Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, The Town House. High Street, Inverness on Wednesday 1 April 2015 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr B Clark (except Items 5.1 and 5.2), Mr J Crawford (except Items 5.1 and 6.1), Mrs M Davidson (except Item 5.2), Mr A Duffy (except Items 5.1 and 5.2), Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green (except Item 5.1), Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan (except Item 5.1), Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag (except Items 5.1 and 5.2), Ms J Slater (except Item 5.1), Mr H Wood (except Item 5.2)

Non-Committee Member Present:

Mr K Gowans (Items 6.1, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr A McCracken, Team Leader
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mr J Harbison, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mr J Bromham, Aquaculture Development Officer
Mr R Fraser, Environmental Health Officer
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr S Taylor, 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 Baxter and Mr J Ford.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Items 5.1 and 6.1 Mr J Crawford – Non Financial.

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minutes of the Committee meetings held on 24 February and 19 March 2015 which were APPROVED, subject to the inclusion of comment made at the meeting on 19 March 2015 regarding the feasibility of using the Beauly to Denny tracks as an alternative route for construction traffic.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/015/15 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 questions it was confirmed that:-

• With regard to a number of outstanding Electricity Act applications, it was explained that there had been no indication from Scottish Ministers as to when responses to these applications would be received.
• With regards to the Beinn Mhor Wind Farm application, it was confirmed that this was still a live appeal.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

5. Continued Items
Cuspairean a’ Leantainn 

5.1
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

Mr J Crawford declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been re-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.

A site visit had taken place on 30 March 2015, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr F Parr and Mr H Wood. Only those members who had attended the site visit took part in the determination of the application.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation, advising that two additional conditions had been set out requiring submission of a Noise Measurement and Mitigation Scheme and the provision of a Project Monitoring Officer by the developer prior to commencement of development was now being recommended. The latter condition would required approval by the Planning Authority of the terms of appointment by the developer of an independent and suitably qualified consultant to assist the Council in the monitoring of compliance with conditions attached to the deemed planning permission.

The following matters were clarified in response to questions:

• The number of turbines that would be visible from the panoramic view point shown to Members were:

         o Millennium Wind Farm – 16
o Millennium Wind Farm (Extension 1) – 6
o Millennium Wind Farm (Extension 2) – 4
o Millennium Wind Farm (Extension 3) – 10
o Beinneun – 25
o Bhlaraidh – 42
o Dunmaglass – 32

