Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 18 August 2015 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark (excluding item 6.5), Mr J Crawford (excluding items 7.1, 9, 10.1 and 10.2), Mrs M Davidson (from item 6.4 – 6.6), Mr A Duffy (excluding item 7.1), Mr D Fallows, Mr J Ford (excluding items 6.2 and 7.1), Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr B Lobban (excluding item 7.1), Mr T MacLennan (excluding items 7.1 to 10.2), Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag, Mrs J Slater, Mr H Wood

Other members present:

Mr S Fuller (observing only)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South 
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader 
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader 
Mr A McCracken, Team Leader 
Mr J Harbison, Principal Planner 
Mr S Hindson, Planner 
Mr J Kelly, Planner 
Miss J Mair, Planning Enforcement Officer 
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning 
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk) 
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 R Laird.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 6.2 – Mr J Ford (financial and declared during Item 6.2) 
Item 7.1 – Mr B Lobban (non-financial)

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 23 June 2015 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/052/15 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.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

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

5.1 Description: Development of Neighbourhood Centre. (15/02270/PAN) (PLS/053/15)
Ward: 20 – Inverness South
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd. 
Site Address: Land East of Milton of Leys Primary School, Milton of Leys, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/053/15 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 importance of phasing the development to ensure that the community facilities were in place before the housing element,
• the need for a“kickabout pitch” in the area, together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.2 Description: Development of circa 60 houses and flats, and associated infrastructure. (15/02394/PAN) (PLS/054/15)
Ward: 15 – Inverness Central
Applicant: Highland Housing Alliance
Site Address: Land 75m SE of 29 Glendoe Terrace, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/054/15 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:-

• given the number of houses and flats proposed, traffic surveys (particularly of Glendoe Terrace and Carse Road) and a traffic impact assessment would be required and traffic calming proposals included,
• given the number of properties, either a play area equipped with play equipment provided within the site or contributions towards improvement and equipment in the play area in the adjacent park would be required,
• given existing problems with on street parking in the area, adequate parking provision would be required on site,
• the capacity of the existing pumped foul drainage system had to be checked to ensure it could accommodate this number of additional properties,
• developer contributions to education provision may be required, together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.3 Description: Extension to existing caravan park (approx. 2.6 Ha / approx. 50 additional caravan pitches). (15/02620/PAN) (PLS/055/15)
Ward: 21 - Badenoch and Strathspey
Applicant: Grantown-On-Spey Caravan Park 
Site Address: Land East of Seafield Avenue, Grantown-On-Spey.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/055/15 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 site was outwith the settlement boundary,
• road access, particularly the junction between Seafield Avenue and The Square, was potentially an issue and a traffic impact assessment may be required, together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.4 Description: Proposed Retail Development. (15/02680/PAN) (PLS/056/15)
Ward: 19 - Nairn
Applicant: Ziran Land (Nairn) Ltd
Site Address: Land 215m East of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Nairn.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/056/15 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:-

• robust evidence of the sustainability of this development would be required given existing excess retail capacity in the town,
• the applicant would be required to demonstrate that the development supported and would not impact adversely on town centre businesses,
• access details required clarification given the need to avoid further accesses onto the A96, together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.5 Description: Proposed tourist and commercial development comprising holiday accommodation, related retail and catering facilities, parking, landscaping, and reception/facilities buildings. (15/02282/PAN) (PLS/057/15)
Ward: 20 – Inverness South
Applicant:3A Partnership Ltd
Site Address: Land South of Drumossie Hotel, Drumossie, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/057/15 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:-

• given the proximity of the proposed development to the A9 and Inverness, screening to minimise visual impact from the A9 would be required,
• the applicant would be required to explain why it was necessary for the development to encroach onto land outwith the boundary of the area allocated for business and tourism uses in the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan, together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1 Applicant: Mr and Mrs K Smith (15/01099/FUL) (PLS/058/15)
Location: Land 60 M South East of Auchindarroch Farm, Duror, Appin (Ward 22) 
Nature of Development: Erection of Dwelling House (Renewal of Planning Permission 08/00495/FULLO). 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/058/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:-

