Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Monday 14 December 2015 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour (excluding Item 5.1)
Mr B Clark (excluding Item 5.1)
Mr J Crawford (excluding Items 5.1 and 6.2)
Mrs M Davidson (excluding Items 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 7.1, 8 and 9)
Mr D Fallows (excluding Item 5.1)
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green (excluding Item 5.1)
Mr D Kerr (excluding Items 6.9, 7.1, 8 and 9)
Mr R Laird (excluding Items 3, 4 and 5.1)
Mr B Lobban (excluding Item 5.1)
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater (excluding Item 5.1)  

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr A Puls, Archaeologist, Historic Environment Team
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 for absence were submitted on behalf of Mr A Baxter, Mr A Duffy and Mr J Ford.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.1 – Mr J Crawford (non-financial)
Item 6.1 – Mr J Crawford (non-financial)
Item 6.2 – Mr J Crawford (non-financial)
Item 6.5 – Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban (both 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 10 November 2015 which was APPROVED.

In response to a question regarding Item 8.2 in the minute, it was confirmed that investigative work would be undertaken to determine whether there was other fencing exceeding 1 m in height in the vicinity of the site in respect of which enforcement action was merited and that Mr D Kerr would be kept informed of any updates in this regard.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/086/15 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. Continued Item
Cuspairean a' Leantainn

5.1
Applicant: RES Ltd (14/04782/FUL) (PLS/083/15)
Location: Culachy Estate Land 6KM SE of Newtown Invergarry (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Culachy Wind Farm - Erection of 13 wind turbines with 12 up to 149.5 m tip-height and one up to 132 m tip height including ancillary development.
Recommendation: Grant.

Declaration of Interest – 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/083/15 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

A site visit had taken place on 11 December 2015, attended by Mr A Baxter, Mrs M Davidson, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr D Kerr, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr and Mr T Prag.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

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

• It was estimated that pylons in the surrounding area of the proposed application site were between 65 and 80 m in height.
• Scottish Planning Policy indicated that areas identified for wind farms should be suitable for use in perpetuity and whilst consents may be time limited, wind farms should nevertheless be sited and designed to ensure impacts were minimised and to protect an acceptable level of amenity for adjacent communities.  This would be made clearer in future reports on wind farm applications.
• In general, applications for developments were considered on their own merits and against all supplementary guidance available.
• The Council’s operational onshore wind energy capacity at 30 December 2014 equated to 50% of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption.
• Whilst the Council had met its target for renewable energy for 2015, this target was not a cap.
• The Court of Session decision to quash planning consent for a wind farm at Stronelairg was based on procedural irregularities in the processing and determination of the application by Scottish Ministers and was not based on the impact which the development might have on the landscape. 
• Whilst the Committee should only consider consented wind farms when assessing cumulative impact, it was highlighted that the Court of Session decision on Stronelairg could still be appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The developer was commended for listening to concerns raised by the local community and for making considerable efforts to significantly amend the proposed design.
• There was already an array of wind farms visible from the Corrieyairack Pass to the South West of Loch Ness and in part of the Great Glen Way.
• Whilst visitors continued to walk the Corrieyairack Pass, encouraging them to return was a concern due to the number of visible turbines.
• The Council had already met its renewable energy targets.
• The wind farm would be visible from the higher reaches of the Great Glen Way as part of this route had been moved from the forest to high levels above the tree line between Drumnadrochit and Invermoriston.
• Previous wind farm developments had managed to avoid encroaching on visual amenity from the road around Loch Ness but this proposal would be breaking that precedent as the tips of the turbines would be visible on this stretch of road.
• The visual impact of the tips of the turbines when viewed from the road would be minimal as there would be additional movements from surrounding objects such as trees blowing in the wind.
• Reducing the height of the turbines would have a minimal impact with regard to wild land, which itself was not a designated area.
• The considerable reduction of footprint by the developer was acknowledged and the proposed grouping of the turbines worked well in the landscape.
• National policy was in favour of renewable energy through wind in suitable places where the impact was regarded as acceptable and, in this instance, the spacing between turbines would not create a cumulative impact.
• Whilst the popularity of the Corrieyairack Pass was acknowledged, the proposal would not present a disincentive to walkers as there were many interesting features on the walk, with the potential for the proposed turbines to create another feature.
• Whilst no objections had been received from Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, both organisations acknowledged that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the surrounding area.
• A number of listed buildings and ruins on the Corrieyairack Pass were highlighted.
• Concern was expressed that drainage off the hill would require urgent attention as both accesses to the site were in a horrendous condition during the site visit.
• Whilst the applicant had reduced visibility by locating the turbines in a bowl, the impact could be a cluster of the turbines combined with an existing pylon line which would be significantly dwarfed by the turbines.
• The visible impact of the Beauly to Denny power line pylons on the hillside would be made worse with the addition of the proposed turbines.
• The vast majority of tourists travelling on the A82 were unaware that there were wind farms in the area.
• Mountain tourism should be given protection.
• From one of the viewpoints, another wind farm would be visible in the foreground and it was emphasised that there was now a saturation of wind farms in the area.
• It was highlighted that Inverness and Loch Ness Tourism BID in conjunction with the Forestry Commission had identified areas for tree removal between Invermoriston and Drumnadrochit which would open up the visibility of wind farms currently in the area.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• With regard to impact on cultural heritage, the development would have an unacceptable significant adverse impact on the setting of the Corrieyairick Pass, a Scheduled Monument, and on the experience and appreciation of the users of this Pass, and as such was contrary to Policies 28, 57 and 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP).
• With regard to visual impact, the development was contrary to Policy 67 of the HwLDP due to its unacceptable individual and cumulative visual impact, when viewed by recreational users of the Corrieyairick Pass, the Great Glen Way and the higher ground to the north of the site.