• There were currently four permissions for wind farm developments within the area.
• The application had introduced a potential issue of cumulative noise and Members were being asked to consider and agree planning permissions and conditions in relation to noise limits during their assessment of the project.
• Of the two recognised developers currently in this area, Falck Renewables was associated with three projects. However, Members were advised that the financial backers of these projects could potentially be different organisations from Falck Renewables.
• Whilst no formal complaints had been received in relation to noise from previously approved wind farms that had necessitated investigation, the Planning Authority would work with Environmental Health officers to ensure that any operative wind farm was compliant with ETSU-97 guidance.
• An assessment had established that noise levels of wind farms currently operating in this area were around 30 dBA. However, whilst this was below the ETSU-97 guidance recommendation of 35 dBA, the turbines on these wind farms had the capacity to create noise to a higher level.
• If noise levels breached the 35dBA limit, the Planning Authority and Environmental Health Authority would work with the objectors and the operators to resolve the problem.
• Noise was particularly noticeable when the wind was from the north. However, this was infrequent as the prevailing wind in the area was from the west.
• In the event of Members raising no objection and planning permission being granted by Scottish Ministers, the additional noise mitigation condition would allow the Planning Authority to have control over any cumulative noise.
• Apportioning limits to each wind farm was not feasible as the readings would be too close to the background level and therefore unmeasurable.
• Whilst there were no baseline noise measurements of the three existing wind farms to base any comparison on, noise assessments of these wind farms had calculated levels which were slightly higher than what was anticipated for each project.
• The noise mitigation condition had been added to the recommendation to bring some control to the Planning Authority so that the project could run successfully within parameters whereby the neighbouring community would not be affected.
• Individual turbines on the whole development could be programmed to operate on a reduced power mode if a particular wind speed or direction had been identified as the source of a complaint.
• The applicant did not have permitted development rights to build access tracks on land in the countryside.
• The Planning Authority would look to the Compliance Officer to ensure that the additional access track was built to Planning Authority standards and ensure that there would be a degree of improvement to junctions and additional signage for abnormal loads.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Whilst the local community had experienced good relations with Falck Renewables and were now used to the current wind farm with its previous extensions, concern had arisen at the number of wind farms in close proximity of each other in this area and their cumulative impact.
• Concern was expressed at the Council’s new proposals for onshore wind policy which had identified that areas of search were reducing due to wild land issues and were therefore going to be filled up with turbines.
• Residents in Fort Augustus and Kilmorack had been uncomplaining for two years about the noise being generated from substations. 
• The noise generated around Beauly, Fort Augustus and Auchterawe was having a negative effect on people who were particularly sensitive to noise and this affected their quality of life. 
• Residents staying at Faichem Caravan Park had raised concerns that they were able to hear the noise generated when the wind was blowing from the north.
• There should be a responsive system available for complaints to be investigated as people did not know what the process was for making a complaint.
• The development would look like one massive wind farm around Glenmoriston.
• With regard to the panoramic views, turbines were not so visually apparent until the rotating movement of the blades could be seen.
• The panoramic views shown during the presentation demonstrated (more so than the site visit had done) a significant number of turbines within this area and had given members a greater appreciation of the cumulative visual impact which the additional turbines would have.
• Turbines generally had a 25 year lifespan and would probably not be removed until they were upgraded.
• Turbines were getting progressively larger with both higher outputs and blade tip heights.
• The combination of a number of wind farms sited around the power distribution lines coming from Dounreay and the Beauly to Denny power line was creating a tremendous cumulative effect on wild land around Loch Ness, thereby impacting on the area as a tourist destination.
• Policies on future development of onshore energy gave the impression that as much development as possible should be crammed into this area.
• Hillwalkers would be displaced into non-wild land areas.
• Concern was expressed at the long-term effect on wildlife, in particular, significant rare birds, wildcats, the raptor population and pine martens.
• Not enough local employment was being generated by the wind farms in this area.
• The extra access track was viewed as a precursor to development of more turbines in close conjunction with the track.
• Whilst there would be a lot of turbines located within this particular area, the addition of a further 10 turbines would not cause tremendous damage to the tourism industry.
• If any effect on tourism was to happen it would have occurred within the first three tranches on this particular site and the addition of 10 turbines within the ones already present was unlikely to make much of a difference.
• The number of objections received had not been so great as for other wind farm developments recently looked at by the Committee when representations from the objectors had been in their hundreds.
• On the wider issue of cumulative impact, the Council’s supplementary guidance on onshore wind would have to be looked at closely as it had become clear that there was an accumulation of wind turbines in this area.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that only 2 objections had been received, local people had a right to express a view. This was not always done in a written format and could be done face to face.

Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr H Wood, then moved, contrary to recommendation, that the Committee RAISE AN OBJECTION to the application on the following grounds:

The development would be significantly detrimental, cumulatively with other wind farms in the area, particularly at:

• all of the Millennium wind farm (including its previously consented extensions), and
• the consented Beinneun wind farm

having regard to visual impact, particularly from 

• the Thistle Stop Café
• Faichem Caravan Park
• all surrounding higher ground, including in particular:

          o the Corrieyairick Pass
o the route descending from the Suidhe view point along the B862,

and, as such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies 67 and 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

Mr R Laird, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved as an amendment that the Committee raise no objection to the application, subject to the conditions recommended in the Report.

On a vote being taken by roll call, five 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 Kerr, Mr F Parr, Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban

The motion to RAISE AN OBJECTION for the reason stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

5.2
Applicant: Pat Munro (Alness) Ltd (14/03270/FUL) (PLS/016/15)
Location: Land 300M NW of Invereen, Dalmagarry Wood, by Tomatin (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Sand and gravel quarry (Dalmagarry Quarry) with associated mobile crusher and asphalt plant 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/016/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

This application had been previously considered by the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 23 December 2014 and was deferred for further consideration of the access arrangements onto the A9(T) road and for further information on the effects which the A9(T) dualling project would have on this junction. Only those members present who had participated in discussion of the application at the meeting on 23 December 2014, namely, Mr R Balfour, Mr J Crawford, Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr and Ms J Slater, took part in the determination of this item.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Traffic leaving the site and turning right across the A9 onto the northbound carriageway would be dangerous and could cause a fatality.
• The deletion of the south bound access and the continued use of the north bound layby with capacity to turn right and left from the quarry alleviated concerns raised by the initial application.
• The main problem with the original application was traffic turning right into the quarry from the south.
• The proposals had reduced the risks previously identified and as it was a temporary application, any further application would be reviewed at the appropriate time.
• Discussion held in Dalwhinnie on potential access routes during the A9 dualling project had indicated that there would be no upgrade to junctions during the entire dualling project. Therefore, if a junction was to be maintained for this quarry after dualling, there would not be an upgrade solution but a safe double left and right access (flyover or flyunder). Consequently, in the future, the problem would be solved in a very finite way.

