Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of the meeting of the North Planning Applications Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 18 October 2016 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mrs I Campbell (excluding item 5.9), Mrs G Coghill, Mr G Farlow (excluding item 5.9), Mr B Fernie (excluding items 5.9 – 5.10), Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr D MacKay (excluding items 5.4 and 5.5), Mrs A MacLean, Mrs I McCallum (excluding items 5.8 – 5.10), Mr D Millar (excluding items 5.3 and 5.7 – 5.10) Mrs M Paterson, Mr I Renwick (excluding item 5.5 and 5.8 – 5.10), Mr A Rhind (excluding items 5.4 and 5.5), Dr A Sinclair and Ms M Smith (excluding items 5.8 – 5.10). 

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer (Development Management)
Mr J Murray, Senior Environmental Health Officer
Mr M Harvey, Team Leader, Planning
Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner
Mrs R Hindson, Planner
Ms G Webster, Planner
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor – Planning and Clerk
Miss C McArthur, Solicitor (Regulatory Services)
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Business

Mrs Isobel McCallum in the Chair

The Chair 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. 

1.  Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies were intimated on behalf Mr G Phillips.

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.9: Mr George Farlow (non-financial)

3.  Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 September 2016 which were APPROVED.

4.  Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN/049/16 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards providing an update on progress of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.   

In relation to the Creag Riabhach Wind Farm, Scottish Ministers had recently granted consent, the Council has raised no objection to this development.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• no further correspondence had been received in relation to the development at Greenside Farmhouse, Rosemarkie; and
• in relation to the developments at the industrial estate in Portree, there were outstanding responses to objections awaited from the applicant which would be brought to committee once received.

The Committee NOTED the Report.

5.  Planning Applications to be Detemined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

5.1 Applicant: Mr Alexander Mackenzie (16/00342/FUL) (PLN/050/16)
Location: Land 45 m NW of Braeburn, 4 Aultgrishan, Melvaig (Ward 06)
Nature of Development: Erection of house. 
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/050/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

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

5.2 Applicant: Glen Wyvis Community Benefit Society (16/00966/FUL) (PLN/051/16)
Location: Glen Wyvis, Scroggie Farm, Dingwall, IV15 9UF (Ward 09)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Refuse. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/051/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

Members’ comments included the following:

• warning signs at the junction to the road would warn traffic on the C1071 Heights public road of the difficult access;
• this house did not appear to be sensitively sited to minimise loss of agricultural land in accordance with Policy 28 of the HwLDP as this house was to be sited on agricultural land;
• in the original application the existing house was to be subdivided to incorporate housing for management staff for the distillery, this application therefore contradicted the previous application;
• as the house could not be legally tied to the distillery it was possible that the house could be sold on;
• a house for a Master Distiller would be a real incentive in bringing a high profile manager to Dingwall;
• the distillery could be managed just as easily from an existing house in Dingwall, indeed in the previous application it was stated that the biomass boiler was an automated system requiring no daily input;
• the report stated that the Master Distiller would work an eight hour day and would travel to promote the Distillery, therefore a house on site was not seen as a requirement;
• there had only been one objection to the application and the development was well screened;
• the previous application had been agreed as it had been stated that there would be no increase in traffic, this application now stated that there would be an increase in traffic if there was not a Master Distiller’s house on site; and
• the decision on this house must be taken against the Council’s policy for housing in the countryside;

The Planning Officer and Senior Engineer responded to Members comments as follows:

• warning signs would only be added to existing historically difficult accesses, for new developments the visibility splay requirements had to be met and this development did not meet them;
• the tenancies of the existing house were due to finish in 2017 when the house would be taken over by the landlord to manage the farm;
• the existing house had been designed in a manner so that the house could provide rent-a-room accommodation and could therefore accommodate someone to manage or to operate the day to day running of the distillery;
• the Council no longer encouraged section 75 agreements and as such there was no way to tie the house to the distillery so it could be sold on separately;
• the planning department had encouraged and approved the distillery with various applications, however this application did not comply with policy, and the proposed access did not meet the appropriate standard;

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mrs A MacLean moved the recommendation.

Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mr D Millar moved as an amendment that the application be approved subject to conditions to be agreed by the Area Planning Manager in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair for the following reasons:

1. Although there is an acceptance that the access is substandard, vehicular movements will not be significantly increased particularly when the vehicular movements of a master distiller that would have to travel to work are taken into account.
2. The application is not considered to be contrary to Polices 28 and 35 of the HwLDP as the farm house is currently occupied and is in use related to the farm business.  The case had been adequately demonstrated that a house is essential for the distillery business. 

The clerk expressed reservations on whether the reasons given were valid.

On a vote being taken, 8 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 7 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (8)

Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr C Fraser, Mrs A MacLean, Mrs I McCallum, Mr I Renwick, Dr A Sinclair and Ms M Smith.

For the amendment (7)

Mrs I Campbell, Mr M Finlayson, Mrs G Coghill, Mr D Mackay, Mr D Millar, Mrs M Paterson and Mr A Rhind.

The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated in the report.

5.3 Applicant: Mr Philip Blake (16/01277/FUL) (PLN/052/16)
Location: Munro Sawmills, Old Evanton Road, Dingwall, IV15 9UN (Ward 09)
Nature of Development: Erection of mill building, erection of extension to building and formation of bund.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/052/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.   The Planning Officer advised that two representations had been received following the issue of the agenda and papers.   The first objection related to the proposed fence but the fence was required to mitigate the noise from the site.

The second objection related to noise emanating from the site.  As the objector had used their own equipment these readings could not be relied upon, Environmental Health used calibrated machines which complied with specific requirements and took readings over a four month period.

Members’ comments included the following:

• the residents had been very distressed with the noise level emanating from the sawmill;
• some of the equipment was outside the existing building, could this equipment be put inside the building to lessen the impact of the noise;
• the report stated that there would only be a very slight increase in traffic, this road had not been built for the amount of traffic that now used the road, a condition on traffic calming should be added; and
• the bund should be required before any development on site.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• the noise level emanating from the sawmill was within the legal limits of 55 dB over a one hour average, the readings that had been submitted did not show Leq noise which was different from straight noise;
• the new building would face away from the properties that had the highest noise readings so it should not add to the existing noise and the noise level would be reduced with the removal of existing external machinery;
• most of the equipment outside the existing building would be removed if this development went ahead as there would be new equipment inside the new extension;
• although workers could be on site at 7.30 am, they were not permitted to start their equipment at this time;
• the increase in traffic from 20 at peak times to 22 was minimal; and
• condition 4 in relation to the bund would be amended to include “prior to commencement of works”.

The Committee agreed to GRANT subject to the conditions detailed in the report together with additional amendments to secure the following:

• Amendment to Condition 2: No other development or work pertaining to this planning permission shall commence until the noise barriers as shown on approved plan B2 – 7 (Rev 1) have been fully constructed and are complete. No development or work shall commence until details of the 3 m high noise barrier located adjacent to the southern boundary and the 2 m high noise barrier located on top of the proposed bund, as shown on approved plan reference B2 – 7 (Rev 1), have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.
• Amendment to Condition 4 - No other development or work pertaining to this planning permission shall commence until the 4.5 m high bund, as shown on approved plan B2 – 7 (Rev 1), has been fully constructed and is complete. No development or work shall commence until a method statement for the construction of the 4.5 m bund has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

5.4 Applicant: Mr Graham McCall per Hebridean Contemporary Homes Ltd (16/01320/FUL) (PLN/053/16)
Location: Land 110 m SE of Tigh-Nuilt, 1 Inverkirkaig, Lochinver (Ward 01)
Nature of Development: Erection of house and boat shed, formation of vehicular access, installation of treatment plant and partial soakaway with outfall to watercourse 
Recommendation: Approve. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/053/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments stating that the long access had been pegged on site and the access was not visible. 

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

5.5 Applicant: Ventus Renewables Limited per Natural Power Consultants  (16/01333/FUL) (PLN/054/16)
Location: Land at Lower Rumster, Lybster (Ward 04)
Nature of Development: Erection of 3 turbines with height to hub of 22.8 m, height to tip of 35 m and a rotor diameter of 24.4 m and ancillary infrastructure including: access tracks, underground cable routing and temporary crane pad.
Recommendation: Approve.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/054/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  The Planning Officer distributed an additional condition and further drawings.

