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 21 February 2017 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr D Bremner, Mrs I Campbell (excluding items 7.11 – 8.1), Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mrs I McCallum, Mr D Millar (excluding items 6.2, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5 and 7.10), Mrs M Paterson, Mr G Phillips (excluding items 1 – 6.3 and 7.5), Mr I Renwick (excluding items 6.3, 7.5, 7.7 and 7.11 – 8.1), Mr A Rhind (excluding items 7.3 – 8.1), Dr A Sinclair, Ms M Smith (excluding items 7.13 – 8.1) and Mr M Reiss, substituting for Mrs G Coghill (excluding item 6.3).

Other Members Present:

Dr I Cockburn

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer (Development Management)
Mr R Bryan, Senior Technician, Flood Team
Mr M Harvey, Team Leader
Mrs E Forbes, Acting Team Leader/Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Acting Principal Planner
Mrs E McArthur, Principal Planner
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Ms S Hadfield, Planner
Ms L Stewart, Planner
Mr G Sharp, Planner
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor – Planning and Clerk
Ms K Shaw, Solicitor (Planning and 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 of Mrs G Coghill, Mr D MacKay and Mrs A MacLean.

2.  Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 6.1: Mr G Farlow as a member of the Caithness Regeneration Group (non-financial)  
Items 6.2: Mr G Farlow as a member of the Dounreay Stakeholders (non-financial)
Item 7.3: Mr D Millar, as a distant relative to the applicant (non-financial)
Item 6.2: Mr M Reiss as a member of the Dounreay Stakeholders Group (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 6 January 2017 which were APPROVED.

4.  Major Applications 
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN/008/17 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. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• recent contact had been made with the applicant for the Oatridge development and the application was progressing.

The Committee NOTED the current position with these applications.

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

5.1 Description: Demolition of existing secondary school and community centre, along with former janitor’s and head teacher’s houses, construction of new nursery, primary, secondary and community campus facility to contain sports and library facilities, along with associated parking and drop off, creation of external landscape to suit school and community usage, including floodlit synthetic grass pitch (16/05666/PAN) (PLN/009/17)
Ward:  8
Applicant: The Highland Council Care and Learning, per The Highland Council Design Consultancy Services
Site Address:  Land 190 m SW of Ambulance Station, Victoria Road, Tain  

There had been circulated Report No PLN/009/17 by the Area Planning Manager  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 AGREED that there were no further material considerations to be brought to the applicant’s attention.

6.  Continued Items
Cuspairean a' Leantainn

6.1 Applicant: Infinergy Ltd (16/02752/S36) (PLN/010/17) (PLN/006/17)
Location: Limekilns Estate, Reay, Caithness (Ward 01)
Nature of Development: Erection of 24 wind turbines (Limekiln Wind Farm)
Recommendation: Conditioned Raise No Objection.

Mr G Farlow declared a non-financial interest as he was a member of the Caithness Regeneration Group but having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/006/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee raise no objection to the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  This item had been deferred from the previous committee in order for clarification on the Tentative List World Heritage Site classification brought to the officer’s attention at the last meeting.  Supplementary higher quality colour visualisations were made available for Members.  The planning officer indicated that the Tentative List World Heritage Site classification would not affect the determination of this application.

Members’ comments included the following:

