Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 1 March 2016 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark (excluding Item 6.2 and 6.3), Mr J Crawford (excluding Item 6.5), Mrs M Davidson (excluding Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3), Mr D Fallows, Mr J Ford (excluding Item 6.5), Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban (excluding Item 6.1), Mr T MacLennan, Mr T Prag, Mrs J Slater, Mr H Wood  

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Ms N Drummond, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr A McCracken, Team Leader
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, 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 4 only)
Mr K Gowans (Items 5.1-5.3 and part of Item 6.9 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 Mr A Duffy and Mr F Parr.

2. Declaration of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 4 – Mr T Prag (non-financial and declared during the item)
Item 6.5 – 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 19 January 2016 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

Declaration of Interest – Following a question raised by one of the Members regarding Druim Ba Wind Farm, Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he knew the applicant and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/007/16 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.

In response to a question regarding Druim Ba Wind Farm, Mr D Mudie advised Members that the applicant had submitted an appeal to the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) of the Scottish Government on the grounds of non-determination of the application as the deadline for determination had been missed.  He explained that if officer recommendation for the application was refusal, the Council’s response to the appeal would be submitted under delegated powers, following consultation with local members.  However, if officer recommendation was to grant, the application would be referred to the next meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee to determine the appeal response.

In response to concerns raised by Members regarding workloads and whether there was a potential staffing issue, the Chairman offered to discuss these concerns with the Director of Development and Infrastructure, bearing in mind there were already huge pressures on resources and managing budgets across the Council, and that the potential for the outcome of this discussion being reported to PDI Committee would be explored.

Thereafter, the Committee NOTED the current position and AGREED that if officer recommendation for the Druim Ba Wind Farm application was refusal, the appeal response be submitted under delegated powers, following consultation with local members.  If officer recommendation was to grant, the application must be referred to South Planning Applications Committee to determine the appeal response.

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

5.1
Description: Conversion and redevelopment of the former college complex to form residential development with associated parking and amenity space.  (16/00147/PAN) (PLS/008/16)
Ward: 17 – Inverness Millburn
Applicant: McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd.
Site Address: Former Midmills Campus, Crown Avenue, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/008/16 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:-

• a preference to see the development phased in such a way as to ensure that the listed building was developed at an early stage,
• clarity as to which parts of the complex were listed and which parts were to be retained should be provided,
• the proximity of new buildings to the listed building(s) should be clarified,
• construction access arrangements should be clarified,
• additional car parking provision would be required for mainstream housing,
• retention of a community element was the preferred option,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.2
Description: Masterplan for CR2 site (in Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan) with detailed layout for up to 100 dwellings incorporating mixed use and associated soft landscaping and infrastructure provision. (15/04605/PAN) (PLS/009/16)
Ward: 18 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: Scotia Homes Ltd.
Site Address: Land West of primary school, Croy, Inverness 

There had been circulated Report No PLS/009/16 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:-

• given the large volume of traffic along the B9006 and B9091, consideration should be given to providing, at the intersection of these two roads, a stacking lane for traffic coming from the east and a slip road for traffic coming from the west,
• revised drop-off arrangements at the school should be included,
• school capacity should be considered to identify whether developer contributions were required,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.3
Description: Proposed mixed use 60 unit residential development and restaurant with licensed bar (Class 3) and associated living accommodation.  (16/00405/PAN) (PLS/010/16)
Ward: 20– Inverness South
Applicant: Tweed Estate / Kirkwood Homes Ltd / Marston’s
Site Address: Land 160M SW of Lower Slackbuie Farm, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/010/16 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 no material considerations additional to those identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Ardnamurchan Estates Ltd. (15/04743/FUL) (PLS/011/16) 
Location: Land 1290m SW of Dal-Ghorm, Ardtoe, Acharacle (Ward 22) 
Nature of Development: Temporary change of use of forestry to film set and associated works.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/011/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised of a correction to the report in the Appendix “Letters of Representation” whereby one of the letters of support received had been submitted twice and had been recorded as a late representation.  However, she explained that this should have been included in the Appendix as a timeous representation.

