Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 29 September 2015 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour (excluding Items 5.1, 7.3, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)
Mr A Baxter (excluding Items 7.3, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)
Mr B Clark (excluding Items 5.1, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)
Mr J Crawford (excluding Item 5.1)
Mrs M Davidson (excluding Items 5.1, 7.3, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Ford (excluding Items 5.1 and 7.1)
Mr L Fraser (excluding Item 6.1)
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr (excluding Items 5.1, 7.3, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)
Mr R Laird (excluding Items 5.1, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)
Mr B Lobban
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater (excluding Items 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mr K McCorquodale (Principal Planner)
Mr J Kelly, Planner
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 Duffy, Mr T Maclennan and Mr H Wood.

2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.1 – Mr J Ford (financial)

Item 7.1 – Mr J Ford (financial and declared during Item 7.1)

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 18 August 2015 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/067/15 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, with regards to the proposed development of land north of Milton of Leys Primary School, the masterplan previously approved remained a valid material consideration and would be taken into consideration during any assessment of the proposal.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

5. Continued Item
Cuspairean a' Leantainn

5.1
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 in this item on the basis that he was a shareholder in the Strathspey Railway Company, which was an objector to the application.  He remained in the Chamber but did not participate in the item.

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

A site visit had taken place on 28 September 2015, attended by Mr A Baxter, Mr D Fallows, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr B Lobban, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag and Mrs J Slater.  Only those members who had attended the site visit took part in the determination of the application.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation, during which he advised that, in response to Members’ comments and questions at the previous meeting when the application was originally considered, a copy of a revised Design Statement and an additional plan showing the distance to the nearest noise-sensitive dwelling, submitted by the applicant, had also been circulated with the papers.

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

• The distance between the edge of the proposed spa and the boundary of the neighbouring house was roughly 10 metres.
• Four additional car parking spaces could be provided at Melville House.
• Whilst there was provision for eleven bedrooms at Melville House, up to fifteen members of staff could be accommodated.
• A total of 26 car parking spaces were available at the hotel.  However, three of these were not designated as being owned by the hotel and would only be available through additional parking management by the hotel.
• With regard to staff parking at Melville House, no scheme had been drawn up as part of the submission.  However, in addition to the six car parking spaces currently available at Melville House, there was scope to create an additional four spaces if the fence was relocated.
• A condition requiring full details of the external materials to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development was recommended in the report.
• Proposals regarding the provision of car parking took into account the full use of both the spa facility and occupancy of the bedrooms in the hotel.
• No discussion had taken place with the applicant on potential changes to the design of the spa following submission of the application.
• In response to a suggestion that that the building be sunk further into the ground to reduce the visual impact, it was indicated that this could not be done without a significant amount of earth works being undertaken and would be contrary to the applicant’s plan to retain as much soil as possible.  
• Minor revisions could be undertaken to improve the appearance of the building.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst the economic benefit from the proposed development was acknowledged, this would not outweigh the adverse impact the building would have on the surrounding area.
• Whilst the applicant had undertaken a great deal of work to ensure that the amenity of the hotel guests would not be compromised, users of the Strathspey Steam Railway had not been given as much consideration.
• Assurances provided by the applicant regarding suitable parking provision were deemed insufficient as the hotel already lacked an acceptable level of parking provision.
• An additional four parking spaces proposed at Melville House would be insufficient as the number of staff in residence could be more than the total number of spaces provided.
• Owing to a 90° bend on the road outside the hotel, concern was expressed at a suggestion that there was provision for on-street parking.
• Whilst the design statement had indicated that the spa would be available to the whole community, Transport Planning was of the view that there should be a restriction in the times at which members of the public were allowed entry.
• Parking would only be an issue during peak hours of business for the hotel facility in the evening, during which it was presumed that the spa would be less likely to attract business from people not already staying at the hotel.
• It was possible that major events at the hotel had already resulted in overflow parking on nearby streets.
• The proposal fitted with the Council’s aspirations to keep towns and villages economically active.
• In the context of the surrounding area, the design of the development, in particular the landscaping, the turf roof, wood-cladding and stone facing, would be appropriate and would not detract significantly from Boat of Garten Railway Station.  Conversely, the view was expressed that the eco-style design of the building would not match with the surrounding area and would not sit well in the context of the listed station building and Station Square.
• It was apparent from viewing during the site visit that the spa would be much more prominent in the context of the landscape than had been suggested in the plans.
• The proposed measures for screening would not be adequate as the building would be higher at the front than the back.
• It was acknowledged that providing modern facilities such as a spa was what was expected of modern hotels and that, whilst people wanted to view historic railways, people also wanted to stay in modern facilities.
• Where businesses were looking to improve and employ people, effort should be made to sustain them.  However, this should not be to the detriment of other businesses.
• The agent had indicated on the site visit that the building had been designed so that the extension to the hotel would look out onto a lawn and a grassed turfed roof slightly above.
• The visual impact from the station would be reduced if the pitch was altered and the roof lowered.

