Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 17 January 2017 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter (excluding items 6.3 and 6.5)
Mr B Clark
Mr J Crawford (excluding item 6.5)
Mrs M Davidson (excluding item 6.5)
Mr A Duffy (excluding item 6.5)
Mr L Fraser (excluding items 3.0 – 6.2)
Mr J Gray
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr (excluding items 3.0 – 6.1)
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen
Mr H Wood

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Acting Principal Planner
Mr R Dowell, Planner
Mr J Kelly, 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

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Mr D Fallows.

2. Declarations of Interest  
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None

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 13 December 2016 which was APPROVED, subject to the inclusion of Mr A Duffy under the list of apologies for absence.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/001/17 by the Head of Planning and Environment 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. Major Developments – Pre-application Consultation
Leasachaidhean Mòra – Co-chomhairle Ro-iarrtais    

5.1
Description: Proposed residential development (16/05706/PAN) (PLS/002/17)
Ward: 20 – Inverness South
Applicant: Redco – Slackbuie Limited
Site Address: Land at Lower Slackbuie Farm, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/002/17 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 consideration they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-

• clarification on how much of the site was still available for mixed use given that this development was proposing to comprise solely residential units,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: WKW Partnership Ltd (16/00365/LBC) (PLS/003/17)
Location: Cairngorm Hotel, Grampian Road, Aviemore (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Replace windows with double glazed timber sash and case units.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/003/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the refusal of the application for listed building consent for the reasons detailed in the report.

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The applicant had not responded to the Council’s request to provide evidence that repairing the windows, as opposed to replacement, was not feasible.
• The proposed works could alter the integrity of the building’s interior and impact on its character.
• Externally, any damage from the proposed window units would be in relation to the building’s appearance.
• There was no requirement for Historic Environment Scotland to be consulted on the application.
• Following consultation, the Council’s historic environment team were of the view that the applicant had not provided enough information to enable a thorough assessment of the application.
• The building’s listed status indicated that there were some qualities worth preserving both externally and internally.  However, the applicant had not provided any information to confirm this.
• Repairs and upgrading of the existing windows in compliance with industry standards and Council policy had been suggested to the applicant.
• The installation of slim profile double glazing panes and “Ventrolla” draught stripping as opposed to a wholesale replacement of the windows had also been suggested to the applicant. However, the applicant had not been forthcoming with a response as to whether these measures had been considered.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Any architectural merit the building had had historically had been ruined by the modern extensions and annexes.
• The replacement windows, if identical in appearance to the existing windows, would make no difference to the appearance of the building.
• It was questionable whether changes to the interior décor would have an impact on the integrity of building.
• The applicant had not responded to repeated requests from the Council for an explanation as to why replacement of the windows was necessary.
• The comfort of guests staying in the hotel was a prime consideration and the current condition of a number of windows was unacceptable.
• The applicant had been given ample encouragement to submit alternative options and explain why these should not be pursued but no response had been forthcoming.
• The entire building, including the modern extensions, was Category C Listed.
• The Committee had previously agreed to defer determination of the application in order for the applicant to provide more information and they had failed to do so.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr T Prag, then moved that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by Mr A Duffy, then moved as an amendment that the application for listed building consent be granted, subject to appropriate planning conditions to be determined by the planning officer, including a condition requiring the replication of the appearance and mechanism of the existing windows, on the grounds that:-

• the improved energy efficiency which the replacement windows could provide outweighed the historic environment policy considerations, particularly given the existing extensions and character of the building.  

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

Motion

Mr J Gray
Mr R Laird
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Clark
Mr J Crawford
Mrs M Davidson
Mr A Duffy
Mr M Green
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen

The amendment to GRANT listed building consent for the reasons stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting, subject to replication of the appearance and mechanism of the existing windows being guaranteed by condition.  The Committee agreed to delegate authority to the planning officer to impose such a condition on the permission, together with any further conditions considered appropriate.