• The Council had previously granted a separate planning permission in 2013 with a condition requiring the junction with the A828 Trunk Road to be upgraded as there had been a realistic possibility of that applicant being able to comply with this as he owned the land required for improvements to the junction.
• It would be unreasonable to impose a condition on the current applicants requiring them to make contributions to secure improvements to the junction as both the costs and timescale would be unknownThere were currently three properties using the private track accessed from the Achindarroch public road.
• Whilst there was limited capacity on the private road, access to housing at Auchindarroch House, which had previously received planning consent, would be from the public road.

During discussion Members commented that:-

• Duror and Kentallen Community Council’s objection was based on the view taken by Transport Scotland that it would not support any additional usage of the junction without road improvements.
• Duror and Kentallen Community Council was actually in favour of the application as it was seeking further substantial developments to help sustain the provision of local services in the area.
• Transport Scotland’s view on road improvements was blocking development and would place too high a burden on any potential developer.
• The Council’s standard advisory note on construction noise had only been applied sporadically to applications and should be included with every application where noise arising from construction would be an issue.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to inclusion of an additional advisory note on construction noise.

6.2 Applicant: The Boat Hotel Ltd (14/04636/FUL) (PLS/059/15)
Location: Boat of Garten Hotel, Deshar Road, Boat of Garten (Ward 21) 
Nature of Development: Erection of single storey health and beauty spa facility ancillary to hotel. 
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of interest – Mr J Ford declared a financial interest during this item on the basis that he was a shareholder in the Strathspey Railway Company, which was an objector to the application. He then left the Chamber for the remaining duration of the item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/059/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:-

• The height between the proposed site and the closest house at Kinchurdy Court was fairly level in comparison to the elevation dropping down to the Railway Station.
• A scaled plan would be required to obtain a precise measurement of the distance between the nearest property and the hot tub section of the development.
• An assessment of the likely capacity of the site and information supplied by the applicant had indicated that 26-28 parking spaces would be available.
• Multiple representations from two interested parties had been listed separately in the letters of representation as the information submitted addressed different points.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the design statement submitted by the applicant appeared to be brief, taken in addition to other information submitted by the applicant and in conjunction with the proposed conditions, on balance, it was considered to comply with Policy 3 of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan.

During discussion, Members were generally of the view that a site visit would be required in order to give themselves a clear view of how the development would impact on the surrounds of the station and how the facility would look when installed.

The Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the application pending a site visit.

6.3 Applicant: Mr I Boyd (15/02101/FUL) (PLS/060/15) 
Location: Mori-En, Seafield Avenue, Grantown-on-Spey (Ward 21) 
Nature of Development: Change of use from residential to holiday let. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/060/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Prior to presentation of the report, representations from two objectors which had been received the previous day were distributed among Members.

Mr A McCracken presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The apartments at Gordon Hall had previously been the site of the Spey Valley Hotel.
• The area containing the gallery between the former Spey Valley Hotel and Seafield Avenue was originally the landscaped forecourt of the Spey Valley Hotel.
• The bin storage area could be moved to a less obvious location and a condition could be added to address this. However, it was understood that the site would have to be suitable for uplift by a commercial operator.

During discussion, Members commented that:-

• The application presented a sensible upgrading of what was currently a partially derelict property and would bring some additional economic income to Grantown-on-Spey.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the alternative location for the bin storage area was outwith the site boundary of the existing application, it was on land within the ownership of the current owner.
• The current owner should be asked to move the commercial bin store to the opposite side of the access track within the curtilage of Moray Park.
• The importance of having an operational management plan was highlighted.
• The level of disturbance that might be experienced by local residents could potentially be greater if the property was residential, rather than a holiday let.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the condition recommended in the report and subject to inclusion of an additional condition requiring the bin storage area to be relocated to the opposite side of the common driveway from Seafield Avenue.