• at present there was no requirement for the electricity produced at the Baillie windfarm and turbines from this development had been turned off regularly to reduce the production of electricity resulting in the developer having to be compensated;
• clarification on the size of these turbines in relation to the turbines at the Forss wind farm;
• when thinking of the Caithness scenery everyone thinks of the views and the hills are very precious, Beinn Ratha was the best feature in that landscape and SNH had maintained their objection with good reason;
• the turbines at a height of 139 m would be as dominant as Beinn Ratha, the unique landscape would be compromised;
• Beinn Dorrey was wild land and the trees could not shield 139 m turbines;
• the Reporter, during the previous public inquiry, had focussed on the wild land and standing atop Beinn Ratha the view west for miles was of true wild land;
• from viewpoint C the turbines would be higher than the summit of Beinn Ratha and the view would be wholly compromised and dominated by turbines;
• at viewpoint E, in the 360º view, the ridges are features and the turbines sit in between the ridges, but the valley is also a feature and would be wholly compromised;
• since the Limekiln PLI we now have the new North Coast 500 route. This development would compromise the views from the Church’s elevated car park of the distinctive landscape moving from Sutherland to Caithness;
• the landscape could not accommodate the scale of the turbines and, although there may be scope for more development, it should not be at this site;
• out of the 280 objectors, 266 objectors had Caithness/Sutherland addresses which indicated what local opinion of the development was;
• windfarms are a great benefit and bring in valuable income but these turbines are too big and too close to a village which already has the large Baillie windfarm to the East;
• using figures supplied by Infinergy and using similar figures from the renewable industry, this windfarm could supply the power for one third of all Highland homes, using similar figures, if all the existing and proposed windfarms in the Reay area are built they would more than power the whole of Highland or at least 12 times the consumption of Caithness;
• with the North Coast 500 route, tourism is now relevant all year round and the view from the A836 at Drumholiston, would be significantly affected;
• as the unique landscape in Caithness is flat, all windfarms are highly visible;
• the local Community Council is small and does not have the financial ability to attend all the hearings from the numerous windfarm developments in this area;
• Members must act conscientiously and say no to this windfarm;
• as with other viewpoints the view from Reay church would now only comprise of wind turbines and be damaging to the views of true wild beauty in Caithness;
• would the heritage site classification be removed if the windfarm was to go ahead; and
• on viewing the photos the turbines are ten times the height of the trees, and whilst understanding the reason for the height of the turbines, people’s lives and their amenity of the area had to be taken into account;

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• there was demand constraints on the Baillie windfarm and any compensation payments were not within the scope of the planning department; and
• the Forss turbines were 78 m to tip, 47 m to hub and the rotor diameter was 62 m, the Limekiln turbines would be taller and slimmer.

Mr M Reiss, moved that the Council raise an objection to the development for the following reason:

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 29 (Design, Quality and Place Making), Policy 57 (Natural Built and Cultural Heritage), Policy 61 (Landscape) and Policy 67 (Renewable Energy Developments) of the adopted Highland - wide Local Development Plan and the Onshore Wind Energy : Supplementary Guidance (November 2016)  as the impact of the development would be significantly detrimental to parts of the landscape of the North Caithness coastline as the proposal introduces tall man made vertical moving structures to a gentle rural landscape.  This can be evidenced within a number of viewpoints set out in the supporting Environmental Statement for example; Viewpoints 1 A836 layby at Drum Hollistan, 3 A836 at Reay Church,  5 Sandside Harbour and 13 Dunnet Head.
2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 28 (Sustainable Design), Policy 29 (Design Quality and Place-Making) and Policy 67 (Renewable Energy Developments) of the adopted Highland - wide Local Development Plan as the visual impact of the development would be significantly detrimental from many locations, communities and travellers on roads including  the A836 and A9(T) roads.  These are demonstrated within Viewpoints 1 A836 layby at Drum Hollistan, 2 Reay footpath,  4 Shebster, 12 A9 North of Spittal and 20 A836 at Forss as set out in the supporting Environmental Statement.
3. The proposal, if approved, would result in the loss of amenity close to the village of Reay, in particular for residents and visitors taking recreational access to the mixed use rural landscape to the south of Reay.
4. The proposal, if approved, would have an unacceptable impact on Wild Land Area 39 - East Halladale Flows given the height of the turbines proposed and the proximity of the application site immediately adjacent to this Wild Land Area.

There being no amendment the Committee agreed to RAISE AN OBJECTION for the reasons stated above.

6.2 Applicant: Dounreay TRI Limited (16/04775/S36) (PLN/007/17)
Location:  Development site 6 km NW of Dounreay Nuclear Research Establishment, Dounreay (Ward )
Nature of Development: Construction of two offshore wind turbines on a single floating platform, each with an installed capacity of up to 6 MW (max rotor tip of  201 m and max hub height of 124 m above the lowest astronomical tide), installation of export cable and deemed planning permission for erection of onshore electricity substation.  
Recommendation: Raise no Objection.

