Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 28 February 2017 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter (excluding items 6.1 and 6.6 – 7.1) (by video-conference)
Mr B Clark (excluding items 6.1 and 6.6 – 7.1)
Mr J Crawford (excluding item 6.1)
Mrs M Davidson (excluding items 3 – 6.1, 6.3 and 6.6 – 6.8)
Mr A Duffy (excluding items 6.2 and 6.3)
Mr D Fallows
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr D Kerr (excluding items 6.3 and 6.9 – 7.1)
Mr R Laird (excluding items 6.3 and 6.8 – 7.1)
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr F Parr (excluding items 6.6 – 7.1)
Mr T Prag (excluding items 6.9 – 7.1)
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 K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Acting Principal Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner 
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Miss C McArthur, Solicitor (Regulatory Services)
Ms K Shaw, Solicitor (Planning and Regulatory Services)
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 M Green.

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 17 January 2017 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/008/17 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: Development of industrial facilities required for the provision of an alloy wheel plant and a rolling mill and associated ancillary infrastructure and access (17/00680/PAN) (PLS/009/17)
Ward: 22 – Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Applicant: Liberty British Aluminium
Site Address: Lochaber Smelter, Fort William PH33 6TH

There had been circulated Report No PLS/009/17 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 no material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.2 Description: New Her Majesty’s Prison (17/00737/PAN) (PLS/010/17)
Ward: 18 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: Scottish Prison Service
Site Address: Land to rear of Inverness Retail and Business Park, Eastfield Way, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/010/17 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 considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-

• The consultation should be extended to local Parent Council meetings and to local schools,
• Ensure sufficient public transport links are provided to the site,
• Adequate screening should be provided for the site particularly along views from the railway,
• Ensure the building is of a high quality design,
• Encourage the applicant to go to the Design Review Panel concurrently with public consultation,

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1 Applicant: Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (16/05152/FUL) (PLS/011/17)
Location: Land 85m North of Police Scotland Area Command, Burnett Road, Inverness (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: Development of new Inverness Justice Centre comprising courts, offices, cafe, and ancillary accommodation.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/011/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

A site visit had taken place earlier that morning, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr A Duffy, Mr D Fallows, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag, Mrs J Slater, Ms K Stephen and Mr H Wood.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation, during which samples of the material to be used on the outside finish of the proposed building were circulated amongst the Committee.  He confirmed that whilst the red line boundary indicated within the plans extended into an area beyond the proposed new street, the application did not include any element of the adjacent derelict Inverness College Building.  He also confirmed that in addition to the conditions recommended within the report, it was recommended that delegated authority be given to the Chair/Vice-Chair and Area Planning Manager to finalise the wording of the conditions.    

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• A barrier would be installed at one end of the new street linking Burnett Road to Longman Road to prevent pedestrian vehicles from using the new access for staff parking as a through route.
• Emergency vehicles would be permitted to use the new street for access.
• Whilst it was currently unknown what the future use of the derelict college building would be, the introduction of a new street would create an element of connectivity between the two sites and would serve to address any future development within this location requiring vehicular access.
• An additional condition requiring prior approval of the proposed boundary treatments for the application site, with particular reference to the boundary between the new street and the former college site, could be included within the recommendation.
• The interior of the proposed building would include provision for lifts/escalators and that details of this would be addressed by the applicant through building standards.
• The applicant had indicated that CCTV would be installed outside the building.
• It would be difficult to widen the pavement at Railway Terrace as this would impact on traffic flows around the area, in particular buses.  However, suggestions had been made to the applicant to improve both connectivity to the site and enhancing the existing infrastructure and that this could be partially funded by a public art contribution.
• The applicant would be encouraged to liaise with Community Services on making environmental improvements to travel connections, in particular, to the Rose Street underpass.
• Improving access to the stairs at Railway Terrace to make it compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 was unfeasible due to the gradient of the stairs.
• An amendment to Condition 21 to ensure that final details of hard landscaping features within the open space to the front of the building were considered in consultation with the Access Panel could be included within the recommendation.
• Whilst the applicant had not provided details of a dedicated media area, management of the media would be undertaken by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.
• In addition to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, other internal users of the proposed building could include social services, NHS, Women’s Aid and the Citizen’s Advice Bureau.
• It was an aspiration of the draft Inverness City Centre Development Brief to create a street environment on Burnett Road instead of a road through an industrial estate and to make it a more attractive place for people to walk and cycle.
• The provision for both staff and public disabled parking proposed within the report was more than the current standard required by the Council which sought 5% parking provision to be disabled for a facility of this type. 
• The applicant had come forward with proposals for no public parking provision other than for disabled users due to the location of the site within the city centre boundary. The transports links are within an equivalent walking distance of the existing courts facility and within a reasonable walking distance of city centre car parking.
• Extracts from the Council’s own city centre parking study report indicated public car park usage of between 45% and 60% at any one time and therefore the applicant was of the view that sufficient parking was available within the city centre to service the facility.