6.4 Applicant: Mr M Bassett (15/02046/FUL) (PLS/061/15)
Location: Land at Drummournie, Cawdor (Ward 18) 
Nature of Development: Amended design and re-appraisal of conditions to previous permission (13/04372/FUL). 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/061/15 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.

During discussion Members commented that:-

• Whilst traffic to the construction site would not be affected by the condition of the road, upgrading from the main road junction to the east was urgently required due to limited access during bouts of bad weather in winter.

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

6.5 Applicant: The Highland Council (15/01431/FUL) (PLS/062/15)
Location: Canal Parks, Bught Road, Inverness (Ward 14) 
Nature of Development: Demolition of existing clubhouse and erection of new clubhouse, installation of an artificial pitch, regrading work to two grassed pitches and relocation of existing training area with associated works. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/062/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation, also tabling a proposed amendment to Condition 18.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• There would be a link from the car parking area at the rugby pitches across to the car park at Inverness Leisure.
• Discussions with Highland Rugby Club were ongoing regarding the proposed use of temporary pitches at Bught Park and a scheme would be submitted to the planning authority for approval.
• In response to concerns regarding project management, reassurance was provided that regular meetings between the Inverness West Link project board and all relevant parties would take place.
• The project would move forward on a team-based approach to ensure it would be delivered on time and with due regard to all the conditions.
• The installation of fencing had been proposed due to health and safety concerns in relation to dog-fouling on the current rugby pitches.
• If deemed appropriate by the Committee, a condition in relation to public art could be included.
• The proposed amendment to Condition 18 would provide the developer with specific guidance in relation to design material to alleviate concerns over the visual impact of the size of mesh on the fencing.
• The Outdoor Access Management Plan recognised the number of paths in the area.
• Proposals for a joint access management plan between the Highland Rugby Club and the Inverness West Link had been made.
• Taking into account the Inverness West Link, the rugby pitches, the proposed sports hub and the golf course, there would be an improvement in access provision in terms of paths and cycling ways within the area.
• A system to protect bats and birds from the fencing around the pitches could be raised with the applicant.
• Conditions in relation to lighting were included and a lighting plan had been submitted together with a lighting strategy document.
• The floodlights had been designed to face in a specific angle to ensure they would be directed solely down onto the pitches and would not cause any significant light spill.
• Standard lighting columns were proposed within the car park and on lower levels of the site 1.2 metre high bollard-style lighting was proposed.
• Some of the dry stone dyke within the car park would be removed as part of the advanced works for the Inverness West Link. However, this would be replaced and improved under Condition 18.
• In addition to the groups already proposed, there was scope for other groups to be included in the Events Management Group.
• The need to minimise the impact which the temporary relocation of Highland Rugby Football Club would have on existing users of Bught Park would be addressed by condition.
• It was the Officer’s understanding that 30 trees would be removed and replanted around the site. However, not all of these would be replanted in the same positon due to the alignment of the car park and the new pitches.
• A Community Liaison Group would be established.
• The facility would be management by Highlife Highland. Whilst Highland Rugby Club would be responsible for its part of the facilities, Highlife Highland would employ people to maintain the rest of the facility.

During discussion Members commented that:-

• Concerns over drivers parking on the temporary pitches would be alleviated by the installation of fencing around these areas.
• Inverness Business Improvement District should be asked to join the Events Management Group.
• The development would greatly enhance the area.
• Whilst there had been some contention regarding the erection of fencing, this would only be around the pitches and would not cause access issues for pedestrians.
• Whilst concern had been raised regarding the loss of open space, new areas of open space were being created including the canal walk, riverside area and the facilities around Torvean Golf Club.
• The addition of a condition requiring the applicant to make a contribution to public art was suggested.
• It was imperative that fences be installed around the pitches due to the number of people allowing their dogs to foul on the current pitches.
• There had been a thorough consultation and open dialogue with Highland Rugby Club and it was hoped that this would continue.
• A request was made that the floodlighting be timed out so as to prevent it from being left on overnight.
• The Camanachd Association should be included in discussions with the Events Management Group in relation to traffic management access.
• Contingency plans should be put in place to ensure that sufficient funding would be available to undertake maintenance of the all-weather pitch when required.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to:-

• the amendments to Condition 18 tabled by Mr Hindson at the meeting.
• an additional condition requiring a contribution to public art.
• an additional condition restricting operational hours for the floodlighting.