6.2
Applicant: S & K MacDonald (16/00782/FUL) (PLS/004/17)
Location: Land 100M NE of Pineapple House, Duror (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Erect 6 single storey dwellings in 4 blocks (2 detached and 2 pairs semi-detached).
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/004/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst content with the idea of development on this particular location, disappointment was expressed that the concerns raised by Duror and Kentallen Community Council had not been taken into consideration by the Highland Small Communities Housing Trust.
• It was emphasised that the local community was not against additional housing development within the village and that the development of affordable housing would be welcomed by the Community Council.
• Concern was expressed that by seeking permission for six dwellings instead of the indicative capacity for five, the developer had overlooked an opportunity to produce a higher quality design in keeping with the local setting as recommended within the West Highland and Islands Local Plan 2010.
• Concern was expressed that the proposed access arrangements were substandard as the full visibility envelope required could not be achieved.
• In highlighting the potential increase in traffic from the proposed development, concern was expressed that the visibility splays at the access failed to meet the current standard as set out in Planning Advice Notice 66.
• Whilst acknowledging the variety of design of houses within Duror, concern was expressed that there were already a number of houses with little architectural merit and that the proposed development could compound this.
• The application site was located within the Duror Settlement Development Area and had previously received planning permission for various developments.    
• It was suggested that a more innovative design could have been produced at minimal costs.
• Whilst high quality and innovative design was an aspiration, the proposed development represented an opportunity to build affordable housing in a rural community and proposals for innovative design within a rural location were often criticised for not fitting in with the character of the surrounding area.
• The finish of the building could be improved by the use of slate as the roofing material.
• Whilst acknowledging that consideration had been given to disabled access, concern was expressed that the applicant had not stated whether any of the proposed houses would be built in a manner that would support dual usage.
• It was unusual for a house in a rural setting not to incorporate rear and front doors.
• There was an alternative location within the Settlement Development Area which would have been ideally suited for social housing had funding been available from Transport Scotland to improve the access road.  
• The Highland Small Communities Housing Trust had come up with excellent design proposals elsewhere in Lochaber which would have fitted within this particular location.
• The appropriate visibility splay standard could have been achieved had the applicant proposed to build to the original indicative capacity of five units rather than the proposed six units.
• In highlighting a recent affordable housing development of similar build, it was commented that the finish, in terms of the cladding and colours used, had made a difference in that development and it was suggested that local members should be consulted on the final finish of the proposed buildings and the materials to be used in the proposed development.

In response to questions arising during discussion, it was confirmed that:-

• The height of the neighbouring fence at Pineapple House was acceptable in terms of achieving an appropriate visibility splay from the junction and any alteration to increase the height of the fence within 20 m of the public road would require planning permission.
• Whilst the site had an indicative capacity for five houses, the proposed development did not increase the density on the site to an unacceptable level.
• Discussion could be held with the developer regarding the potential to improve the quality of finish to the buildings.
• A condition requiring the applicant to submit details of the proposed finishes to the houses could be included with the recommendation and that consultation with local members could take place prior to approval.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr R Laird, then moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and a further condition requiring that no development commence until details of the finishes to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority

Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that whilst the proposed development would have the benefit of bringing affordable housing to the village, this benefit is outweighed by the following:-

• The Local Plan allocation seeks a high quality design for this site.  However, the design of the current proposal is unexceptional by virtue of its bland and simplistic form and accordingly fails to achieve a high quality design and as such is contrary to the Local Plan and fails to satisfy Policies 28 and 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.
• The visibility splays at the access fail to meet the current standard as set out in the Planning Advice Notice 66 by virtue of the level of development proposed within the site.

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

Motion

Mr B Clark
Mrs M Davidson
Mr J Gray
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr
Mr T Prag
Mrs J Slater
Ms K Stephen

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr J Crawford
Mr A Duffy
Mr M Green
Mr D Kerr
Mr H Wood

The motion to GRANT planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and a further condition requiring that no development commence until details of the finishes to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. It was further agreed that the planning officer would consult with the local members before approving the submitted finishes and discharging this condition, and would also have further discussion with the applicants with a view to enhancing the design/finish of the 6 dwellings prior to the issue of a decision notice.