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

• The fence which had been erected alongside the site boundary was approximately 1.8 metres in height.
• The fence had been included within the application as it was unclear whether the core path fell within the definition of a “road” with its more restrictive permitted development rights in terms of the height of fence allowed as a result.
• The film crew intended to take up accommodation in a variety of locations within the local area and would either car share or use a minibus for transportation to the administration area in order to limit the amount of traffic movement.
• An advisory note had been included within the recommendation requesting the applicant to undertake initial protected species surveys of the likely settlement areas in relation to the positioning of any structures or works within the site.
• There was no record of the site being used as crop land and it was currently being used as commercial forestry.
• No specific habitat surveys had been undertaken in the area and there were no specific designations relating to the site itself.
• With regard to restoration of the site following completion of filming, it was a prerequisite of the temporary permission that any structures erected under permitted development rights during the period of the temporary permission be removed at the end of the period of consent.
• It had been suggested to the applicant that the proposed settlement areas be photographed as a means of having a clear record of the key areas.
• The proposed timescale was for an 18 month time limited permission with the draft order on public access limited to one year and the remaining period being included to enable time for the restoration of the site to be undertaken.
• Given the basic nature of the project the amount of development undertaken within the site would be limited.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Concern had been expressed locally regarding the loss of public access rights over such a large area.
• Whilst the core path was an extremely pleasant walk, it was unfortunate that the fence was incongruous within the surrounding environment as it gave a feeling of closing off the path. However, it was queried whether the fence would be any more of an eyesore than the conifer plantation following felling.
• Given the transitory nature of the proposed development and the potential tourism appeal, the application was deemed acceptable.
• Concern was expressed that, whilst core paths were a recognised feature, there was currently no clarity as to whether this particular core path was a “road” within the meaning of roads legislation and therefore as to whether the fence along the side of the core path was permitted development or not.  It was noted, however, on advice from the Clerk, that the fence had, for this reason, been included as part of the planning application and was therefore being treated as requiring planning permission.
• The potential economic benefit through tourism, as demonstrated by previous filming in the area, was highlighted.

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

6.2
Applicant: Allied Irish Bank (15/04635/FUL) (PLS/012/16)
Location: The Windsor Hotel, 16 Albert Street, Nairn (Ward 19) 
Nature of Development: Alter Hotel to form smaller Guest House, and convert remainder of Hotel, and change use, to 13 flats. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/012/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation and subject to the condition recommended in the report.

Mr A McCracken presented the report and recommendation, during which he advised that an additional recommendation to delegate power to the planning case officer to add an additional condition covering waste storage details if these had not been agreed by the time the section 75 obligation was concluded, could be included.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The property had been empty for a number of years and the proposal to return it to both its former use and as a residential development was welcomed.
• The proposed development would address concerns raised regarding the loss of amenity.
• There was a desperate shortage of tourist accommodation in Nairn during both small and major events, such as the Scottish Open and the Book and Arts Festival.
• Concern had been expressed locally regarding a lack of parking.  However, the difference between the number of car parking spaces required and the number proposed was marginal and due to the ad hoc usage of the types of properties proposed this was not considered to be an issue.
• Whilst the bowling club across from the site could present additional traffic and parking problems during evenings and weekends in the summer, this would not be as significant a concern during the winter months.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure the matters specified at paragraph 8.6 of the report and subject to the condition recommended in the report.

The Committee further agreed to GRANT delegated power to the planning case officer to add an additional condition covering waste storage details if these had not been agreed by the time the section 75 obligation was concluded.