Mr T Prag, seconded by the Chairman, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed therein.

On a vote being taken, five votes were cast in favour of the motion and two votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Mr D Kerr
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr 

Amendment

Mr J Gray
Mr T Prag

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

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Nanclach Limited (15/03286/FUL) (PLS/087/15)
Location: Tom Nan Clach Wind Farm, Glenferness (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Application for the erection of 13 wind turbines, including site tracks, crane hardstanding, 80m permanent anemometer mast, substation compound, temporary construction compound and provision for 3 onsite borrow pits (Tom nan Clach Wind Farm). 
Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission.

Declaration of Interest – Mr J Crawford declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application.  Mr Crawford nonetheless participated at the start of the meeting in the determination of whether to hold a site visit for this item.

At the start of the meeting, before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to hold a site visit before determining the application.

Mr M Green, seconded by Mr B Lobban, had moved that determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  Mr T Prag, seconded by the Chairman, moved as an amendment that the application be determined without a site visit.

On a vote being taken, eleven votes were cast in favour of the motion to hold a site visit and three votes in favour of the amendment that the application be determined without a site visit, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr J Crawford
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr D Fallows
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr 

Amendment

Mr J Gray
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater 

The Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the planning application pending a site visit to take place prior to the next meeting of the Committee in January 2016.

6.2
Applicant: Beinneun Wind Farm Ltd (15/04002/S42) (PLS/088/15) 
Location: Beinneun Wind Farm Extension, 8 Km NW of Invergarry, Glenmoriston (Ward 13) 
Nature of Development: Application under S42 to develop land without compliance with Condition 25 (protocol for cumulative noise mitigation) of deemed planning permission 14/03983/S36 - Beinneun Extension Wind Farm. 
Recommendation: Grant. 

Declaration of Interest – 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/088/15 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.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the application to develop land without complying with Condition 25 of deemed planning permission 14/03983/S36, subject to the amendments to other Conditions of the deemed permission set out at paragraph 9 of the Report.

6.3
Applicant: The Highland Council (15/03915/S42) (PLS/089/15)
Location: Land between Dores Road and Torvean, Dores Road, Inverness (Wards 14 and 16)
Nature of Development: Application under Section 42 to develop land without compliance with conditions 2, 3 and 4 of 15/01809/S42 - Inverness West Link.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/089/15 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.

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

• The additional condition which it was recommended replace Conditions 2 and 5 of 15/01809/S42 could require the development of the artificial pitch and clubhouse to be completed by September 2017, and the remaining pitch compensation and reconfiguration works to be completed no later than 6 months after opening of Stage 1 (North Abutment – Queens Park Roundabout) of the Inverness West Link, which was due for completion in September 2017.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the application to develop land without complying with Conditions 2, 3 and 4 of planning permission 15/01809/FUL, subject to the amendments to other Conditions recommended at paragraph 9 of the report.

6.4
Applicant: Inverness Properties Ltd (15/03600/FUL) (PLS/090/15) 
Location: Rose Street Car Park, Rose Street, Inverness (Ward 15) 
Nature of Development: Demolition of former Rose Street Hall and decked car park and development to provide retail, commercial and student accommodation. 
Recommendation: Grant

At the start of the meeting, before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to hold a site visit before determining the application.