Mr G Farlow and Mr M Reiss declared a non-financial interest as they were members of the Dounreay Stakeholders Group but having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that their interest did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

There had been re-circulated Report No PLN/007/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee raise no objection to the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  This item had been continued to this meeting to allow members sufficient time to consider the Report (it having been circulated late for the previous meeting).

Supplementary higher quality colour visualisations were made available for Members, with two letters of support for the development from Orkney Islands Council and the University of the Highlands and Islands.

Members’ comments included the following:

• in relation to the SEPA response, there was an issue with the disturbance of the seabed and the potential disturbance of particles on the seabed, particles having been washed up on the beach in recent years, could an appropriate condition be added to take this into account;
• pleased to see the creation of local jobs related to this innovative development.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• the issue of the disturbance of the seabed was covered in the Marine Licence.

The Committee agreed to RAISE NO OBJECTION subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Survey and the conditions and reasons in the report.

6.3 Applicant: Mr Robert Finnie (16/04199/FUL) (PLN/011/17) (PLN/069/16)
Location: Torsealladh, Munro Park, Contin, Strathpeffer, IV14 9ES. (Ward 06)
Nature of Development: Change of use of land to domestic curtilage, erection of two garages and a garden shed (retrospective)
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/0011/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  The application had been continued from the meeting in November to progress discussions between the applicant and the Council regarding the siting of the completed building and to report back to Committee.

Members’ comments included the following:

• at what stage was a garden shed considered too large and no longer suitable for domestic use;
• the garden already had a large double garage, there were only two other buildings in Contin of this size and they were SSE and forestry buildings and not within a residential housing area;
• this building was not in an appropriate place, was too big for the site and would create overshadow to the neighbouring garden;
• very little difference from original application; and
• this shed had been built without planning permission, this area was designated for housing and was not the place for large farm sheds.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• as the shed was not in the curtilage of the applicant’s house, permission had to be granted for change of use of the plot to garden ground;
• the use of a shed was incidental to the house, if the application was refused the applicant could appeal to the Scottish Government; and
• it was accepted the garage was big but it was considered an acceptable size for the applicant’s needs.

Ms M Smith, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the application be refused for the following reason:

The application is significantly detrimental to the criteria contained in Policy 28 of the adopted Highland-wide Local Development Plan, namely the proposal does not demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with local character nor does it make use of appropriate materials in this residential area. It is also considered to be contrary to Policy 29 of the Plan in that new development should be designed to make a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of the place in which it is located.

Mr Bill Fernie, moved as an amendment that the application be approved, there being no seconder the amendment fell.

The Committee therefore agreed to REFUSE the application for the reason stated above.

7.  Planning Applications to be Detemined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

7.1 Applicant: Paterson Estates (15/03033/FUL) (PLN/012/17)
Location: Land 90 m NW of Greenside Farmhouse, Courthill Road, Rosemarkie (Ward 10)
Nature of Development: Erection of 50 residential units including access road, associated parking areas and amenity space.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  The Planning Officer pointed out that at 5.10 in the Report, in the first paragraph, it should read 09-10-2015 and not 09-10-2016.     

Members’ comments included the following:

• concern with the traffic management in particular with the A832 and the A9 Munlochy junction, and the impact of additional traffic on already overburdened roads;
• Fortrose High Street already had problems and struggled with the current amount of traffic;
• concern in regard to flooding and drainage, this area had been prone to flooding;
• appreciation of the green space that was central to the design concept with a footnote added to the permission to ensure that the green space could not be filled in;
• this rural housing development of 50 houses would impact on the movement of traffic with the possibility of two cars per house;
• was the existing primary school capable of accommodating the extra pupils from this development;
• would this become an “island development” with only one road access into and out of the site, clarity on other accesses;
• the green space was welcomed, would the access tolerate the extra traffic; and
• clarification on the cycle route.

