Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 16 August 2016 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter (excluding Items 1-5.1, 6.1 and 6.6-6.8)
Mr B Clark (excluding Items 5.2 and 6.1)
Mr J Crawford (excluding Item 6.1)
Mrs M Davidson (excluding Items 1-5.1 and 6.6-6.8)
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows (excluding Item 6.1)
Mr L Fraser (excluding Item 6.1)
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr B Lobban (excluding Item 6.1)
Mr F Parr (excluding Item 6.1)
Mr T Prag (excluding Items 5.2, 6.6 and 6.7)
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen (Substitute) (excluding Item 6.1)
Mr H Wood (excluding Item 6.1)

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr S Hindson, Acting Principal Planner
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K Gibson, Planner
Mrs S Hadfield, Planner
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Miss C McArthur, Solicitor
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 R Laird and Mr T Maclennan.

At this point in the meeting the Chairman paid tribute to the late Mr John Ford who previously served on the Committee.

2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Items 6.6 and 6.7 – Mr T Prag (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 28 June 2016 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/044/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.

In speaking to the report, the Team Leader advised that the Section 96 ‘Wear and Tear’ agreement in relation to Garvamore Substation had now been agreed and the decision notice would be issued shortly.

Thereafter, the Committee NOTED the current position.

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

5.1
Description: Redevelopment of former school site to provide a mixed development of approximately 70 units, comprising flats, houses with amenity areas, associated roads and services. (16/03433/PAN) (PLS/045/16)
Ward: 12 – Caol and Mallaig
Applicant: Highland Small Communities Housing Trust
Site Address: Former Lochyside Roman Catholic School, Lochyside, Fort William.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/045/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments 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 planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.2
Description: Demolition of existing buildings and development of new Inverness Justice Centre comprising courts, offices, cafe and ancillary accommodation, associated infrastructure, access and works. (16/03177/PAN) (PLS/046/16)
Ward: 17 – Inverness Millburn
Applicant: Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service
Site Address: Land at Former Bus Depot, Burnett Road, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/046/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments 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 possibility of an underground link between the police station and the courts to reduce the amount of traffic crossing the roads,
• Ensuring that there is adequate parking at the development,
• Ensuring careful consideration is given to the design or design features of the building given the prominent location,
• The possibility of the front elevation of building facing on to Longman Road,
• The need for close involvement with the Council’s Transport Department to ensure suitable traffic measures are put in place for this development and within the wider context of development along the Longman Road,
• The possibility of creating an access which links with Harbour Road,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Robertson Homes Ltd (15/03384/MSC) (PLS/047/16)
Location: Craig Dunain, Inverness (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Satisfaction of Condition 2.
Recommendation: Agree that the condition is satisfied.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/047/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending that the Committee agree that the condition is satisfied.

Members were advised that the application referred to a previous decision taken by the Committee on 17 May 2016, for which a site visit had taken place on 11 April 2016, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Duffy, Mr J Ford, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr T MacLennan, Mr T Prag and Mrs J Slater.  Therefore, 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, it was confirmed that:-

• Potential locations within the development site for a replacement rugby pitch for Dunain Community Rugby Club had been investigated.  However, due to the steep slopes within the site it was unsuitable as a location for the replacement pitch.  Following this exercise, the possibility of a sports hub had been discussed and was now included within the Torvean and Ness-side Development Brief.  As an alternative to providing a replacement pitch and sports facilities within the application site, it had been suggested that the applicant instead provide the share of their financial contribution for sports facilities within the site towards the building of a sports hub.
• A meeting with Dunain Community Rugby Club involving representatives from other parties such as High Life Highland was in the process of being organised.
• Provision for allotments within the Masterplan area could be investigated during discharge of the Strategy under the Section 42 permission.
• No formal play area had been proposed for site 11.  However, play provision had been identified within a central area linking existing play facilities at the MUGA area with the adventure play park and LEPA at Site 7/8.
• Grassed land around houses in Site 11 would be retained as amenity space.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Disappointment was expressed at the applicant’s unwillingness to listen to the community’s aspirations for Site 11 and that the community’s request for a small amenity area to provide formal and informal play for children had been ignored.
• Disappointment was also expressed at the process around Masterplans.
• With regard to long-term plans, the Council should take a firmer approach when dealing with developers.
• There were lessons to be learned in relation to the phasing of large development.
• The applicant had gone through a thorough and correct process and casting accusations at a planning meeting about their behaviour was deemed unacceptable.
• It was highlighted that the applicant had contacted 322 properties to invite residents to a meeting regarding the development and that of those contacted, only 8 people turned up to the meeting.
• Whilst it was encouraging to see the applicant make efforts to consult with residents, the importance of continued dialogue with the local community during development was emphasised.
• The quality and extent of existing amenity space and play parks across Inverness were recognised.
• The difficulty experienced by developers following the 2008 financial crisis was emphasised.
• The retention and development of the former Craig Dunain Hospital building by the applicant was highlighted as a major undertaking which had been problematic for the applicant.
• Whilst it was understandable that new residents had aspirations for a play park outside their properties, this had not been included within the original plan and the applicant had been put in a difficult position to accommodate this.