Mr J Crawford, seconded by Mr R Balfour, then moved that the application be refused for the following reason:-

• The proposed development would create lorry movements crossing the A9 to access the site which would cause a significant risk to road traffic safety and as such the development would be contrary to Policy 56 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour, Mr J Crawford

Amendment

Mr D Fallows, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Ms J Slater

The amendment to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior conclusion of a s75 agreement to secure the matters referred to in paragraph 8.38 of the original report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report, accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Beinneun Wind Farm Ltd (14/03983/S36) (PLS/017/15)
Location: 8 km NW of Invergarry, Glenmoriston (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Extension to consented Beinneun Wind Farm (Ref: 11/04152/S36) to comprise of 7 Wind Turbines, up to 136m in height, and associated ancillary development
Recommendation: Raise no objection

Mr J Crawford declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/017/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending no objection be raised subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

The following matters were clarified in response to questions:

• The site principally fell within an area of search.
• The existing consented turbines were at the revised tip height of 133.5 metres.
• The difference between the original tip height of 132 metres and the revised 133.5 metres as viewed in the landscape would be insignificant.
• The concept of employing a Planning Monitoring Officer had arisen from Section 36 consents issued by Scottish Ministers and reflected the style of approach now being taken by all local authorities.
• The employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works was now standard practice for most, if not all major developments. Their role was to monitor the construction activity on site and advise the contractor of any particular sensitive features on the site.
• Should any particular issue arise, such as a risk of a particular feature or a particular species being adversely impacted by works in that area, the Ecological Clerk of Works could stop work until a solution was identified.
• Any application for a licence to move protected species would be required by Scottish National Heritage.
• There were a number of British standards in relation to works and regulations which the Ecological Clerk of Works would have to adhere to and these varied depending on which protected species or habitat was being examined.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Whilst the application would add to the considerable volume of wind turbines in this area, it was of satisfactory design with no overlapping and would sit well in the landscape.
• Additional use could be made of the application site without any significant visual impact as it fitted the design fairly well. 
• From looking at the visualisations, the additional turbines did not have any significant visual impact.
• The condition in relation to noise monitoring was welcomed as it gave reassurance, particularly to local communities, that the Council would have the resource to monitor applications of this type.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that both Fort Augustus and Glenmoriston Community Council and the John Muir Trust had raised objections, there had been virtually no public objections raised. It was noted that Glenurquhart Community Council had not objected to the application and Glengarry Community Council had not responded to the consultation.
• With the exception of a small portion of the A87 to the immediate west of site, there was no area where these seven turbines would be visible without the consented Beinneun Wind Farm also being visible.
• Whilst there were a significant number of turbines already in the area, the addition of these turbines in the application would not make a difference to how the area looked. These new turbines would blend in a lot better than those proposed in the Millennium extension application earlier considered by the Committee.
• The application would blend in with the existing wind farm and would not be greatly disruptive in the placing of tracks as the only new tracks would be for access to the newer turbines being put in. 

The Committee agreed to RAISE NO OBJECTION subject to the conditions recommended in the Report.

6.2
Applicant: Mrs Pamela Beveridge (14/03833/FUL) (PLS/018/15)
Location: 300 m NE of Edgewood, Nairnside, Inverness (Ward 20) 
Nature of Development: Erection of House
Recommendation: Grant

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

There had been circulated Report No PLS/018/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr J Harbison presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Concerns had been raised locally regarding the single track road leading to Nairnside as it was regularly used by people walking.
• The single track road could become an issue in the future as it would become even busier if more single houses were built in the area.
• The application would fall within the proposed extension to the conservation area boundary of Culloden Battlefield and this would therefore constitute a material consideration.
• Whilst the property was planned as a single storey house, the actual visual impact would be that of a one and a half storey house due to the windows on the roof.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• Reference to the public consultation on the proposed extension to the boundary of Culloden Battlefield Conservation Area had not been included as, while still at consultation stage, this was not a material consideration that could be afforded anything more than minimal weight.
• Similar housing in the area had been approved with conditions in relation to archaeology. However, no indication had been received from the archaeologist that this would be required for this application.

