler (14/04354/FUL) (PLS/012/15)
Location: Blackpark Farm, Blackpark, Inverness (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Erection of dwelling
Recommendation: Grant 

There had been circulated Report No PLS/012/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• There was currently no policy to secure improvements to the existing road network outwith the application site boundary.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the condition recommended in the Report.

7.5
Applicant: Airvolution Energy Ltd (14/04385/FUL) (PLS/013/15) 
Location: Land 645 m West of Cloughmor, Farr (Ward 13) 
Nature of Development: Erection of temporary (24 months) 60 m anemometer mast 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/013/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The following matters were clarified in response to questions:

• Within the context of the wider area, there was currently one temporary met-mast in position with two separate applications having been submitted for a further nine separate turbines.
• The application bore no relation to a separate application highlighted in the Report to erect 7 wind turbines at Land 475 North West of Cloughmor, Farr.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Contrary to the opinion offered in the Report, the mast would be visible from a number of locations as there were 69 houses within 2 kilometres of the site.
• Whilst reference had been made in the Report to trees providing a degree of mitigation in reducing the visual impact, this could not be considered as a material planning consideration as trees could be removed and harvested at any time.
• The opinion of the officer in assessing the proposal against criteria was contrary to the view held by 132 objectors.
• There was no issue of commercial confidentiality as the applicant had already been identified as having submitted a separate application to erect 7 wind turbines on Land 475m North West of Cloughmor, Farr.
• It would not be possible to gauge an exact measurement of wind speeds from existing masts prior to erection of the turbines as readings would be taken from anemometer masts at heights which bore no relation to the location of the proposed development.
• Whilst there was frustration regarding the amount of information about the area available that was not allowed to be taken into consideration, there were no strong reasons to turn down the application.
• The proposed mast was of an unacceptable height in the context of the surrounding landscape and would have a cumulative visual impact with other man-made structures.

Mr J Crawford, seconded by Mrs M Davidson, then moved, contrary to recommendation, that the application be refused on the ground that the proposed development was contrary to Policy 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it would have significant visual impact and impact on the landscape character of the area by reason of its height, with particular visual impact on residential properties at Balnafoich and Inverarnie.

The Chairman, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the Report.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr J Crawford, Mrs M Davidson, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Ms J Slater, Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr B Clark, Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr R Laird, Mr T Prag

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

8. 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

8.1
Applicant: Munro Construction (Highland) Limited (14/02502/FUL) (PPA-270-2112)
Location: 38 Carsegate Road North, Inverness
Nature of Development: Change of use to waste transfer station (capacity 24,999 tonnes)

The Committee, after having expressed their discontent at the Reporter’s decision, NOTED that the appeal had been upheld and planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out in the decision notice.

The meeting ended at 12.25 pm.