Thereafter, the Committee AGREED that the condition was satisfied.

6.2
Applicant: Mr & Mrs G Nicholls (16/02930/FUL) (PLS/048/16)
Location: 15 Elmwood Ave, Inverness (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Proposed alterations and extension to dwelling house.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/048/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the refusal of the application for the reasons detailed in the report.

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, Members debated whether or not to defer determination of the application to discuss with the applicant the possibility of a single conjoined application with their neighbour who had also applied for an extension to their house.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr T Prag, seconded by the Chairman, then moved that determination of the application be deferred pending discussions with the applicant on the possibility of a single application with their neighbour.  Mr J Crawford, seconded by Mr D Kerr, moved as an amendment that the application be determined.

On a vote being taken, eight votes were cast in favour of the motion to defer the application and eight votes in favour of the amendment to determine the application, with no abstentions, as follows:-

Motion

Mr M Green
Mr F Parr
Ms K Stephen
Mrs J Slater
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr T Prag
Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mrs M Davidson
Mr A Duffy
Mr B Lobban
Mr J Crawford
Mr B Clark
Mr D Kerr
Mr L Fraser

There being an equality in votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of the MOTION, which was therefore carried and the Committee agreed to DEFER determination of the application to discuss with the applicant the possibility of a single conjoined application with their neighbour.

6.3
Applicant: Mr Alistair Cameron (16/01190/PIP) (PLS/049/16)
Location: Ben Nevis Cottage, 66 Ballifeary Road, Inverness (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Erection of dwelling.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/049/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the refusal of the application for the reasons detailed in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• One objection had been received from the resident of the neighbouring property.
• The Council’s Scheme of Delegation enabled officers to refuse applications without recourse to committee unless the majority of Ward Members requested the application to go to committee.
• Whilst there was some confusion as to whether the trees in the neighbouring property had been removed, the trees on the boundary on the opposite side of the proposed development would still have an impact on the amenity of the existing house on the site.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst there was acknowledgement of the concerns raised by the resident of the neighbouring property, the proposed development could be deemed acceptable.
• Concern was expressed that the site already had a fairly large five bedroom house and that the proposed house and parking would take up the remaining garden space.
• The existing house on the site had already been extended into the rear garden and the proposed development would be out of proportion with the rest of the site.
• The development could create more traffic pressure on Ballifeary Road, in particular with regard to parking.
• Whilst there was concern regarding parking, the proposed development could create more off street parking.
• The application site was larger than surrounding plots which had already seen back garden developments erected.
• A request was made for the Council’s Tree Officer to investigate concerns raised regarding the felling of trees in the neighbouring garden.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.  Mr A Duffy, seconded by Mr B Lobban, moved as an amendment that the application be approved, subject to appropriate planning conditions to be determined by the planning officer.

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

Motion

Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen
Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr J Crawford
Mr A Duffy
Mr D Fallows
Mr B Lobban