In response to a request from Members, the Chairman advised that discussions would be held with the Historic Environment Team as to whether there was a need for an additional condition in relation to archaeology.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the Report and subject to inclusion of an additional condition in relation to archaeology if the Historic Environment Team advised that this was necessary. 

6.3
Applicant: Mr Stuart Dickson (14/04059/FUL) (PLS/019/15)
Location: Balnastraid, Duthil, Carrbridge (Ward 21) 
Nature of Development: Change of use from farmhouse to holiday let
Recommendation: Grant

Mr B Lobban advised that he was acquainted with the applicant but that he considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest that could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and, as such, it was not a declarable interest in terms of paragraph 5.7 of the Code. He intended therefore to participate in this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/019/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr A McCracken presented the report and recommendation.

In response to a question it was confirmed that:

• The single track road leading to the property was not adopted and there was no likelihood of it being adopted.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Whilst concerns had been raised regarding a number of material considerations, in particular noise and light pollution, Members were satisfied that the conditions contained within the recommendation addressed these issues.

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

6.4
Applicant: Ourack Wind Farm LLP (15/00349/FUL and 15/00350/FUL) (PLS/020/15)
Loccation: Land 3010m West of Larig Hill and Land 2265m East of Dava Farm Cottage, Grantown-On-Spey (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Installation and erection of 2 anemometry masts up to 90 m in height, guyed with a lattice tower
Recommendation: Grant 

There had been circulated Report No PLS/020/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the applications subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr A McCracken presented the report and recommendation.

The following matters were clarified in response to questions:

• Anemometry masts tended to be fairly tall structures in order to obtain reliable wind speed readings.
• The proposed masts were lightweight structures as they were of lattice form and not solid poles.
• The guy lines from the masts would be almost invisible from a distance. However, the bird reflectors which it was recommended be attached to the masts could occasionally catch light.
• Concerns in relation to the visibility of the masts would be mitigated by their distance from public places.
• The applicants had not proposed installing access tracks and would take materials into the site using low ground pressure vehicles (4x4’s). The masts themselves would be moved in sections.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Contrary to the view of the planning officer, guy lines coming off anemometry masts were visible from around a 5 mile distance on a similar scheme. 
• These applications were in an area which was wild, desolate and beautiful, and were an example of continued rural industrialisation.
• The masts would be anomalous within the landscape which had barely a trace of man-made features.
• The Dava Way was an important tourist route and the views from it would be long in duration and open.
• The perpetually flashing lights at the top of the masts would be intrusive in an area of darkness.
• Whilst the link between anemometry masts and wind farms was not for discussion, it was unusual to see two anemometry mast applications for one wind farm.
• The lattice structure would be more substantial than a single pole anemometry mast.
• The masts would be intrusive in the landscape, in particular the application east of Dava Farm.
• Laser technology was an alternative to erecting a mast. However, concerns over its reliability had been raised by planners.
• It was hard to justify refusal of a mast which would not be visible from most of the surrounding area.
• The structure would be in contrast to the surrounding open and desolate landscape.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved that both applications be refused for the following reasons:-

• Both of the proposed developments were contrary to Policies 28 & 61 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) in that they would have an unacceptable visual impact on the landscape and scenery of the area by reason of their height and prominence when viewed from the Dava Way, an important tourist route.
• Both were also contrary to Policy 57 of the HwLDP due to their detrimental effect on the landscape character of the Drynachan, Lochindorb and Dava Moors Special Landscape Area.

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

On a vote being taken by roll call, 13 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 2 votes in favour of the amendment as follows:

Motion

Mr R Balfour, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Fallows, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Ms J Slater, Mr H Wood 

Amendment

Mr J Gray, Mr T Prag

The motion to REFUSE planning permission for both applications for the reasons stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.5
Applicant: Mrs Leona Macalister (15/00357/PIP) (PLS/021/15)
Location: Land 75 m NW of Lean-na-Creige, Lentran, Inverness (Ward 13) 
Nature of Development: Erection of house and formation of access
Recommendation: Grant  

There had been circulated Report No PLS/021/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

The following matters were clarified in response to questions:

• Whilst there were no specific policies that could be called on in relation to road improvements, the applicant could be asked to make improvements if the junction to the main road was unable to cope with the increased demand generated by construction traffic.
• The applicant had volunteered to provide extra passing places following concerns raised by Transport Planning to the Planning Authority.
• The application was at a sufficient distance from the main road to prevent issues regarding flooding.