Mr D Kerr, seconded by Mr L Fraser, had moved that determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  Mr T Prag, seconded by the Chairman, moved as an amendment that the application be determined without a site visit.

On a vote being taken, eight votes were cast in favour of the motion to hold a site visit and six votes in favour of the amendment that the application be determined without a site visit, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr J Crawford
Mr B Clark
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr F Parr
Mrs J Slater

Amendment

Mrs M Davidson
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr T Prag
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan 

The Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the planning application pending a site visit to take place prior to the next meeting of the Committee in January 2016.

6.5
Applicant: Reidhaven Estate (15/02822/FUL & 15/02823/CON) (PLS/091/15)
Location: 14-16 The Square, Grantown-on-Spey (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Demolition of building to rear (CON); Erection of extension to provide office & meeting accommodation (FUL). 
Recommendation: Grant

Declarations of Interest – As Members of the Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA), Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban both declared non-financial interests in this item.

Mr B Lobban chose not to participate in the determination of the application and left the Chamber for the duration of the item.

Mr D Fallows advised that as he had not participated in any discussion of this application within the CNPA, he would rely on the Specific Exclusion provided for CNPA members in the Councillor’s Code of Conduct and would accordingly participate in determination of the application.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/091/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of planning permission 15/02822/FUL and conservation area consent 15/02823/CON, subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• It was anticipated that the proposed building would provide the full accommodation requirements for the National Park Authority to stay at this location.
• An additional condition requiring details of any proposed construction compound to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of development could be included in the recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT:-

(i) planning permission 15/02822/FUL subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to an additional condition requiring details of any proposed construction compound to be submitted for approval; and
(ii) conservation area consent 15/02823/CON subject to the condition recommended in the report and subject to prior notification of the application to Scottish Ministers.

6.6
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd (15/02556/FUL) (PLS/092/15) 
Location: Former Swimming Pool Site, Glebe Street, Inverness (Ward 15) 
Nature of Development: Erection of 60 residential units including open space, parking and associated infrastructure. 
Recommendation: Grant

At the start of the meeting, before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to hold a site visit before determining the application.

Mr D Kerr, seconded by Mr L Fraser, had moved that determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  Mr T Prag, seconded by the Chairman moved as an amendment that the application be determined without a site visit.

On a vote being taken, ten votes were cast in favour of the motion to hold a site visit and four votes in favour of the amendment that the application be determined without a site visit, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr J Crawford
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mrs J Slater 

Amendment

Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr T Prag
Mr B Lobban

The Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the planning application pending a site visit to take place prior to the next meeting of the Committee in January 2016.

6.7
Applicant: Alexander Beattie (15/04092/FUL) (PLS/093/15) 
Location: 18 Woodlands Way, Westhill, Inverness (Ward 20) 
Nature of Development: Erection of summerhouse (retrospective). 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/093/15 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, it was confirmed that:-

• The summerhouse measured approximately 3.7 m in height at the nearest point to the boundary, including the structure itself and the underbuilding, to the ridge line of the roof.
• The summerhouse measured 2.9 m in height at the opposite end of the boundary.
• The distance from the top of the fence to the apex peak on the roof of the summerhouse measured 1.9 m. The fencing itself was 1.8 m in height and the retaining wall approximately 1.35 m, thereby giving an overall cumulative height from the ground level of the neighbouring property to the apex of the roof of just over 5 m.
• A structure located within 1 m of a boundary and limited to 2.5 m in height was permitted development. If a structure was outwith 1 m of a boundary, the limit for permitted development was 3 m in overall height.
• If the summerhouse had been built on a completely level site away from the boundary it would have been deemed permitted development as the overall height was below 3 m.
• Under permitted development regulations, a rear boundary fence could be built up to 2 m in height.
• Whilst there were no specific regulations or legislation governing skylining by proposed developments, the extent of skylining by the summerhouse was deemed to be acceptable.
• Should an application come in for a dormer window, this would be assessed on the extent of its impact on privacy and overlooking of the neighbouring properties.
• The views from the side window did not directly overlook the neighbouring property and were no more intrusive than the views from the windows of the applicant’s property itself.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• While the application was for retrospective planning permission, the proposal should be considered and assessed in the same way as if the summerhouse had not already been erected.
• The Council must not send the message to potential developers that they could build something and then assume they would be granted retrospective planning permission.
• Much of Inverness was built on hillsides and therefore a number of properties backed on to each other with the impact that properties at a lower level looked up to neighbouring properties.
• It was likely that the summerhouse would have received approval had planning permission been sought prior to building.
• The summerhouse overlooked the neighbouring property and would lead to a loss of privacy.
• It was quite reasonable to expect similar structures to be built in a garden under permitted development.
• Many garden sheds had windows.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Crawford, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• The development was contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it would be significantly detrimental in terms of its impact on residential amenity, particularly at the property known as 15 Woodlands Grove, by reason of its height and massing and its overlooking of that property.