Members’ comments included the following:-

• The design of the building and the close proximity of the proposed development to the centre of Inverness were welcomed.
• In acknowledging the restrictions faced by the site, it was emphasised that a facility with sufficient parking spaces to provide for both staff and the public could not be built within the centre of Inverness.
• There was a need to recognise that sharing of facilities was required and that the close proximity of Rose Street Car Park and encouraging active travel should be promoted to users of the facility.
• The limitations on access faced by disabled users were acknowledged and it was emphasised that these concerns should be resolved.
• It was emphasised that concerns in relation to policing of the site could be addressed by both the adjacent police station and the provision of CCTV.
• The proposed new street would enable consideration of future access to the adjacent derelict college building site should any future development be proposed.
• Whilst the concept of planting trees was reasonable, concern was expressed regarding the species of trees to be planted given some historical examples of planting which had not been sympathetic following growth and it was suggested that the types of trees to be planted should be clarified.
• The importance of close road and public transport links for people from outside of Inverness was emphasised and the proximity of the bus and railway stations and Rose Street Car Park to the proposed development was highlighted.
• In welcoming the comments from the Design Panel and the proposed design of the building, it was highlighted that the courts were keen to have significant, well-designed and imposing buildings within public sites.
• Concern was expressed regarding current connectivity to the site and it was suggested that it might be appropriate for the public art contribution to be used for enhancing the access routes and improving connectivity.
• The importance of the proposed development and the new street towards improving the quality of the surrounding area was emphasised.  Iin particular the potential for future developers wanting to make use of the new street as an access to the adjacent derelict college building site.
• In suggesting that the proposed development would set a marker for future development within the surrounding area, it was highlighted that the Inverness City Centre Development Brief had identified the surrounding area towards the harbour as having the potential to become a development area for businesses.
• Parking continued to be a major issue when considering major developments within the centre of Inverness and the view was expressed that there was insufficient public parking provision within the proposed development.
• People in wheelchairs were being expected to take longer routes to the facility and it was suggested measures to improve the stairs at Railway Terrace for disabled access should be investigated.
• It was requested that Autism Rights Group Highland be included during consultation on the final details of hard landscaping features within the open space to the front of the building.
• In emphasising the insufficient provision of public parking, it was suggested that retaining the block of trees to the back of the proposed development would still create enough provision for 18 parking spaces for public use.
• It was highlighted that a number of HGV and commercial vehicles currently used Burnett Road.
• It was requested that an additional condition to ensure adequate provision of CCTV around the building be included within the recommendation.
• In highlighting the importance of the new justice centre to Inverness and the Highlands, it was emphasised that the applicant had taken on board the many requests and suggestions made by the Council and in the process could now enable the transformation of Inverness Castle and secure jobs within the city centre.
• The applicant was commended for coming forward with a proposal for a building that was distinctive and made best use of a constrained site within the centre of Inverness.
• It was acknowledged that walking from Rose Street to the site could be an obstacle for some people.
• It was emphasised that the court was not just for the general public but for those obliged to be there, such as witnesses and jurors, who may come from considerable distances and it was suggested that as part of its operational service, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service should enable those obliged to attend to be able to apply for a permit to use the parking facilities.
• Reassurance was sought, and received, that there would be provision for parking of mobility buggies, bicycles and motorbikes.