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

6.4
Applicant: The Highland Council, Workshop and Artists’ Studio Provision Scotland and McCarthy & Stone (16/02417/FUL) (PLS/050/16)
Location: Midmills Building, Crown Avenue, Inverness, IV2 3NF (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: Conversion and redevelopment of the former college complex to form creative hub, new sheltered and affordable housing and associated infrastructure.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/050/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• An “in and out” entrance off Crown Avenue primarily for use by residents of the flats was proposed.
• Whilst Condition 23 required the implementation of a construction management plan during construction, this could be rephrased to refer to a construction traffic management plan.
• In relation to the former Midmills building, existing parking would be for the exclusive use of residents and visitors to the Workshop and Artists’ Studio Provision Scotland (WASPS) facilities.
• Provision for 71 car parking spaces could be provided for residents of the proposed flats to the back of Crown Circus.  Whilst 73 car parking spaces was the requisite number anticipated under current standards, provision for 71 spaces was deemed to be acceptable given the site’s location within the city centre.
• No parking permits would be issued to residents of the new flats as off-street parking within the proposed developed would be allocated to them.  This parking would not provide additional parking for existing residents within the surrounding area.
• Whilst disabled parking spaces within the site were proposed, the addition of a condition was recommended requiring the applicant to submit details of and a location for wheelchair/mobility scooter infrastructure (including a parking/storage area and charging points) for approval by the Planning Authority and once approved for this to be provided for within the development.
• No recreational facilities were planned as part of the development.
• The height of the flats as part of the McCarthy and Stone development was considered appropriate in the context of the existing Midmills building as both parts of the proposed new development would be lower than the existing building.  It was highlighted that there had been a number of developments of similar height within the city centre.
• The position of the McCarthy and Stone flats had effectively been dictated by the need to ensure that there was sufficient amenity space and to allow a decent sized car parking area.
• In terms of material finishes, McCarthy and Stone had proposed slate roofs and walls incorporating cast stone.  It was recommended that Condition 12 be amended to also include a requirement that natural stone must be used in the surface finish within the new blocks of flats and that no development shall commence until samples of this were provided to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.  It was also recommended that McCarthy and Stone be encouraged to retain stone from the demolition of the old primary school for usage as a feature within the development.
• Whilst there was currently a 20 mph restriction on Midmills Road covering the frontage of Crown Church and slightly further along, the proposed access to serve the WASPS facility onto Midmills Road was of substandard visibility and, as an alternative to making physical alterations to the existing boundary railing and wall which were part of the listed structure of the Midmills building, it was proposed to extend the 20 mph speed limit up to the junction with Midmills Road.  Following comment from Members, it was recommended that this restriction be further extended to continue along Crown Circus to the roundabout at Crown Drive.
• Communal waste facilities, including recycling points, were included within the proposed development.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the report, together with the following additional conditions:-

• Amending Condition 26 to require that the existing 20mph speed limit on Midmills Road be further extended to continue along Crown Circus to the roundabout at Crown Drive.
• A requirement to submit details of and a location for wheelchair/mobility scooter infrastructure (including a parking/storage area and charging points) for approval by the Planning Authority and once approved for this to be provided within the development.
• Condition 23 to be amended to refer to a “Construction Traffic Management Plan”.
• Amending Condition 12 to also include a requirement that where cast stone was specified that natural (where most appropriate) or reconstituted stone must instead be used in the surface finish within the new blocks of flats and that no development shall commence until samples of this are provided to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

6.5
Applicant: Mr and Mrs Martin (16/00719/FUL) (PLS/051/16)
Location: Land at Kilmartin Chalet Park, Glenurquhart (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Proposed House and Garage.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/051/16 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

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

6.6
Applicant: Moray Estates Development Company (16/02363/FUL) (PLS/052/16)
Location: Land 460m NE of The Steading, Dalcross (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Upgrade of the existing bellmouth; the erection of a pumping station and kiosk, dosing kiosk,  fencing 1.1 metre high and re-contouring of land.
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of Interest – As a Council-appointed Director of Inverness Airport Business Park, Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item and left the chamber for the duration of 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 R Balfour, seconded by Ms K Stephen, then moved that determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  The Chairman, seconded by Mr D Kerr, 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 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
Mr A Duffy
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr B Lobban
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen
Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr J Gray
Mr D Kerr
Mr F Parr

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 September 2016.

6.7
Applicant: Moray Estates Development Company (16/02364/FUL) (PLS/053/16)
Location: Land 585m NW of The Steading, Dalcross (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Upgrade of the existing bellmouth; the erection of fencing 1.1 m high and re-contouring of land; including the installation of a pumping station with kiosk and associated works.
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of Interest – As a Council-appointed Director of Inverness Airport Business Park, Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item and left the chamber for the duration of 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 R Balfour, seconded by Ms K Stephen, then moved that determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  The Chairman, seconded by Mr D Kerr, 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 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
Mr A Duffy
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr B Lobban
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen
Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr J Gray
Mr D Kerr
Mr F Parr

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 September 2016.

6.8
Applicant: Scottish Water (16/02464/FUL) (PLS/054/16)
Location: Ardersier Waste Water Treatment Works, Ardersier (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Installation of Ultraviolet Treatment Plant at the Ardersier Waste Water Treatment Works.
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 R Balfour, seconded by Ms K Stephen, then moved that determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  The Chairman, seconded by Mr D Kerr, 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
Mr A Duffy
Mr L Fraser
Mr M Green
Mr B Lobban
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen
Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr J Gray
Mr D Kerr
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag

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 September 2016.

The meeting ended at 1.10 pm.