During discussion Members commented that:

• Whilst concerns were raised in relation to drainage, in particular from the main road, Members were satisfied that the conditions recommended in the report would address this.

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

6.6
Applicant: Measan Na Mara Ltd (14/04693/FUL) (PLS/022/15)
Location: South Channel, Loch Moidart, Eilean Shona, Acharacle (Ward 22) 
Nature of Development: Extension of existing site to create 4 plots of oyster trestles (zones 1, 1a, 2 and 3), consisting of a total of 9,522 trestles each 3 m x 1 m x 0.6 m high in a site of 10.58 Ha. Access by tractor and trailer from Newton of Ardtoe.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/022/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr J Bromham presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

• Whilst the oyster trestle plots would be spread across the whole of the site, the trestles themselves would only cover around 30-35% of the site due to the gaps between each plot.
• Noise impact would be minimal due to the modern design of the tractors being used. However, there was potential to include within the recommendation a condition on noise monitoring.
• The low water along the coast line during spring tide was around midday.
• Whilst tractors could potentially be on site early in the morning and later in the evening during neap tide, they could not operate extensively as the site would be covered in water for a longer period of time.
• The potential for disturbance to tourists during neap tides in the morning and evening was minimal when compared to a rush-hour type situation.
• Members could only deal with the application before them and any potential future application for extension of the site would have to be dealt with at that time.
• Whilst concerns expressed regarding the potential impact on tourism were acknowledged, it was Mr Bromham’s view that the application would not have an adverse impact on tourism and he compared the application favourably with oyster farms in popular tourist areas including Brittany, Normandy, Ireland and along the west coast of France.
• Whilst it was the applicant’s intention to farm triploid oysters, which were much less likely to spawn within containment, conditions stated within the report required the operator to recover oysters lost through storm damage to prevent the risk of oyster settlement occurring.
• Condition 13 would be amended to include a requirement that there be no Sunday working.
• Tractors operating on the site would be based at Shiel Buses Depot in Acharacle which currently had planning permission for mixed industrial use.
• The use of Shiel Buses Depot as a dispatch centre for oysters would be compliant with food hygiene regulations as no depuration of oysters would be undertaken at the depot.
• On-site tractors would be required to run on tick-over throughout the day to keep the battery running, thereby ensuring they could be moved quickly if the tide came in early.

During discussion Members commented that:

• The site was in an area of special significance as a national scenic area and an area of special conservation.
• The noise generated from tractors operating in and around the site could have an impact on neighbouring housing.
• The area generated a lot of its income from tourism and close scrutiny of applications in similar areas was required.
• Historic Scotland had previously expressed concerns regarding aquaculture within the loch surrounding Castle Tioram. However, they had raised no objections to the development.
• Job opportunities on the west coast were at a premium.
• Similar developments in popular tourist destinations such as Brittany had not deterred people from visiting these areas.
• Tractors would not be travelling to and from the site all day because they would only be able to access the site when the tide was out.
• The application was located in a rural area and any noise from tractors might form part of the existing rural ambience.
• As no significant adverse effects had been identified the application would not be contrary to Council policy which supported the development of aquaculture for employment in these areas.
• Concerns in relation to aquaculture and its impact on the west coast could be raised during the development of the Council’s Local Development Plan.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the Report but with amendments as follows:

• Condition 13 to include a requirement that there be no Sunday working
• Condition 14 to be reworded to ensure greater noise control.

7. Decisions of the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals, Energy and Climate Change Directorate, and Directorate for Local Government and Communities
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh is Àrainneachd, Buidheann-stiùiridh Cumhachd agus Atharrachadh Gnàth-shìde, agus Buidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas Ionadail is Coimhearsnachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba

7.1
Applicant: Mr Christopher Blake (14/03015/FUL) (PPA-270-2118)
Location: 59B Strathspey Drive, Grantown on Spey (Ward 21) 
Nature of Development: Change of use of open amenity ground to house curtilage

The Committee NOTED that the appeal had been upheld and planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out in the decision notice.

7.2
Applicant: Trustees of the Pentecostal Church of God, Nairn (ENA-270-2010)
Location: Church Hall, Crescent Road, Nairn (Ward 19) 
Nature of Development: Installation of three roller shutters on the front elevation of the church hall

The Committee NOTED that the appeal had been dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld.  

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

The Committee NOTED the following revised dates for the remainder of 2015, as agreed at The Highland Council on 12 March 2015. All meetings would take place in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness:-

19 May
23 June 
18 August  
29 September  
10 November 
14 December

The meeting ended at 3.55 pm.