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

• Following the recent extension of the city centre boundary, the application site was now defined within the Inverness City Centre Brief as being within the city centre.
• An amendment to Condition 5 in the report to include a requirement to revisit the allocation of parking spaces between staff and members of the public and to seek to increase the number of spaces could be included within the recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the following amendments to be secured with appropriate wording:-

• Amendment of Condition 5 to include a requirement to revisit the allocation of parking spaces between staff and members of the public and to seek to increase the number of spaces.
• Amendment of Condition 21 to ensure that final details of hard landscaping features within the open space to the front of the building are to be considered in consultation with the Access Panel and Autism Rights Group Highland before approval.
• An additional condition to ensure there is adequate CCTV around the building.
• An additional condition requiring prior approval of the proposed boundary treatments for the site with particular reference to the boundary between the new street and the college site.

The Committee also AGREED that the possibility of additional lighting and CCTV coverage for the Rose Street underpass be looked at in relation to the scheme to be submitted under condition 4.

It was further AGREED to delegate authority to the planning officer to finalise the wording of the conditions in consultation with the Area Planning Manager, Chair and Vice Chair.

6.2 Applicant: The Highland Council (16/03947/FUL) (PLS/012/17)
Location: Scottish Whisky and Craft Centre, 137 - 139 High Street, Fort William (Ward 22)
Nature of Development: Demolition of existing Scottish Whisky and Craft Centre and Erection of 12 self-contained flats with shared circulation area and associated car parking.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/012/17 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 comment was made:-

• The proposed design of the building could enhance the appearance of the High Street in Fort William and the design team was commended for their proposals as the compact nature of the site restricted the opportunity for development in this location.

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

6.3 Applicant: Mrs E Anne Fraser per Mcintyre and Co (16/05537/PIP) (PLS/013/17)
Location: Site 40m North East of Hillview, Banavie, Fort William (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of house (renewal of 13/03643/PIP).
Recommendation: Approve

There had been circulated Report No PLS/013/17 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.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The application was for a renewal of planning permission in principle and that no changes had been made to the previously granted permission.
• The Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance, which the original application had been assessed against, was in draft form when planning permission in principle was granted in 2010 and had subsequently been adopted by the Council in 2013.
• A note could be included in the recommendation to suggest to the applicant that they sign up to a maintenance agreement in order to address concerns raised during discussion regarding the existing vehicular access road from Banavie Hill.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an advisory note recommending that the applicant signs up to a maintenance agreement in respect of the access road.

6.4 Applicant: Daviot Farms (16/05097/FUL) (PLS/014/17)
Location: Land NE of Birch View, Daviot, Inverness (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of 2 steel frame buildings to form offices and agricultural store (retrospective).
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/014/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed that a large portion of the land owned by the applicant was not suitable for agricultural purposes and therefore the need to have an agricultural store of the proposed scale was questionable.
• The proposed offices and meeting room were not required for a site with this size of acreage.
• Concern was also expressed at the lack of a masterplan for the site which it had been indicated would be provided by the applicant’s representative and it was suggested that the applicant be encouraged to provide a masterplan for the site providing clarification of their future construction and business plans.
• In response to concerns raised regarding the planning history and the intended future use of the site, it was suggested that a way forward could be to invite the applicants to outline their intentions for the site to local Members and the Chair.
• Emphasis was placed on the need to ensure that the applicant would use the site for the intended agricultural purposes.
• Concern was expressed that the applicant had already commenced construction of the buildings without the appropriate planning permission.
• There were currently live permissions for buildings on this site which served similar purposes to those indicated in the application.

The Area Planning Manager – South/Major Development, Team Leader and Clerk responded to Members comments as follows:-

• In confirming Daviot Farms as the applicant, it was acknowledged that the applicant had originally formed part of Daviot Group but had now reverted to operating under its own trade as an agricultural contracting business.
• It was considered that the location of the proposed development would be less intrusive visually than the previously granted permission.
• The previous permissions for a separate farm office to serve the business would be revoked prior to permission being issued.
• Conditions 1 and 2 within the report recommended the restricted use of the proposed buildings for agricultural purposes and therefore any proposals to change their use would require a Section 42 application by the applicant.
• The planning authority was of the view that the application was acceptable.  However, had the proposed buildings not been in an appropriate location and had the opportunity not been made available to revoke the live permission with the agreement of the applicant then enforcement action would have been considered.
• Whilst acknowledging concerns regarding the future use of the site, determination of the application by Members was based on whether it was acceptable with regard to design and location.
• Whilst the applicant could be requested to provide a masterplan for the site, it was not integral to the determination of the application by Members.