6.3
Applicant: Glenmoriston Arms Hotel (16/02776/FUL) (PLS/005/17)
Location: Glenmoriston Arms Hotel, Invermoriston (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Installation of Bio Mass CHP (Combined Heat and Power) unit.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/005/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• An additional condition could be included within the recommendation clarifying that permission was only granted for the unit producing the number of units of electrical power as stated in the application and for which the submitted noise data had been assessed by Environmental Health.  Any increase would require a further planning application.
• The noise assessment submitted by the applicant and reviewed by Environmental Health indicated an output of 0.5kw with sound levels measured to be 56db.
• Detail of the colour and finish of the container could be submitted in advance to the planning officer for approval and in consultation with the local Members.
• The line of trees separating the Hotel and the road would help to alleviate noise at the neighbouring property, “Hazlewood”.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst the application for a Bio Mass CHP unit as presented within the report was deemed acceptable, concern was expressed regarding the potential for the developer to install a larger unit and it was considered that any future increase in capacity should be subject to a future planning application.
• Whilst Achnaconeran Road was currently in a poor state, it was suitable to serve the proposed development.  However, any future large scale development of the unit would require improvements to the road.
• In highlighting concern regarding the junction with the trunk road, a request was made that temporary signage be erected during the period of construction to indicate that movement of lorries to and from the site would be taking place.
• Concern was expressed regarding the proposal to install a shipping cabin as a permanent building.
• A request was made for acoustic insulation to be installed within the container to reduce noise levels.
• It was highlighted that there was already an existing unit on the site which was likely to be causing louder noise when compared to the noise output of the proposed unit.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and appropriately worded additional conditions to secure the following:

• To clarify that permission is granted only for the unit producing the number of units of electrical power stated in the application and for which the submitted noise data has been assessed by Environmental Health.  Any increase will require a further planning application.
• Details of the colour and finish of the container are to be submitted in advance to the planning officer for approval and in consultation with the local Members.
• Temporary signage is to be erected during the period of construction.
• Acoustic insulation is to be used in the container.

The final wording of these conditions is to be prepared by the planning officer.

6.4
Applicant: Shane Maclennan Plant Contractors Limited (16/03327/FUL) (PLS/006/17)
Location: Lower Leanassie, Beauly (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Formation of hard standing storage yard and erection of office cabin, associated with plant contractor business, with retrospective upgrading of existing road access to A831.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/006/17 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:-

• The application site had previously been a greenfield site prior to development.
• The sightlines had been subject to major discussion with Transport Planning and the proposals to remove material from the adjacent property and to landscape the land to the west of the access would achieve the 215m visibility splays required on this type of road.
• Whilst work had already been undertaken on the site to form an access and level the land, the site was not currently being used as a yard.
• The classification of the A831 did not present any issues regarding weight restrictions for vehicles potentially using the site as ‘A’ roads were able to accommodate all legal vehicles capable of using the road network.
• With regard to the potential for a mechanics shelter being built on the site, any proposals for future development within the site would be subject to a full planning application.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the potential increase in traffic servicing the site as the A831 was a popular route during the summer for tourists and visitors to Glen Afric and had previously experienced problems with culverts collapsing due to heavy traffic.
• Concern was expressed that the visibility splays were not of sufficient length and should be re-examined.
• Whilst the A831 had not been subject to the same intense weight of traffic as other roads which had served wind farm developments and the Beauly to Denny power line project, the importance of improving road safety and ensuring safe access to the site was emphasised.  
• Whilst concern was expressed regarding the weight and noise of machinery using the plant, it was highlighted that a condition restricting the hours of operation of the yard had been recommended.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an amendment to Condition 2 to provide that the site is not to be used until the road bellmouth junction has been improved.

6.5
Applicant: The Gomde Trust Scotland (16/02871/FUL) (PLS/007/17)
Location: Land 300M South of Hardmuir Steading, Hardmuir of Boath, Nairn (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Development to create a meditation retreat centre.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/007/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The applicant had advised that the proposed timber buildings were required for the management of the woodland.
• The existing entrance from the layby on the south side of the A96 would be the only vehicular access to the site and that retention of this access as part of the proposed upgrade of the A96 had been considered by Transport Scotland.
• A condition requiring the installation of additional signage and the upgrading of the vehicular access was recommended.
• Any proposals for future development of the site would be subject to a full planning application.
• The manner in which the proposed buildings were constructed could determine whether they were in compliance with the legal definition of a caravan.  Therefore, a condition limiting the terms of the planning permission to what had been applied for in order to control any future intensification of the site was recommended.

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

The meeting ended at 1.00 pm.