The Planning Officer, Senior Roads Engineer and Flood Team Senior Technician responded to Members comments as follows:

• the green space was central to this design concept and planning would resist any change in the green space and a footnote would be added in this respect;
• the impact on Fortrose High Street was a key issue and had been taken into account, the original base line survey had been undertaken in June which had a higher figure, the figures therefore erred on the side of caution as they had been set against the level of traffic in one of the busiest month of the year;
• the impact survey had shown that the general maximum waiting time on the High Street would be 1.5 minutes, which on balance should not significantly impact on Fortrose;
• traffic management had been introduced in connection with a previous development and the parking had been designed on the High Street to break up the traffic flow which in turn helped to reduce the speed of traffic;
• the drainage would be contained within the site with management of all water, both from above and within the site, there was confidence that drainage aspects were controlled and should be improved;
• the applicants had taken cognisance of the National database for the peak and non-peak traffic and figures had been based on this with an additional 32 vehicles predicted in the evening peak;
• the calculation had been undertaken for the school capacity and the developer was fully aware that they had to make a contribution towards Avoch Primary School to accommodate the extra pupils;
• other footpath links were outlined by the planning officer and the planning service would have requested work on the existing steps to the development, but ownership of the steps could not be identified;
• a shared access reduces the speed of traffic and this had been requested by Roads, this was a medium sized development and Roads were content with the access as this would keep the speeds low; and
• cyclists would utilise the existing cycling routes.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the application subject to the conditions detailed in the Report and the prior conclusion of a S75 Agreement for affordable housing, financial contribution towards additional classroom provision and financial contribution towards real time information displays at the A832 westbound bus shelter and an additional informative regarding the protection of the green space identified within the layout and design of the proposed development.

7.2 Applicant: The Scott Family (16/02270/PIP) (PLN/013/17)
Location: Land 175 m South West of Balachraggan Cottage, Kildary (Ward 08)
Nature of Development: Formation of 9 house plots, new accesses onto old A9, installation of private sewage treatment systems and landscaping. 
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  A further letter of representation had been received and the planning officer would address the issues raised in his presentation.   An amendment had been made to the conditions to merge conditions 1 and 3 and to renumber the remaining conditions.

Members’ comments included the following:

• would the six separate access points have the required visibility splays;
• concern with the six individual septic tanks and soakaways, was there capacity within the existing public sewerage system to take these houses;
• concern with screening for the existing houses facing the plots; and
• protection of the Birch Cottage access.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• each application as it came forward would have to meet the required visibility splays and the vegetation would require to be cleared to allow this to be achieved;
• as this was a planning application in principle the individual applications would deal with the septic tanks and soakaways, the first house on the site could connect to the public system but the other houses would not have the correct fall required and would require a pumping system; and
• condition 1 covered landscaping and buffering from the A9, the landscaping and buffering could include Plot 1 to screen the houses that faced this development.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the application, subject to the amalgamation of  conditions 1 and 3 and that preference should be given to a connection to the public sewer in the first instance, and subject  to  the prior conclusion of a S75 Agreement for affordable housing.

7.3 Applicant: Mr Graeme Deas (16/02937/FUL) (PLN/014/17)
Location: Land 75 m SE of Graemar, 4 Crepighill, Skeabost Bridge, Isle of Skye. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of house
Recommendation: Refuse.

Mr D Millar declared a non-financial interest as he was related to the applicant and accordingly left the meeting during determination of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reason detailed therein.

Members’ comments included the following:

• if the house was moved further down the landscape it would have a higher risk of flooding, this plain had flooded several times in the previous 11 years;
• disagreement with the ribbon pattern description of this area;
• was the view for the passing motorists or for the people who lived here, the house above this development would have no loss of view;
• if the house was moved further down it would take more croft land as the road would need to meander to the house;
• the water was already running across the meandering river and with the force of nature this would become worse over the next 5 to 10 years;
• the Chair asked members to take cognisance of item 8.3 in the Report detailing the reasons the officer had asked for refusal in relation to policies associated with this development;
• could trees be utilised to screen the house; and
• re-positioning the house further down would be more acceptable.

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mr M Reiss, moved the recommendation to refuse.

