Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 19 January 2016 at 11.00 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford (excluding Item 5.2), Mr J Ford, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag, Mrs J Slater (excluding Item 5.2), Mr H Wood (excluding Items 5.1 and 5.2)

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mr A McCracken, Team Leader
Mr S Hindson, Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant  

Non-Committee Members Present:

Mrs H Carmichael (Item 7.1 only)
Mr K Gowans (Items 5.1-5.3 only)

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 Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr D Fallows, Mr M Green and Mr D Kerr.

2. Declaration of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.2 – Mr J Crawford (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 14 December 2015 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/001/16 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 Items
Cuspairean a' Leantainn

5.1

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

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/092/15 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 18 January 2016, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mr J Ford, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag and Mrs J Slater.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.  She advised that the following amendments to conditions in the report were recommended:-

• an amendment to Condition 12 to require improvements to the pedestrian refuge island at the Glebe Street/Chapel Street junction, and
• an additional condition requiring improvement to signage on Glebe Street.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The total number of 60 car parking spaces included parallel parking alongside the boundary wall separating the site from Friars Bridge.
• Alterations were required to the design of the car park in order to provide a 3 metre wide access strip for maintenance and repair of the existing flood prevention wall.
• The loading bay serving the existing retail premises would be retained.
• Whilst a proposal to convert permit parking on Glebe Street into visitor parking for the proposed development had been suggested at an early stage, Transport Planning recommended that visitor parking should be located within the development site.
• Parking within the site would be controlled by barrier and reserved for residents only.
• Having previously expressed concern regarding the original proposed design of the buildings for the development, the Conservation Officer was now satisfied that the amended designs submitted with the application were more appropriate for the site.
• The applicant had been made aware of the potential impact that noise generated by traffic crossing Friars Bridge could have on the adjacent block of flats proposed and had expressed a willingness to work with Environmental Health officers to ensure that any noise issues would be fully addressed.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst the site had been allocated for mixed use within the local development plan, there did not appear to be demand for a commercial facility, such as an hotel, on this site.
• The principle of entirely residential development on this site was supported by Council policy encouraging people to live in Inverness city centre.
• The provision of 60 car parking spaces within the development and the availability of additional spaces on Riverside Street would provide ample parking for residents and visitors.
• The revised design proposals submitted with the application were welcomed, in particular with regard to the cladding and the revised height of the building.
• As an alternative to the lighter shade of sandstone proposed as a surface finish on the buildings, it was requested that a more appropriate colour reflecting the red and pink colours along the river front be included as an amendment to Condition 22 in the recommendation.
• The proposed development was welcomed as the site had been lying vacant for nearly 20 years and could provide more dwellings for people to live in Inverness.
• The importance of the site to the city was highlighted by Members.
• The risk of repeating mistakes made by previous town planners, in particular the “bookending” of buildings now considered inappropriate for the city, was highlighted.
• Concern was expressed regarding the “block” nature of the proposed buildings, in particular the flat roof design, as most buildings in the area had pitched roofs.
• There had been no attempt to draw the height of the building from the spires or the turrets of Inverness Castle.
• Any proposals for public art should be made in conjunction with the river art/public art project currently being implemented by the Inverness City Arts Sub-Committee.
• The possibility of an underground car park was mentioned.  However, it was highlighted that the cost of providing this would be more than the value of the land.
• Concern was expressed that the proposed building was of relatively poor design and would be inappropriate for the site.
• The under-provision of car parking spaces for a number of recently approved developments within the centre of Inverness was highlighted.
• Whilst the proposed design was deemed acceptable on its own merits, it was not suited to the surrounding area, particularly in the context of the River Ness.
• Unless redevelopment in the centre of Inverness was done in such a way so as to negate the need to have car parking everywhere, development could not take place.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr B Lobban, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• The development was contrary to Policies 28, 29 and 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan in that it failed to demonstrate high quality design in keeping with local character and historic environment and in that it failed to make a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of the place in which it is situated by reason of inappropriate design, scale and massing, with particular reference to roofscape and the block design and resultant adverse impact on the river frontage views to the detriment of the conservation area generally.