6.6 Applicant: Mr I Bremner (15/00528/FUL and 15/00573/LBC) (PLS/063/15)
Location: Flemington Lodge, Gollanfield, Inverness (Ward 18) 
Nature of Development: Extension. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/063/15 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:-

• Disappointment was expressed that the applicant had chosen to use wood cladding and that a better option would have been to use materials that matched the existing building.
• Whilst an alternative to the wood cladding would have been preferable, the Conservation Officer had given her endorsement to the proposed development and the cladding would be an improvement on what was currently there.
• The plans were in accordance with the strictures imposed on developments to listed buildings by Historic Scotland.
• Issues with the septic tank, which had been one of the main grounds of objection, had been resolved.
• It was personal choice with regard to the look of the building.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

7. Appeal against Non-Determination
Ath-thagradh an aghaidh Neo-dhearbhaidh

7.1 Applicant: Reidhaven Estate (14/03675/S42 & 14/03676/S42) (PLS/064/15) 
Location: Land to the North West of Dalfaber Farm, Dalfaber Drive, Aviemore (Ward 21) 
Nature of Development: Section 42 applications to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached to planning permissions in principle references 07/144/CP (PPA-001-2000) and 07/145/CP (PPA-001-2001). 
Recommendation: That this report be submitted as the Council’s response to the Reporter’s procedure notice.

Declaration of interest – Mr B Lobban declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he was an objector to the applications and left the chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/064/15 by the Area Planning Manager South advising that the Section 42 applications to vary conditions attached to planning permissions in principle to develop land to the North West of Dalfaber Farm, Dalfaber Drive, Aviemore had been appealed on the grounds of non-determination and would be determined by a Reporter appointed by The Scottish Government. As part of this process, the Reporter had issued a procedure note asking the Council to submit its assessment of the planning merits of the applications and its view on the need for additional conditions or planning obligations associated with them.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The Council, as the planning authority, had taken the view that it could not deviate from the opinion of the Cairngorms National Park Authority that the MSC applications were incompetent because, in their view, the Planning Permissions in Principle (PIPs) had lapsed, regardless of what the Council’s own legal opinion was.
• Affordable housing contributions were always sought by the Council in relation to housing developments in the Cairngorms National Park in accordance with the Park’s Development Plan policy.
• The Committee had in front of them a formal procedure note which had been issued by a Reporter acting on behalf of Scottish Ministers.
• Failure by the Committee to do what was being asked of it in the procedure note could lead to the Council being liable for expenses in relation to the appeal as it could be deemed to have acted unreasonably.
• Whilst the Reporter had not yet taken a decision on the competency of the applications, she was requiring that both planning authorities answer in the hypothetical to the question of how they would have dealt with the Section 42 applications on their merits had they been competent.
• Taking into account that the in principle applications were dealt with by the Cairngorms National Park Authority, it might be reasonable to respond to the Reporter that the Committee considered that the original conditions apply on the rationale that the Committee did not have enough background information.
• Planning permission for serviced plots only confers permission to form those serviced plots. Any proposal for putting a house on a serviced plot would require a further application for planning permission.
• During discussion Members commented that:-
• If the Committee did not respond, the Reporter could potentially make decisions and impose conditions which the Council would be required to enforce.
• Whilst the Committee had a role to play in responding to the appeal, it should acknowledge in its response that the Cairngorms National Park Authority had the greater background knowledge of this case.
• In relation to Conditions 1 and 11 in the proposal for 10 serviced housing plots, it would be extremely difficult to have a final detailed design statement at this stage.
• A North to South general phasing of construction would be more appropriate due to the design of the road and would cause less inconvenience, therefore Conditions 12 and 13 should be retained.
• The provision of 22 affordable houses, as opposed to the applicant’s request to provide 25% of the total number of houses built, should be retained.