Mr Bill Lobban, seconded by Mr L Fraser, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

While the proposed development was supported by Policy 2.2 (Tourism and Leisure Developments) of the Cairngorm National Park Local Development Plan 2015 and would bring economic benefits to the area, these benefits were outweighed by:

• the adverse effect the development would have, by reason of its prominence, scale and form, on the Boat of Garten Railway Station (a Category B listed building) and its setting, contrary to Policy 9.1 of the Cairngorm National Park Local Development Plan 2015,
• the fact that, by reason of its form, the development would not be sympathetic to the traditional pattern and character of the surrounding area, particularly the Boat of Garten Railway Station, contrary to Policy 3.1 b) of the Cairngorm National Park Local Development Plan 2015, and
• the failure to include appropriate space for off-street parking, contrary to Policy 3.1 j) of the Cairngorm National Park Local Development Plan 2015.

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, six votes were cast in favour of the motion and three votes in favour of the amendment as follows:-

Motion

Mr A Baxter
Mr D Fallows
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr B Lobban
Ms J Slater

Amendment

Mr J Gray
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag

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

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

6.1
Description: Proposed mixed use development (15/02451/PAN) (PLS/068/15)
Ward: 20 – Inverness South
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd.
Site Address: Land at Bogbain (West), Milton of Leys, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/068/15 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 issue of the provision of community facilities for the area, particularly an outdoor activity area, such as a “kickabout pitch”, for older children,
• the need for the development to fit in with adjacent moorland/scrub,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

7. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

7.1
Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc. (15/02124/FUL and 15/03166/S37) (PLS/069/15)
Location: Land 2910m Northwest of 1 Garvamore, Laggan (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Construction of a 400 / 132kv GIS electrical substation (Melgarve Substation) including substation platform, control buildings, temporary construction compound, landscaped area and upgraded access to site from the A86 (T) road.
Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission for the Electrical Substation; and Raise no Objection to the Section 37 Downleads Application

Declaration of interest – Mr J Ford declared a financial interest in this item on the basis that he received a pension from SSE.  He remained in the Chamber but did not participate in the item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/069/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein, and that the Committee raise no objection to the Section 37 (downleads) application.

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to hold a site inspection before determining the application.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be deferred to the next Committee to allow a site inspection to take place in the interim.

The Chairman, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved as an amendment that the Committee proceed to hear the presentation and view the visuals before deciding whether a site inspection was required.

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 B Clark
Mr J Crawford
Mrs M Davidson
Mr D Fallows
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban

Amendment

Mr J Gray
Mr R Laird
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater

The motion to DEFER determination of the planning application pending a site inspection therefore became the finding of the meeting.  In this connection, the Committee also agreed to DEFER decision on a consultation response to the Section 37 (downleads) application pending the site inspection.