The Committee agreed to DEFER the application for a site visit on 11 April 2017 to clarify the siting and design of the two buildings.  In addition, it was agreed that the planning officer, prior to the site visit on 11 April, would write to the applicant encouraging them to provide a masterplan for the site to provide clarification of their future construction and business plans.

6.5 Applicant: HITRANS (16/04540/FUL) (PLS/015/17)
Location: Land 685m South of Inverness Airport, Dalcross (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Construction of a single platform railway station with associated facilities and closure of an existing level crossing.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr T Prag advised that he was a Council-appointed Director of Inverness Airport Business Park but, as the Business Park had no involvement in the application, he considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest that could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and, as such, it was not a declarable interest in terms of paragraph 5.7 of the Code.  He intended therefore to participate in this item.

At the start of the meeting, before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, it was suggested that a site visit could be held prior to determining the application due to concerns raised regarding the closure of the Petty Level Crossing.  The Clerk explained that granting of the application would not authorise the legal closure of the Petty Level Crossing and would only authorise certain works to be undertaken to facilitate the eventual legal closure.  It was proposed that conditions be clarified to stipulate that the works to facilitate physical closure of the Petty Level Crossing would not be implemented until the rail halt and its associated 50 space car park become operational and the pedestrian link on the south side of the rail line between the Woodend Crossing and the C1020 road was available, and an order under section 207 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the Act”) authorising the stopping up of the Petty Level Crossing had been made by the planning authority and had been confirmed either by Scottish Ministers if the order was opposed or, if it was not opposed, by the planning authority, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Act.  Should any objection to the making of the order under section 207 be received, Scottish Ministers could not confirm the order without holding either a public enquiry or a hearing.  The reporter at that enquiry or hearing could then look to hold a site visit if considered necessary.

The Committee then proceeded to listen to the report and recommendation and determined the application. 

There had been circulated Report No PLS/015/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation, during which he suggested that Condition 1i in the recommendation be amended to take into consideration the timing of works to facilitate the physical closure of the Petty Level Crossing and that closure would only occur following:-

• the making of a stopping-up order under section 207 of the Act; and 
• confirmation of that order by either the planning authority or Scottish Ministers following consideration of any objections received.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Works to facilitate the physical closure of the Petty Level Crossing cannot be implemented until (i) the rail halt had been built and a (ii) a stopping-up order under section 207 of the Act had been made and confirmed.  Should any objection to the making of the order be received, Scottish Ministers could not confirm the order without holding either a public enquiry or a hearing into whether or not is was necessary to close the crossing for the purposes of allowing implementation of the proposed halt.
• Planning permission would not allow the legal closure of the Petty Level Crossing and would only permit the physical works required to facilitate the closure of the crossing.  It would be clarified by condition that those physical works could not take place unless an order had been made and confirmed.
• The Council was seeking to establish the foundation infrastructure, which included the construction of the proposed station, which would be required to serve Inverness Airport, the development of Inverness Airport Business Park and the new community of Tornagrain.
• The predicted number of commuters using the proposed station was expected to gradually increase following the development of Tornagrain and the Business Park.
• The proposed developments in the area could result in greater use of the station though people travelling from the Inverness and Moray area.
• In addition to the provision of 100 car parking spaces which could serve as long term parking for Inverness Airport, a bus link would be provided from the station and would enable a shuttle service for those travelling by train to the airport and the Business Park
• The applicant’s Transport Assessment reflected Network Rail’s priority to reduce the number of level crossings in Scotland where it was deemed there was little requirement.
• Whilst figures on the number of accidents at the level crossing were unavailable, this was not estimated to be at a high level.
• The development of Tornagrain, the opening of the Business Park and the dualling of the A96 would result in a fundamental change in the way the community in the area worked
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed development would impact on a small number of households and farms, it was emphasised that the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan (2015) had set out an ambition to develop a business park in the area and that the proposed station would help contribute to the economic growth of the area. 
• The provision of a new Sustainable urban drainage system (SuDs) and drainage channel     could alleviate problems with surface water and drainage in the car park.
• The construction of the station would result in two different types of trains using the line, those travelling non-stop and those that would be required to slow down on approach to the station prior to stopping.  It was explained that Network Rail had an ambition to double track this section of line and that the current automated system could not accommodate both types of trains.  Therefore, retention of the level crossing would necessitate the installation of a new automated system requiring further investment at cost to the applicant.
• If minded to grant planning permission, the Committee would be asked to authorise the making of the order under section 207 of the Act, which would subsequently be published for a period to allow any representations and objections to be submitted.  If any objections were received, an inquiry or hearing would be triggered.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Disappointment was expressed that the views of the local community had not been considered during development of the application.
• Permission for the physical closure of the Petty Level Crossing should have been applied for separately.
• Technology was available to have a new automated system installed that would trigger the system    in conjunction with the proposed station.
• Concern was expressed that by objecting to the closure of the level crossing it could be interpreted that Members were against the development of the station.
• Concern was expressed regarding the run-off of water within the proposed car park due to significant problems with flooding in the area.
• Concern was expressed that the development of the station could be jeopardised by the retention of the level crossing.
• Whilst supportive of the proposed station, there was currently no local support for the closure of Petty Level Crossing.
• Disappointment was expressed at the lack of correlation between the rail and air companies to put forward timetables for both services that would run synchronously.
• The building of infrastructure to accommodate future developments was emphasised.
• Whilst the proposal for a new railway station was welcomed, the application had been ill-considered and should not have taken into consideration the closure of the level crossing.  This should have been subject to a separate application.
• It was highlighted that any surface water on the car park would be standing water and would not cause flooding.