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

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr J Crawford
Mr B Clark
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mrs J Slater

Amendment

Mr L Fraser
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr T Prag 

Abstention

Mr R Laird

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

6.8
Applicant: GSA Property & Business Holdings, Mr Ali Mohamed (15/02631/FUL) (PLS/094/15) 
Location: 23 High Street, Inverness, IV1 1HT (Ward 15) 
Nature of Development: Change of use to HMO with Ancillary use as Hostel. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/094/15 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 proposals would create capacity for 31 people living within 11 bedrooms.
• There was currently one House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) in Inverness High Street.
• Within the census output area, there were currently 3 HMOs.
• Anti-social behaviour should not have been described as a “material consideration” in the summary of representations provided at paragraph 4.2 of the report.
• The building could not be used as both an HMO and Hostel at the same time.
• It was understood that the applicant intended to use the building as a hostel during the summer months and as an HMO the rest of the year.
• A condition restricting the dual use of the property to prevent the applicant from using the building as both an HMO and a hostel at the same time could be included within the recommendations.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Some of the specific concerns raised by objectors regarding the proposed HMO could only be dealt with by this Committee as the Council’s Licensing Committee would only be able to consider issues such as fire safety and the suitability or otherwise of the property owner to run an HMO.
• Concern had been raised by businesses in the surrounding area regarding the link between tenants of existing HMOs and anti-social behaviour in the city centre.
• HMOs already had a detrimental effect on business amenity in the city centre and the addition of another HMO would not improve this situation.
• It was unclear how the building could be used for dual purposes as a hostel would be for short-term visitors but, as an HMO, it would be a dwelling house where people were expected to live.
• It would be unfair for tenants to be told to leave during the tourist season to cater for the building being used as a hostel.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• The change of use to HMO would be contrary to Policy HMO3 of the Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Guidance (and consequently Policy 33 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan) in that it would have a negative impact on residential and business amenity in the High Street by reason of its potential to lead to noise and disturbance.

The Chairman, seconded by the Vice Chairman, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed therein.

On a vote being taken, ten votes were cast in favour of the motion and four votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr J Crawford
Mr B Clark
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mrs J Slater

Amendment

Mr L Fraser
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr T Prag

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

6.9
Applicant: Morbaine Ltd (15/03630/S42) (PLS/095/15) 
Location: South Side of Alcan Site Entrance, North Road, Fort William (Ward 22) 
Nature of Development: Section 42 application to amend Condition 17 of 14/02865/FUL to allow the introduction of a mezzanine floor in Unit C. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/095/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission to develop land without complying with existing Condition 17 of planning permission 14/02865/FUL subject to imposition of a new Condition 17 as set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

7. 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

7.1
Applicant: Mrs A Edwards (15/00169/ENF) (ENA-270-2016)
Location: Angelshare, Abriachan, Inverness 
Nature of Appeal: Non-compliance with conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of planning permission 14/04549/FUL dated 29 June 2015.

The Committee NOTED:-

(i) The decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and direct that the enforcement notice dated 10 August 2015 be upheld subject to variation of the terms by, in paragraph 4 of the notice, deleting the reference to condition No.10; and
(ii) The appellant’s claim for expenses had been declined.  

8. Dates of Meetings in 2016
Cinn-latha Choinneamhan ann an 2016

The Committee NOTED the following dates of meetings in 2016:

19 January
1 March 
12 April 
17 May 
28 June 
16 August 
27 September 
8 November 
13 December

9. Culloden Muir Conservation Area Designation, Character Appraisal and Management Plan

There had been circulated Report No PLS/096/15 dated 7 December 2015 by the Director of Development and Infrastructure presenting the final post consultation proposals for the new Culloden Muir Conservation Area designation and the final draft of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan which was accepted by the City of Inverness Area Committee at its meeting on 3 December 2015.   In line with the Council’s scheme of delegation, the designation proposals also required the approval of and adoption by the relevant Area Planning Committee.

The Committee:-

(i) APPROVED the new Conservation Area designation;
(ii) AGREED the formal advertising and notification to Scottish Ministers; and
(iii) APPROVED the Culloden Muir Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan as planning guidance to be a material consideration in the determination of any future planning applications within the Culloden Muir Conservation Area boundary.

The meeting ended at 1.35 pm