Mr R Laird, seconded by the Chairman, 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 seven votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr A Baxter
Mr J Crawford
Mr L Fraser
Mr B Lobban
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag  

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr T MacLennan
Mr B Clark
Mr R Laird
Mr J Ford
Mr J Gray
Mrs J Slater  

The amendment to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report including:-

• the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure 25% affordable housing, developer contributions towards provision of public art and streetscape improvements and to address the lack of parking facilities,
• an amendment to Condition 12 to require improvements to the pedestrian refuge island at the Glebe Street/Chapel Street junction, and
• an additional condition requiring improvement to signage on Glebe Street.

accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

5.2   

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 and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

Mr A Baxter advised that he was a Member of the John Muir Trust which had objected to the application.  He confirmed, however, that he did not consider this to be a declarable interest and that he would take part in the deliberation and determination of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/087/15 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 18 January 2016, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Ford, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, 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 D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

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

• Whilst the rotation of the blades would be slower than those already consented for this site, the increased height to tip of the proposed turbines would create much greater visible movement from the blades.
• The submission of design proposals for the reinstatement of the borrow pit was recommended within the report.
• If the application was to be refused, any subsequent appeal by the applicant would be dealt with by a Reporter appointed by Scottish Government who could take into account the existing approved scheme in their decision making.  However, the Reporter would have to come to a decision based on the merits of this application.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst the application appeared to represent a significant reduction in the number of turbines across the previously consented wind farm site, the visual impact could be much greater from some viewpoints.
• Approval of the application by the Committee could allow greater control of the conditions recommended in the report, particularly regarding access and roaming rights, as refusal and any subsequent appeal by the applicant could lead to an appointed Reporter imposing their own conditions.
• Whilst there would be a reduction in the number of turbines on the site, these could be visually more intrusive than the previously consented wind farm and the increase in tip height would significantly increase the blade sweep.
• The extended horizontal spread of the development would give the turbines much greater prominence and would have a significant detrimental impact in terms of combined visibility and sequential impact, particularly when considered in relation to the Special Landscape Area.
• The proposal could not be considered as being “compact”.
• The Dava Way and Lochindorb were popular areas with both locals and tourists.
• The proposed development was significantly different to the previously consented development due to the visual impact from the increased height and sweep of the proposed turbine blades.
• A cluster of turbines was less visually intrusive.  However, the proposed spread of the turbines could make them stand out in their own right when viewed from a number of areas.

Following discussion, Mr B Lobban, seconded by Mr L Fraser, moved that the application be refused.

REASONS:

Despite any benefits which might be produced by this development in terms of renewable energy and social and economic development, these would not be outweighed by the fact that:

• the development would be contrary to Policies 28, 61 and 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) in that, considered both in isolation and in conjunction with the neighbouring Moy wind farm, it would have a significantly detrimental visual impact, particularly from views to and within the Drynachan, Lochindorb and Dava Moor SLA, by reason of the increased height, blade spread and footprint, when viewed from within the SLA and from certain viewpoints – particularly along  the A939, the A9 and B9007, all important tourist routes;
• the development would also be contrary to Policy 57 of the HwLDP in that it would compromise the natural environment, amenity and heritage resource of an area of national importance, particularly Lochindorb Castle, due to the form, pattern and scale of the development.

There being no amendment, the motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the above reasons.

5.3   

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 

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/090/15 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

A site visit had taken place earlier that morning, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mr J Ford, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag, Mrs J Slater and Mr H Wood.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised that a number of enhancements to the conditions contained within the report were recommended, including:-

• An additional condition requiring a resolution to the issue of traffic connection from Rose Street onto Academy Street. 
• Greater emphasis on the need for one bicycle space for every 2 bed spaces.
• Improved connectivity to the UHI Campus.
• An enhancement to the connectivity beyond the site and through onto Millburn Road.