7.2
Applicant: Glen Mhor Ltd (15/01130/FUL and 15/01131/LBC) (PLS/070/15)
Location:  Glen Mhor Hotel, 9-15 Ness Bank, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Demolition of existing public bar, erection of extension to create craft brewery pub, visitor centre and restaurant area.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/070/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The Planning Officer’s car parking assessment did not take into account the surrounding lodges/hotels within the ownership boundary of the Hotel.  
• A total of 141 car parking spaces had been identified as the required amount for the proposed development.
• A number of alternative car parks were listed in the supporting statement, including The Cathedral, Raining Stairs, Pay and Display spaces in Mitchell Lane and on-street parking on Ness Bank.
• A parking survey previously conducted by the Council had indicated that these car parks were generally busy through the day with availability gradually increasing after 4 pm.
• The continued use of Ness Bank as a coach drop-off and pick-up facility was proposed in the application.
• Proposals for a loading bay in the rear car park with access from Haugh Road had not been altered from the previous application considered by Members.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The Council was faced with the problem of wanting to create better tourist facilities and increase business movement within Inverness whilst trying to avoid issues with regard to parking availability in the city centre.
• If parking guidance was applied retrospectively to a number of hotels and restaurants in Inverness, most of these facilities would be forced to close due to a lack of sufficient parking.
• It was acknowledged that the Hotel did not previously have adequate parking facilities.
• Issues around parking alone would not be a sufficient ground to refuse permission for a city centre business.
• The proposed development would provide the kind of tourist attraction the Council was trying to encourage within Inverness.
• Concern was expressed that the proposed frontage of the building was too dissimilar in style to the surrounding buildings, particularly as it was within a conservation area.
• The capacity of the proposed restaurant was disproportionate to the amount of beer that would be produced in the brewery.
• The prominence of the restaurant was out of keeping with the neighbouring properties on Ness Bank.
• The application did not take into account the loss of parking to the apartments in Haugh Road and along the waterside.
• Transport matters, such as parking and the coach drop-off point on Ness Bank, had not been satisfactorily resolved.
• The traffic survey had been conducted during the second week of February and therefore did not provide an accurate figure on usage of the car park at the hotel as it did not take into consideration the peak times of the year.
• The glass front of the building was inappropriate and would alter the frontage of the row of buildings on Ness Bank, particularly the square tower beside it.
• Whilst opinion was divided on the design of the building, concerns raised regarding this would not provide a sufficient reason to refuse the application.
• The need for enforcement of the conditions specified in the report regarding parking and traffic management was emphasised.
• There was sufficient capacity around the centre of Inverness and alternative methods of travel to alleviate concerns regarding parking.
• Concern was expressed regarding traffic management as Ness Bank and Haugh Road were unsuitable as drop-off points for coach parking and a request was made for an additional condition to be included to address this.
• This type of building design was popular in other cities along waterfronts.
• Whilst it could be considered that the applicant was taking a risk providing a facility that would require the majority of people using it to walk to it, the development had the potential to become popular with both locals and visitors. 
• The importance of protecting residents in the surrounding area from visitors using residential parking was emphasised and that if more work was required to address this then it would be for local members to discuss with officers to ensure that further protection could be incorporated within the recommendation.
• The business community had been given the impression that the Council was making it difficult to do business in the centre of Inverness.
• Since the previous application, the drink-drive limit had dropped dramatically and the culture around drinking and driving, particularly on a night out, had changed.
• With regard to the style of the building, it was highlighted that there were many similar examples in Scotland that worked well within their surroundings.
• Whilst parking on residential streets close by should be avoided wherever possible, parking was a problem throughout the whole of Inverness and required a strategy to be developed that would encourage business.
• New business ideas and approaches to the provision of services in the city centre should meanwhile not be restricted due to a lack of parking strategy.
• Whilst the development of cycling facilities was welcomed, it was hoped that this would be more of an encouragement for staff to use rather than visitors, who could otherwise be over the drink drive limit whilst being in charge of a bicycle.
• Serious issues with parking on Ness Bank were rare as the hotel was not used by many buses.
• Whilst the plans had indicated that approximately 200 seats would be available for dining, parking would not be required for all diners.
• Previous concerns regarding the brewery had been eased as the Planning Officer had confirmed that all produce would be consumed on the premises and would not be distributed around pubs in town. 
• Feedback from members of the public had indicated that people were looking forward to the development of this facility.
• Issues with parking were a problem in every city centre and should not be used as a reason to prevent development.

Mr D Kerr, seconded by Mr R Balfour, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• The proposed development did not accord with Policy 56 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that (a) it failed to incorporate an appropriate level of parking provision on site for the existing usage of the hotel and the increase in vehicles that would be generated by the new development, or to provide sufficient information on suitable alternative parking locations in close enough proximity and their availability, and (b) insufficient information had been provided on existing and forecasted numbers of service deliveries and coach movements to allow the on- and off-site transport implications to be adequately assessed.  The traffic survey provided by the applicant was an old survey and the information in it was dated. 
• The proposed development did not accord with Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it had not been demonstrated that it would be compatible with, and not significantly detrimental to, the local road network by reason of service deliveries and coach movements.