Mr I Renwick, seconded by Mrs M Paterson, moved as an amendment that the application be approved for the following reason:

The proposed development was not considered to be contrary to the immediate development pattern of the area, which is sporadic, and any interruption to the view would be insignificant and, as such, the application is not considered to be contrary to policies 28, 29, 34 and 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

On a vote being taken, 4 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 9 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (4)

Mr D Bremner, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Reiss and Dr A Sinclair.

For the amendment (9)

Mrs I Campbell, Mr B Fernie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr G Farlow, Mr C Fraser, Mrs M Paterson, Mr G Phillips, Mr I Renwick and Ms M Smith.

The amendment therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to GRANT the application, subject to conditions to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and local Members, for the reason stated above.

7.4 Applicant: Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd (16/03869/FUL) (PLN/015/17)
Location: Land 320 m NE of Allt-an-Avaig, Kyleakin (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: The erection of a salmon feed manufacturing plant including an extension to the existing pier.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Members’ comments included the following:

• the odour from the plant would be an issue and one that had to be addressed;
• clarity on the actual materials that would be used;
• there had been few local objections to this development;
• as the stack height had been reduced from 80 m to 60 m would this impact on the odour emissions;
• clarity on the height of the bridge in relation to the development;
• people were against the quarry when it was developed, now it was accepted, where better to hide a big factory than in a quarry;
• the harsh reality was that jobs were important and this development would bring a lot of employment to the area; and
• disappointment with the design, materials could have been used to soften the building in this setting.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• any odour would be regulated by SEPA and the plant had a bio system which broke down the proteins thereby reducing the odour;
• the materials would involve fish meal, oils and protein materials that would mostly be brought in through the jetty;
• there was an issue raised with noise but this would be addressed by SEPA and they would assess the noise level issue raised by the householder and further assessments had been undertaken and assessed on actual readings taken from the larger output of the Norwegian plant;
• the developer had been asked to reduce the stack and they had subsequently reduced the stack to the bare minimum as the visual impact was critical, 60 m had been found to be acceptable; and
• the bridge was 35 m above the level of the water, the buildings however would still be higher than the bridge by approximately 5 m.

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Dr A Sinclair, moved that the application be refused for the following reason:

In accordance with Policy 28 this application does not demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with local character and historic and natural environment in the making use of appropriate materials, nor does it conserve or enhance the character of the Highland area.  In accordance with Policy 29 new developments should be designed to make a positive contribution to the architecture and visibility design of where it is located.

Mr D Millar, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved as an amendment that the application be approved.

On a vote being taken, 3 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 10 in favour of the amendment, and 1 abstention as follows:

For the motion (3)

Mr D Bremner, Mrs I McCallum and Dr A Sinclair.

For the amendment (10)

Mrs I Campbell, Mr B Fernie, Mr G Farlow, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr D Millar, Mrs M Paterson, Mr G Phillips, Mr I Renwick and Ms M Smith.

Abstained (1)

Mr M Reiss

The amendment therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to GRANT the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

7.5 Applicant: CTIL (16/04126/FUL) (P+LN/016/17)
Location: Land 35 m NW of 1 Fyrish Court, Evanton. (Ward 07)
Nature of Development: Installation of 16 m telecommunications pole with associated equipment . 
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Members’ comments included the following:

• no issue with need for a mast, but other sites had been identified and this was not the place for it; and
• this area had been designated a refuge area when the Balconie flats had been built and therefore this was not the place for the mast.

Ms M Smith, seconded by Mrs M Paterson, moved refusal of the application for the following reason:

The application is judged to be significantly detrimental to the criteria contained in Policy 28 of the Highland - wide Local Development Plan, in that the proposal fails to demonstrate sensitive siting given the application site is in a prominent High Street location between the Church and the residential properties at Fyrish Court. As such it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse visual impact on the street scape enjoyed by residents, church goers and visitors to Evanton.

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Dr A Sinclair, moved as an amendment the recommendation to approve.

On a vote being taken, 8 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 3 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (8)

Mr D Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Farlow, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Reiss and Ms M Smith.

For the amendment (3)

Mr B Fernie, Mrs I McCallum and Dr A Sinclair.

The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to REFUSE the application for the reason stated.