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

• The proposed additional recommendation for a vehicular access from Rose Street onto Academy Street by way of a droppable bollard would be for the sole use of refuse lorries and would not be for general traffic access.
• The applicant had sought to ensure that the provision of 75 commercial car parking spaces on the site would be maintained and that any adjustments to this number would be of concern to the applicant.
• The future development of a bus lane from Farraline Park Bus Station onto Rose Street could be secured by a legal agreement.
• Provision of a ventilation system for the proposed restaurant facility prior to commencement of development had been included as a condition within the recommendations.
• Demonstration of how trees in the car park would be protected in the longer term could be presented in the landscaping plans to be submitted by the applicant.
• The internal layouts of the proposed flats were similar to the previous proposal.
• The provision of a bus lane from Farraline Park Bus Station onto Rose Street had been included within the Inverness City Centre Development Brief.
• Whilst there was no formal agreement with the University of the Highlands and Islands in relation to the proposed development, the application should be conditioned to ensure its use as student accommodation.
• Any areas of landscaping would require a maintenance agreement.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The application site was earmarked for student accommodation under Council policy.
• The applicant was commended for balancing the requirements of providing high quality civic space, provision for a bus lane and car parking within the proposed development.
• It was worth bearing in mind that planning permission was already in place for a significant building comprising of student accommodation on the other side of Rose Street.
• The only areas this particular development would be visible from were Longman Road and Rose Street itself. 
• There was a need to look at the wider context of how the proposed development would sit within the site when considering objections, particularly with regard to the design of the building.
• Rose Street Car Park, the recently completed development at Academy Street and the 1990 retail site were of no significant conservation area benefit.  Therefore, the proposed development would fit in within the context of the surrounding buildings.
• The existing area was dark and dingy and surrounded by high structures.
• Concern was expressed that the aspiration to install a bus route in the future would require the removal of the open public space in front of the building.
• A curved route for the bus lane would allow landscaping in front of the building to remain.
• Disappointment was expressed at the size of the car park proposed, particularly as Rose Street car park was right behind the development and would present no issues in terms of availability of parking spaces.
• Landscaping should be used as an encouragement for people to visit the site.
• Alignment of the proposed bus lane so as to avoid losing the whole of the public space should be considered during any future discussion with the applicant.

Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr J Crawford, then moved that the application be granted subject to the legal agreement and conditions detailed in the Report.

There being no amendment, the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to:-

• the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure developer contributions towards streetscape improvements, provision of public art and improved connectivity to the UHI Campus and to secure land for future use as a bus lane including access onto Rose Street, and
• the conditions recommended in the report, subject to such revisals and additions as the case officer, in consultation with Transport Planning, may consider necessary. 

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

6.1

Description: Conversion and redevelopment of the former college complex to form creative hub, new sheltered and affordable housing and associated infrastructure.  (15/04566/PAN) (PLS/002/16)
Ward: 17 – Millburn
Applicant: McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd, jointly with Highland Council and WASPS Studios.
Site Address: Former Midmills Campus, Crown Avenue, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/002/16 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:-

• High quality design within this conservation area was crucial,
• Sufficient parking for the residential part of the development must be addressed,
• Access arrangements during construction must be addressed,
• Consultation with the community throughout the process would be crucial,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

6.2

Description: Housing, affordable housing, mixed commercial use, public open space and associated infrastructure.  (15/04748/PAN) (PLS/003/16)
Ward: 16 – Inverness Ness-side
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd.
Site Address: Land at Ness-side, 670m South West of Holm Woollen Mill, Holm Mills Road, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/003/16 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards 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:-

• Holm Community Council was currently in abeyance, but would hopefully be reformed shortly.  The applicants should extend their consultation until the re-formed community council was up and running,
• It was important that the terms of the Torvean and Ness-side Development Brief be adhered to,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

7. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

7.1

Applicant: Hercules Unit Trust (15/03390/FUL) (PLS/004/16)
Location: Inverness Retail and Business Park, Eastfield Way, Inverness (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Change of use of Unit 3A from Class 1 (shops) to Class 3 (food and drink) to form 3 restaurants; external alterations; customer services building; alterations to access to Shopping Park; alterations to internal access/circulation within car park; alterations to car parking layout; alterations to pedestrian footpaths, public areas and landscaping.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/004/16 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 application had satisfactorily met the sequential test regarding the availability of city centre premises as the extension to the Eastgate Shopping centre had not yet been developed and empty buildings which had been identified within the city centre did not meet the applicant’s size criteria.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The applicant should not be forced into locating their business in the city centre when they had given an indication that the premises identified did not satisfy their requirements.
• The applicant’s decision to submit these proposals following previous refusal clearly indicated an aspiration to locate the restaurants in the retail park rather than in the city centre.
• The application was welcomed as the site was currently considered to be an eyesore and could remain so for a number of years without redevelopment.
• People from all across the Highlands shopped at the retail park and the likelihood of them driving into the city centre to find something to eat was doubted.
• The proposed restaurants would not take anything away from what was currently a vibrant city centre.
• Whilst the importance of city centre first policy was recognised, there had been no evidence to suggest that restaurants in the centre would suffer from the proposed development.
• The restaurant trade was one of the business sectors currently thriving in Inverness city centre.
• It was the Council’s duty to ensure that users of the retail park had a pleasurable experience and the creation of a pedestrian place would enhance this.
• Whilst there were proposals within the Eastgate Centre extension for restaurant facilities, these were not currently available.
• The contention that there were no suitable sites available in the city centre was contested as planning permission had already been granted for similar restaurant in the Eastgate Centre.
• The city centre sequential test had not been met as representatives of both of the restaurant groups had indicated that they would be content to locate within the Eastgate Centre.
• The hospitality sector in the city centre was thriving because the city centre first policy directed similar types of business into the city centre in the first instance.
• Concern was expressed that the city centre had seen major retailers move out of the city without returning and that a similar situation could happen with the hospitality sector.
• The prosed development would have an effect as it would take people out of the city centre.
• The proposed restaurants were destination restaurants which people could come from long distances to visit.
• Inverness was widely regarded as one of the fastest growing cities in Europe. 
• There was very little food choice for users of the cinema.
• Booking a table on a Friday and Saturday night in the city centre was not easy at the height of the season.
• The proposed development would bring in more people and business and would increase the economic base of Inverness.
• The premises were currently allocated for retail and therefore should be used for that purpose.
• Allowing restaurants to be developed at the retail park would hinder promotion of the city centre in attracting businesses and tourists.
• The retail park could form part of the attraction for visitors to Inverness.
• Inverness city centre restaurants were in a strong position.
• The application could not be rejected on the basis of making other places appear less attractive.
• The retail park had a specific requirement and investment should not be withheld in order to try and force people into the centre of Inverness.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Report.

Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr Jim Crawford, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• It would be contrary to Policy 1 of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan as it would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Inverness city centre by reason of drawing trade away from the city centre.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mr J Ford
Mr J Gray
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag

Amendment

Mr J Crawford
Mr L Fraser
Mr R Laird
Mrs J Slater
Mr H Wood 

The motion to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure developer contributions towards implementing the wider connectivity strategy for the retail park, the adjacent campus site and other wider land uses accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

7.2

Applicant: Dunachton Estate (15/03337/PIP & 15/03349/PIP) (PLS/005/16)
Location: Land 40m north of Sealladh Beann, Dunachton Road, Kincraig and land 30m south-west of Suie Hotel, Kincraig (Ward 21) 
Nature of Development: Erection of house (x2) with shared access. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/005/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending the grant of planning permission in principle in respect of both applications, subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Mr A McCracken presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle in respect of both applications subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure developer contributions towards the cost of promoting and implementing an extension of the 40 mph speed limit zone on the B9152 and, in the case of application 15/03337/PIP, a contribution also of £1250 towards the provision of affordable housing and in the case of both applications subject to the conditions recommended in the Report.

7.3   

Applicant: Morlich Homes (15/04111/FUL) (PLS/006/16)
Location: Site of former Altonburn Hotel, Altonburn Road, Nairn (Ward 19) 
Nature of Development: Amend previously approved floor levels at plots 5, 6 and 7 Altonburn, Nairn (11/02363/FUL). 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/006/16 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.

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

The meeting ended at 2.25 pm.