Following discussion, the Committee AGREED that the Reporter be advised that Members:-

• Agreed with the recommendation in the Report to vary the conditions in PIP/07/144/CP (10 serviced plots) and PIP/07/145/CP (83 houses) relating to the timing of submission of design details.
• Disagreed with the recommendation in the Report that the conditions in PIP/07/144/CP (10 serviced plots) and PIP/07/145/CP (83 houses) relating to the phasing of the development, should be deleted.
• Disagreed with the recommendation in the Report that the proposed variation to the conditions of PIP/07/144/CP (10 serviced plots) and PIP/07/145/CP (83 houses) relating to the provision of affordable housing should be allowed.

Members of the Committee generally did not consider themselves sufficiently familiar with the background to the conditions imposed and felt that the CNPA was better placed to comment on the variations sought.

8. 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

8.1 Applicant: WPD Beinn Mhor Ltd (PPA-270-2120) 14/01731/FUL
Location: Beinn Mhor Wind Farm, Tomich (Ward 13)

The Committee NOTED that the appeal had been dismissed and planning permission refused.

8.2 Applicant: Mr G Byers (POA-270-2004) 14/04083/S75M
Location: Carrickholm, Cantray Crossroad, Croy, IV2 5PN (Ward 18)

The Committee NOTED that the appeal had been dismissed.

8.3 Applicant: Miss M Robertson (ENA-270-2009)
Location: Friars Croft, Milton of Culloden, Inverness (Ward 18)

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to uphold the enforcement notice, but allow the appeal to the extent that he varied the terms of the notice by:

(i) In Section 2 ‘The Breach of Planning Control’, inserting the words: “except as required to construct the access road which forms part of the development approved in planning permission ref. 08/00443/FULIN”, after the words: “… along the western boundary of the site”; and

(ii) In Section 4 ‘What You Are Required To Do’, amending the time period for compliance to read: “Nine months from the date that this notice takes effect.”

8.4 Applicant: Airvolution Energy Ltd. (PPA-270-2129) 14/04385/FUL
Location: Land South of West Cloughmor, Farr (Ward 13)

In response to comments made, Members were advised that:-

• In certain circumstances, Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and Residential Visual Amenity Surveys (RVAS) could be requested from an applicant for an anemometer mast. However, it would be unreasonable to expect an applicant to submit these as a matter of course.
• The Reporter had stated that the number of objections was not a relevant planning consideration and, while Members had cited a previous appeal decision as contradicting this, the previous decision had not in fact implied that the number of objections was a relevant planning matter but had stated that visual impact was a relevant planning consideration and that the volume of objection from local residents on grounds of visual impact indicated that it was one of considerable concern to them. This was not the same as saying that the number of objections was itself a relevant planning consideration.
• The amount of the Council’s liability costs would be reported to the Committee in due course.

The Committee NOTED:

(i) The decision of the Reporter to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission; and

(ii) That the appellant’s claim for expenses had been awarded.

9. Exclusion of the Public
Às-dùnadh a’Phobaill

The Committee RESOLVED that, under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

10. Planning Enforcement Notice
Aithisg Co-èigneachadh Dealbhaidh

10.1 There had been circulated to Members only Report No PLS/065/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. 

Members were disappointed that the full costs had not been included in the report and asked that in future reports for enforcement these would be included. 

The Committee AGREED to take direct action in respect of steps not taken to comply with Amenity Notice ref 13/00132/ENF and that local members and the Chairman would be consulted on final estimated costs once these were known. 

10.2 There had been circulated to Members only Report No PLS/066/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. 

Members were disappointed that the full costs had not been included in the report and asked that in future report for enforcement these would be included.

The Committee AGREED to take direct action in respect of steps not taken to comply with Amenity Notice ref 14/00375/ENF and that costs be notified to the Ward Manager and Ward members once known.

The meeting ended at 2.00 pm.