Mr T Prag, seconded by Mrs M Davidson, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to:-.

• Prior notification to Historic Scotland
• Prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation or other appropriate legal mechanism to secure developer contributions towards parking/road/coach parking improvements, and
• The conditions recommended in the Report, with delegated power being granted to the Area Planning Manager to:

o revise condition 18 to ensure that the approved uses (craft brewery, visitor centre and bar/restaurant) were not interchangeable, i.e. each component use of the development would require to be implemented, and

o clarify the terms of the arrangements for developer contributions in respect of coach parking to ensure that these contributions could be applied where considered most appropriate, and not necessarily in the Bught Road area.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr D Kerr

Amendment

Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Ford
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag

Abstention

Mr J Crawford

The amendment to GRANT planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

7.4
Applicant: Ark Estates (15/02787/FUL) (PLS/072/15)
Location:  Former Balgate Sawmill, Kiltarlity, Inverness (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of 20 residential units.
Recommendation: Grant

In accordance with Standing Order 18, the Committee AGREED that this item be taken at this point of the meeting.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/072/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised that a further condition requiring that details of the sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) be submitted for approval prior to any commencement of development on site was recommended.

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

• The applicant would be reminded of the need to meet with the terms of the informative note regarding construction noise.
• Construction noise was no longer included as a condition as the Council’s Environmental Health service had power to take enforcement action in the event of noise nuisance.
• Taking into account the different phases of the planned development of the site, there were currently a total of 93 properties proposed.
• Conditions 9 and 10 recommended in the report would require submission of detailed plans on open space, play areas and play equipment prior to development.
• Whilst the applicant had already indicated that 25% of the 93 properties would be provided as affordable housing, this could be secured by condition.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the Report, together with further conditions:-

• requiring SUDS details to be submitted for approval
• adding a 25% affordable housing requirement

and subject to Ms Drummond’s assurance that she would take into account any feedback from local members on residents’ expectations as regards open space, play areas and play equipment before she approved these details under Conditions 9 and 10.

7.3
Applicant: Mr Ken Meldrum (15/02832/FUL) (PLS/071/15)
Location:  7 Broadstone Avenue, Inverness (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: Alterations and extensions to create owner’s accommodation and retrospective permission for shed.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/071/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that:-

• With the exception of the front garden and a small section to the east of the plot, the site offered very limited opportunity for any further development.

During discussion, the Chairman expressed concern at the scale of the proposed development on what he considered to be an over-developed plot of land.  He would have preferred to restrict further development through a Section 75 obligation but legal advice confirmed this was not possible.  Accordingly, he reluctantly recommended approval of the application.

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

7.5
Applicant: Mr Peter Gibson (15/00590/MSC) (PLS/073/15)
Location:  North of Birchwood, Belivat (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Proposed new dwelling.
Recommendation: Grant 

There had been circulated Report No PLS/073/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the approval of matters specified in conditions of the planning permission in principle granted by the Planning Review Body on 11 April 2012.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to APPROVE the matters specified in the MSC application.

8. Decisions on 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: Mrs Hazel Leith (POA-270-2003) 14/03123/S75D
Location: Holly Cottage, Muir of Balnagowan, Ardersier (Ward 18)
Nature of Appeal: Discharge the planning obligation 14/03123/S75D.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and refuse to discharge the planning obligation.

8.2
Applicant: Ourack Wind Farm LLP (PPA-270-2130) 15/00349/FUL
Location: Land 3010 metres West of Larig Hill, Grantown on Spey (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Erection of an anemometry mast up to 90 metres in height, guyed with a lattice tower.

The Committee NOTED:

i. The decision of the Reporter to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, subject to the six conditions listed at the end of the decision notice; and
ii. The appellant’s claim for expenses had been declined.

8.3
Applicant: Ourack Wind Farm LLP (PPA-270-2131) 15/00350/FUL
Location: Land 2265 metres East of Dava Farm Cottage, Grantown on Spey (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Erection of an anemometry mast up to 90 metres in height, guyed with a lattice tower)

The Committee NOTED:

i. The decision of the Reporter to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, subject to the six conditions listed at the end of the decision notice; and
ii. The appellant’s claim for expenses had been declined.

The meeting ended at 1.10 pm.