Members’ comments included the following:

• at the Planning Review Body on 20 January 2016 it was agreed that a survey be undertaken on the wild cats in the area, had this been completed? and
• Was the core path in close proximity to the site and would it be closed during construction on the site?

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• the survey had not yet been undertaken but SNH responded to the consultation stating that there were unconfirmed records of wild cats which had been recently highlighted, they may occasionally hunt in this area, but in their view due to the open nature of this site it was unlikely that wild cats inhabited this area;  and
• the core path was 240 metres from the site.

The Committee agreed to APPROVE subject to the conditions detailed in the report together with additional amendments to secure the following:

1. No work on the development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been agreed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Council, as roads authority. It should be noted that the developer may also be required to consult with local community representatives regarding the detail and timing of construction traffic.

The CTMP shall include the following:

• Details of the construction programme and the number and type of vehicles that will be generated between the A99 and the site.
• Details of appropriate upgrading works at the junction of the local access road and the A99 trunk road such that opposing HGVs will be able to safely pass at the junction.
• Proposed traffic management measures on the local access road.  Measures such as temporary speed limits, suitable temporary signage, road markings and the use of speed activated signs should be considered. 
• Proposed measures to mitigate the impact of general construction traffic on the structure of the local access road following detailed assessment of the road.
• A procedure for the regular monitoring of road conditions and the implementation of any remedial works required during the construction period.
• Details of appropriate upgrading works at the junction of the site access and the public road. As required, such works will include suitable drainage measures, improved geometry and construction, measures to protect the public road and the provision and maintenance of appropriate visibility splays.
• Details of appropriate traffic management which shall be established and maintained at the site access for the duration of the construction period.
• Measures to ensure that all affected public roads are kept free of mud and debris arising from the development.

2. No work on the development shall commence until a Wear and Tear Agreement under Section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act has been established to the satisfaction of the Council, as roads authority. Through the agreement the developer will be responsible for repair of any damage to the local road network reasonably attributable to development traffic. As a requirement of the agreement pre-start and post construction road condition surveys, shall be carried out by the developer in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the roads authority. A suitable security may be required in support of the agreement.

5.6 Applicant: Mr Malcolm Mackenzie (16/01757/S42) (PLN/055/16)
Location: Land 250 m NW of Camus Fearn, Plockton (Ward 06)
Nature of Development: Section 42 application to remove condition 1 of planning permission 13/04610/FUL - Erection of house and installation of foul drainage system.
Recommendation: Approve. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/055/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

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

5.7 Applicant: The Glenmorangie Company (16/02609/FUL) (PLN/056/16)
Location: Glenmorangie Distillery, Glenmorangie, Tain. (Ward 08)
Nature of Development: Construction of 5 whisky maturation warehouses with associated access roads and infrastructure
Recommendation: Approve.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/056/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

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

The Committee broke at this point for lunch. 

Mrs Isobel McCallum had to leave the meeting for other Council business and Dr A Sinclair took the Chair.

5.8 Applicant: Urbis Limited (16/03028/FUL and 16/03051/LBC) (PLN/057/16)
Location: Land between The Manse and Old Church Court, Innes Street, Plockton (Ward 06)
Nature of Development: Erection of house (16/03028/FUL) and create a pedestrian opening in the existing garden wall to Innes Street and increase the existing opening in a garden wall to Bank Street to allow vehicles (16/03051/LBC).
Recommendation: Approve.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/057/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  The Planning Officer amended his report to read 5 bedroom property and not a 3 bedroom property as stated.  

Members’ comments included the following:

• the previous application for this site had a building that was too big, this building although a lot smaller was not similar to buildings in the conservation area on Innes Street or in Plockton; 
• the overshadowing was still not acceptable;
• clarity on whether the building, if not used as a workshop, could be used as a house;
• the house design was not the best design for this conservation area and did not preserve or enhance the area;
• the architect had taken on board the comments from the previous application and this house did not detract from other houses in Plockton nor harm the character of the conservation area; and
• the large tree was to be removed and replaced with a smaller tree, this should help screen the building.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• the overshadowing had occurred from Old Church Court and setting the building back in the site had resolved the overshadowing problem;
• if the workshop was to be used as a house, planning permission would have to be sought for change of use; and
• the replacement tree would sit behind the existing tree and would eventually soften the impact, but it would take some time to grow.