6.3
Applicant: The Highland Council (15/04554/FUL) (PLS/013/16) 
Location: Inverness Museum and Art Gallery, Castle Wynd, Inverness, IV2 3EB (Ward 15) 
Nature of Development: Overcladding and external lighting. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/013/16 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• A sample of the material proposed for the cladding had been received.  However the size of the sample could not give a clear indication to Members of how it would look in the context of the proposed development.
• The colour of the cladding had been considered appropriate as it would complement the finish on the adjacent Town House building following completion of renovation work.
• Conditions 2 and 3 in the report could be amended to include a requirement that the maintenance scheme and bird deterrence measures, once approved, be thereafter implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
• A condition regarding the submission of a construction management plan to ensure that pedestrian access was maintained free of impediment, particularly at Castle Wynd, could be included in the recommendation.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The building was generally regarded as one of the least popular structures in Inverness and on balance the proposals would be an improvement.
• Development of the building represented progress and could make the building much more interesting visually.
• Concern was expressed that the photomontages within the report did not show a clean visualisation of the proposed development in the context of the adjacent Town House.
• Whilst the applicant had made an attempt to brighten up the appearance of the building, the design of the cladding was awkward.
• The potential increase in footfall was questioned.
• Reassurance was sought that measures to maintain the cleanliness of the building would be enforced.
• Reassurance was also sought that pedestrian access would be maintained free of impediment, given the proximity of the proposed development to the scaffolding currently surrounding the Town House.
• The proposal presented a clever way of doing something interesting with a concrete façade.
• Concern was expressed that problems experienced with the deterioration of colour on the “Golden Bridge” could be repeated with the proposed development.
• A number of Members expressed the view that the proposed development was unsightly.
• Concern was expressed at the cost of financing the proposed development.
• The proposed development could create a much more interesting visual structure on what was otherwise a hideous concrete block.  In particular, the use of LEDs to project images of the River Ness.

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

• with amendments to conditions 2 and 3 to include a requirement that the maintenance scheme and bird deterrence measures, once approved, be thereafter implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
• a condition regarding the submission of a construction management plan to ensure that pedestrian access was maintained free of impediment, particularly at Castle Wynd.

6.4
Applicant: RES Ltd (15/00737/FUL) (PLS/014/16) 
Location: Land at Carn Ghriogair, Aberarder Estate, Aberarder, Inverness (Ward 13) 
Nature of Development: Erection of 12 wind turbines (130m in height) including and associated works (Aberarder Wind Farm). 
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.

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 April 2016.

6.5   
Applicant: Upper Sonach Wind Park Limited (15/04221/S36) (PLS/015/16)
Location: Upper Sonachan Forest, Portsonachan, Ardbrecknish, Inveraray, Argyll and Bute.
Nature of Development: Section 36 application for proposed Upper Sonachan Wind Park.
Recommendation: Raise No Objection

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 Mountaineering Council for Scotland which had objected to the application.  He confirmed, however, that he considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest and therefore not a declarable interest and that he would take part in the deliberation and determination of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/015/16 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that the Committee raise no objection to the Section 36 application.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

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

• The boundary of the Cairngorms National Park did not extend into Argyll and Bute.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Concern was expressed at the alternative routes proposed to the site, in particular routes E, F, G and H.
• Construction traffic via Kingussie would only be able to run straight through the High Street.
• The stretch of road on the A86 through to Laggan was very narrow and unsuitable for long heavy wide loads
• Stronger local community consultation (community councils on the route and local councillors for the ward) should be included within the recommendation.
• There had been no definite indication from the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland that upgrades to the A82 were likely to happen anytime soon.
• Traffic movements associated with the development were likely to have a significant impact on the route between Tarbet and Inverarnan even if the A82 was upgraded.

Following discussion, Mr Hindson suggested that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Building Standards to convey serious concerns expressed over the suitability of the suggested alternative routes E, F, G and H in the Council’s response. He also advised that construction traffic management plans and relevant survey information were required as a standard way of dealing with applications in the Council area.

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to RAISE NO OBJECTION to the Section 36 application and to recommend that conditions be attached to any consent which may be granted to secure construction traffic management and establishment of a community liaison group.

The Committee also agreed:-

• to raise serious concerns over the suitability of the suggested alternative routes E, F, G and H.
• that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Building Standards to respond to any further consultations which may be forthcoming on this application.