In response to further questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The car park had been designed at a height so that it will not cause problems in terms of its operation during adverse weather and the proposed arrangement for draining surface water would comprised  an infiltration trench linked to a SuDs which would collect water during extreme weather events.
• The proposed development comprised two distinct elements including: -
  • The construction of a single platform railway station and car parking for 150 cars and associated access road including access for buses and taxis, a bicycle stand and electric vehicle charging point; and
  • Works to facilitate the physical closure of the Petty Level Crossing currently part of the current C1020 Dalcross Station Road over the Inverness / Aberdeen railway line.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission for the construction of the single platform railway station with associated facilities and works to facilitate the physical closure of Petty Level Crossing, subject to the conditions recommended in the report and taking into account the following additional wording to be added to Condition 1i to read as follows:

• The works to facilitate physical closure of the Petty Level Crossing shall not be implemented until (a) the rail halt and its associated 50 space car park become operational and the pedestrian link on the south side of the rail line between the Woodend Crossing and the C1020 road is available, and (b) an order under section 207 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the Act”) authorising the stopping up of the Petty Level Crossing has been made by the planning authority and has been confirmed either by Scottish Ministers if the order is opposed or, if it is not opposed, by the planning authority, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Act.

The Committee also AGREED to authorise the making of an order under section 207 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for the stopping up of the Petty Level Crossing.

6.6 Applicant: Eastgate Unit Trust (16/05588/FUL) (PLS/016/17)
Location: 8 – 10 Academy Street, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Erect extension.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr A Duffy advised that his ex-wife’s father worked for the applicant but that he considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest that could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and, as such, it was not a declarable interest in terms of paragraph 5.7 of the Code.  He intended therefore to participate in this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/016/17 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, during which he advised that a late representation had been received from Inverness City Chamber of Commerce.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The civic space improvements to Falcon Square, including seating and trees, did not form part of this application and that these would be included within a masterplan for the Square to be submitted by the applicant prior to commencement of development.
• The adjacent two storey Falconer Building had previously been dismantled from its original location and rebuilt in its current position.
• Any future proposal to erect signage on the glass frontage of the building could be subject to planning permission.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The applicant was commended for listening to the concerns previously raised by the Committee regarding the design of the proposed extension and the proposals contained with the report represented an improvement on the previously refused application.
• It was requested that the recommendation at 8.5.15 within the report requiring final design details of some of the elements of the civic space improvements to be approved in advance of works commencing be included as an additional condition.
• Concern was expressed regarding the indicative proposals for new seating provision as it did not fit in with the surrounding civic space and a request was made that this be looked at prior to submission of the masterplan for the Square. 