Mrs A MacLean, seconded by Mr B Fernie moved the recommendation.

Dr A Sinclair, seconded by Mrs I Campbell moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the following reason:

• While the development potential of the site has been recognised and while acknowledging that there had been an attempt to address member concerns about the design related to the earlier application, there remain misgivings about this particular design in this location. Members considered the application to be contrary to Policy 28 of HwLDP as the design is not considered to be in keeping with the local character and the historic environment of Plockton; and Members considered the application to be contrary to Policy 57 of HwLDP in that the applicant had not satisfactorily demonstrated that the development will not have an unacceptable impact on  the heritage resource of the conservation area by virtue of its contemporary design; and Members accepted the reasons given by the Historic Environment Team in that the proposed development is considered unlikely to preserve or enhance the conservation area.

On a vote being taken, 5 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 6 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (5)

Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr C Fraser, Mrs A MacLean and Mr A Rhind.

For the amendment (6)

Mrs I Campbell, Mr M Finlayson, Mrs G Coghill, Mr D Mackay, Mrs M Paterson and Dr A Sinclair.

The amendment therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated.

5.9 Applicant: Mr Guy Morgan per Morgan McDonnell Architecture (16/03070/FUL and 16/03071/LBC) (PLN/058/16)
Location: Land 75 m East of 162 Stoer, Lochinver (Ward 01)
Nature of Development: Restoration and conversion of disused church to residential, installation of septic tank and soakaway.
Recommendation: Approve.

Mr G Farlow declared a non-financial interest as he had been attending meetings in relation to this development and it may be perceived that he had pre-determined the application and accordingly left the chamber during consideration of this item.    

There had been circulated Report No PLN/058/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

Members’ comments included the following:

• concern that the graveyard would be dug in order to establish a septic tank and drains;
• would the graveyard be disturbed when taking materials onto site;
• had there been an internal archaeological survey and should a photographic record be kept of the inside before and after development;
• once this building was converted there would be no amenity space or car parking;
• members had concerns as the building had graves on three sides and under the steps to the building, the ground was therefore consecrated ground and should be respected; and
• the Council would be unable to maintain the wall.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• the graveyard would be dug by hand in compliance with the Construction Management Plan;
• the pedestrian footpath would be utilised for taking materials on and off site with a crane from the public road to move larger items;
• an internal architectural survey had been undertaken and as the former church was now just a shell there were no features internally to photograph,  but a photographic record nonetheless would be undertaken by Planning for their own records;
• the applicant was fully aware that there would be no amenity space and the parking space was indicated on the plan;
• a servitude right of access had been completed giving the Council a right of access for maintenance of the wall; and
• the planning officers accepted and appreciated the difficulties and sensitivities associated with this application, the Council would retain ownership of the graveyard  and a balance had to be arrived at and the planning officers, although acknowledging the difficulties, were content with the steps outlined by the applicant for this application.

Dr A Sinclair, seconded by Mrs A MacLean moved the recommendation.

Mr A Rhind, seconded by Mrs M Paterson moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the following reason:

The use of the former church as a dwelling house is considered to be inappropriate given its location within a graveyard. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy 57 of the HwLDP on the grounds that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the development proposed will not have an unacceptable impact on the heritage resource being the listed church and its associated graveyard.

The clerk expressed reservations on whether the reason given was valid.

On a vote being taken, 3 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 5 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (3)

Mr C Fraser, Mrs A MacLean and Dr A Sinclair.

For the amendment (5)

Mrs G Coghill, Mr M Finlayson, Mr D Mackay, Mrs M Paterson and Mr A Rhind.

The amendment therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reason stated.

5.10 Applicant: Acanthus Architects (16/03301/FUL) (PLN/059/16)
Location: Land 135 m West of Timber House, 6 Skinidin, Dunvegan (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of 4 new houses to be used as short-term holiday lets.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/059/16 by the Area Planning Manager recommending grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

In response to a question the Planning Officer confirmed that the first five metres of the access road would require to be tarred, but would remain a track with open network paviours. 

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

There being no further business the meeting closed at 3.15 pm.