6.6
Applicant: Robertson Homes Ltd (12/01832/S42) (PLS/016/16) 
Location: Land at Craig Dunain Hospital, Westercraigs, Inverness (Ward 14) 
Nature of Development: Application for non-compliance with Conditions 1, 6 and 14 of planning permission 03/00676/OUTIN for residential development and associated infrastructure based upon submitted Master Plan (as amended) (550 houses). 
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.

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 April 2016.

6.7
Applicant: Robertson Homes Ltd (15/03384/MSC) (PLS/017/16) 
Location: Westercraigs, Inverness (Ward 14) 
Nature of Development: Erection of 51 houses and associated works. 
Recommendation: Approve

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.

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 April 2016.

6.8
Applicant: Robertson Homes Ltd (15/03910/MSC & 15/03911/LBC) (PLS/018/16) 
Location: Westercraigs, Inverness (Ward 14) 
Nature of Development: Change of use and renovation of former hospital to form 56 residential units.
Recommendation: Approve Matters Specified in Conditions and Grant Listed Building Consent

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 applications.

The Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the planning application and listed building consent application pending a site visit to take place prior to the next meeting of the Committee in April 2016.

6.9
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd (15/04169/FUL) (PLS/019/16) 
Location: Phase 1, Parks Farm, Inshes, Inverness (Ward 20) 
Nature of Development: Re-mix of Phase 1 to include 54 flats. 
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/019/16 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 of the following additional recommendations to the report:-

• Establishment of dedicated cycle provision on one side of the new distributor road leading to the site.
• An enhancement to Condition 12 to ensure retention of an area of woodland planting to the side of the road.

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

• The estimated height of the proposed three storey blocks of flats was approximately 4.5 metres taller than the previously consented two storey units.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed flats would be visible from the distributor road, these would not be as prominent due to the proposed landscaping in front of the buildings.
• The applicant was aware of the need to guarantee that footpaths were constructed of an appropriate standard and that enforcement action could be taken if necessary to ensure this.
• A single linear play area serving an area beyond the immediate vicinity of the site had previously been agreed and was currently in place.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst concern had been expressed locally regarding the impact additional housing could have on schools in Inshes and Milton of Leys, particularly as pupil numbers at both schools had been capped, the addition of 14 units would not represent overdevelopment in this area.
• Proposed improvements to footpaths and play areas recommended in the report were welcomed.
• The potential development of the upper phase of Inshes Park could provide an amenity area for the proposed development.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that there was a clear demand for the types of properties proposed and that they provided a useful form of living for people, concern was expressed at the scale and design of the development, particularly its prominence visually from the main distributor road.
• A moratorium on building in Milton of Leys should be established until suitable infrastructure was available for additional numbers of children to attend Inshes and Milton of Leys schools.
• Concern was expressed that residents were expected to grit paths themselves in winter time as the Council had not adopted the footpaths and the developer had not taken on this responsibility.
• A request was made for Condition 7 to be strengthened to ensure that surrounding infrastructure such as play parks were in place prior to people moving into the houses.

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

• The report sought by condition to strengthen the requirement for improvements to the play area which had been provided to the north of the site as a number of issues had been raised regarding the standard of materials and finish.
• Planning permission had already been granted for Phase 1 of the development and this application was for an additional 14 units.
• The applicant had been made aware that footpaths formed part of the factoring and maintenance requirements and improvements could be ensured by condition.

Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr J Crawford, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-. 

• As a result of the height of the proposed three 3-storey blocks of flats and their location on higher ground, the development would be significantly detrimental in that it failed to demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with local character and was accordingly contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, and
• For the same reasons, the development would fail to make a positive contribution to the archaeological and visual quality of the place in which it was located and was accordingly contrary to Policy 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

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.

7. Decision on Appeal 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: RES Limited (PPA-270-2138) 
Location: Land at Carn Ghriogair, Aberarder Estate, Aberarder, Inverness 
Nature of Appeal: Erection of 50 metre guyed mast to facilitate meteorological measurements and community broadband relating to the proposed Aberarder Wind Farm

The Committee NOTED:-

(i)     The decision to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission; and
(ii)    The appellant’s claim for expenses had been declined.

The meeting ended at 12.55 pm.