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional condition to reflect the proposal stated at 8.5.15 in the report that the final design details of some of the elements of the civic space improvements will require to be approved in advance of works commencing.

6.7 Applicant: Eastgate Unit Trust (16/05586/LBC) (PLS/017/17)
Location: 8 – 10 Academy Street, Inverness (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Extension, alterations and partial demolition.
Recommendation: Grant

Mr A Duffy advised that his ex-wife’s father worked for the applicant but that he considered this to be a remote and insignificant interest that could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and, as such, it was not a declarable interest in terms of paragraph 5.7 of the Code.  He intended therefore to participate in this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/017/17 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.

The Committee agreed to GRANT listed building consent subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

6.8 Applicant: Carrbridge Hotel (16/04228/FUL) (PLS/018/17)
Location: Carrbridge Hotel, Carrbridge (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Proposed erection of new bedroom block, creation of storage facilities and enlargement of parking area.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/018/17 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, during which he advised that a late objection had been received in relation to the validity of the Swept Path Analysis which had been submitted by the applicant in support of the application and had not been fully addressed in the report.  Mr Kelly circulated copies of the objection to Members for their perusal.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Two different types of 12-metre length coaches associated with 53-seater vehicles had been assessed in terms of accessing the car park in forward gear.
• Whilst it was predicted that a 15-metre length coach could manoeuvre within the car park in forward gear, this could only be achieved through the loss of two coach parking spaces.
• A condition could be included within the recommendation to require a further Swept Path Analysis to be carried out with longer coaches
• No changes were proposed to the road network and the current access would remain in place.
• Assuming the current hotel continued to trade, buses would continue to use the car park.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional condition to secure the following:-

• That a further Swept Path Analysis is undertaken and a revised parking layout plan is submitted for approval if required as a result of the analysis.

6.9 Applicant: Telefonica UK Limited (16/05407/FUL) (PLS/019/17)
Location: Land 40M NW of Carrbridge Golf Club, Carrbridge (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Erection of mast and ground based equipment.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/019/17 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:-

• In terms of planning, the Council did not have a policy on the installation of telecommunications masts near schools and that emissions of radiofrequency radiation were not a material consideration as this was controlled under separate legislation.
• It was acknowledged that mobile phone and internet coverage within the surrounding area was poor.
• The proposed mast was deemed to be at the necessary height to enable the service coverage required by the applicant.
• The report included a recommendation for the submission of a Landscaping Plan and Maintenance Programme for approval prior to commencement of development and this could include detail on the retention of existing tree coverage. 
• The opportunity to share existing network coverage had been explored by the applicant, however this had been discounted.
• The Council owned a drone that could be used to provide aeriel shots of planning sites.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• The benefits the proposed mast could bring to local businesses through improved connectivity outweighed any visual impact the development could have in the surrounding area.
• Whilst acknowledging concerns regarding emissions of radiofrequency radiation, the visual impact of the proposed mast was minimal.

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

6.10 Applicant: Mr D A Turnbull (16/04999/FUL) (PLS/020/17)
Location: Land 70M South of Berryfield House, Lewiston, Drumnadrochit (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of glamping pods and toilet block.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/020/17 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 a question, it was confirmed that:-

• Any trees removed during development could be replaced.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the impact on surrounding neighbours from the use of outdoor BBQ facilities and recreational noise that could be generated from users of the proposed facilities.
• Concern was also expressed regarding the condition of the vehicular access track which was a public right of way and it was suggested that the potential to paint a designated line for pedestrians could be discussed with access officers.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional condition to secure the following:-

• Any BBQ facilities at the site are to be located at a reasonable distance away from any housing to reduce noise impact.

7. Decision on Appeal to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh agus Àrainneachd

7.1 Applicant: Falck Renewables Wind Limited
Location: Land 8km west of Fort Augustus
Nature of Appeal: Construction and operation of the Millennium South Wind Farm.

The Committee NOTED that Scottish Ministers had agreed to grant consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act and Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act for the construction and operation of the Millennium South Wind Farm, subject to conditions set out within the Decision Letter.

The meeting ended at 3.35 pm.