7.6 Applicant: The Highland Council (16/04431/FUL) (PLN/017/17)
Location:  Land 340 m NW of Achnashellach Lodge, Strathcarron (Ward 06)
Nature of Development: Provision of a 6 km length of new, two lane, single carriageway road between Balnacra and the Lair railway bridge.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

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

7.7 Applicant: Royal Dornoch Golf Club per Halliday Fraser Munro (16/04758/FUL) (PLN/018/17)
Location: Land 210 m SW of Dornoch Health Centre, Shore Road, Dornoch (Ward 05)
Nature of Development: Erection of golf-pro shop (with ancillary office and staff accommodation), driving range bays, formation of driving range and tennis court, demolition of existing building and all ancillary parking, engineering and landscape works.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

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

7.8 Applicant: Major J Whitelaw (16/04777/FUL) (PLN/019/17)
Location: Land to South of Cul Mor, Jamestown, Strathpeffer (Ward 06)
Nature of Development: Formation of two serviced house plots (renewal of planning permission 13/01882/FUL).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

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

7.9 Applicant: Mrs Claire Munro (16/04778/FUL) (PLN/020/17)
Location: 8B Castle Street, Dornoch (Ward 05)
Nature of Development: Replacement of 6 double glazed window units, replacement of wood/glazed front door with UPVC door and external repainting with change of colour.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons detailed therein.

The Committee agreed to REFUSE the application for the reasons given in the report.

7.10 Applicant: EE UK Ltd (16/04803/FUL) (PLN/021/17)
Location: Land 105 m South of Misty, Auchtertyre, Balmacara (Ward 06)
Nature of Development: Erection of EE telecommunications apparatus; ancillary equipment cabinets, fenced compound. 
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the condition detailed therein.

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

7.11 Applicant: Ardross Investment Ltd (16/04804/FUL and 16/04805/LBC) (PLN/022/17)
Location: Ardross Mains, Ardross (Ward 07)
Nature of Development: Change of use and refurbishment of buildings to form distillery, workers’ housing, warehousing, offices and erection of tasting lodge building (planning permission) and alterations and refurbishment of buildings to form distillery, workers’ housing, warehousing and offices (listed building consent).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

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

7.12 Applicant: Lee-Mac Properties Ltd (16/05054/FUL) (PLN/023/17)
Location: Bank Buildings, Main Street, Golspie (Ward 05)
Nature of Development: Conversion of offices to domestic flats on two floors at first and second storey with entry at ground floor.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  

Members’ comments included the following:

• clarity on the current and proposed parking; and
• this area should remain in commercial use.

The Planning Officer responded to Members comments as follows:

• there was sufficient parking space for this development as the applicant already owned sufficient parking spaces in the area; and
• the property had originally been marketed for commercial use and there had been no interest which had resulted in this request for change of use.

Mrs I McCallum moved the recommendation.

Mr G Phillips, moved as an amendment, that the application be refused for the following reason:

This development was contrary to Policy 28 as the Council is required to have regard to the socio-economic development of the community as a whole, as it is located within an area reserved for commercial use, it represents an over-intensive development of the site, the additional parking and vehicle movements would be significantly to the detriment of other commercial users.  There being no seconder the amendment fell.

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

7.13 Applicant: BT Openreach (16/05067/FUL) (PLN/024/17)
Location: Land 18 m North of Raasay Community Hall, Isle of Raasay (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Proposed 16 m radio monopole with 2 x 0.6 m dishes and equipment cabinet.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Members’ comments included the following:

• BT had not consulted with the local Community Council who had been happy to have a mast but not in this location.

The Committee agreed to DEFER the application to allow the local Community Council the opportunity to be consulted by the Applicant.

8.  Decisions of Appeals 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

8.1 Applicant: Mr Magnus Henderson (13/04194/FUL) (PPA-270-2154)
Location: Hill of Lychrobbie, Dunbeath, Caithness, KW6 6EH.
Nature of Development: Erection of 3 turbines and associated infrastructure.

The Committee NOTED that the appeal to the Director of Planning and Environmental Appeals had been allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions in the decision notice.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 5.45 pm.