Agendas, reports and minutes

North Planning Applications Committee

Minute of the meeting of the North Planning Applications Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 28 November 2017 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Bremner (by video conference from Wick), Mrs I Campbell, Ms K Currie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr D MacKay, Ms A MacLean, Mr D MacLeod (excluding Items 5.1 and 6.3 - 8), Mrs M Paterson, Mr K Rosie, Mr A Rhind (excluding Item 6.2), Mr A Sinclair and Ms M Smith.

Non-Committee Member Present:

Mrs J Barclay

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer (Development Management)
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Ms R Hindson, Planner
Mr G Sharp, Planner
Mr A Puls, Principal Officer – Building, Conservation and Environment
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor – Planning and Clerk
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Business

Ms Maxine Smith 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 for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr J Gordon and Mr C MacLeod. 

2.  Declaration of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

There were no declarations of interest.

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 17 October 2017 which were APPROVED.

4.      Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN/058/17 by the Head of Planning and Environment 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:

• Applications registered before the changes to the ward boundaries would still pull through the old ward numbers; and
• In relation to application reference 08/00253/OUTSU, negotiations were currently ongoing with The Ross Estates Company and Network Rail regarding the replacement of Delny level crossing with a new railway bridge and indications had been received from Network Rail that it was in the process of preparing detailed design proposals for the bridge.  Ward Members would be kept informed of any progress. 

The Committee NOTED the current position with these applications.

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

5.1 Description: Erection of High Voltage direct Current (HVDC) converter station as part of a new high voltage electricity link between Scotland and Shetland. (17/05166/PAN) (PLN/066/17)
Ward: 2 – Thurso and North West Caithness
Applicant: National Grid Shetland Link Limited
Site Address: Land 1280M South Of Vulcan NRTE Dounreay Nuclear Research Establishment, Dounreay.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/059/17 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 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.

6. Planning Applications to be Detemined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1 Applicant: Maclean Properties Ltd (17/01611/FUL) (PLN/067/17)
Location: Land 450M NW of Greenhill, Kilcoy, Tore. (Ward 8)
Nature of Development: Erection of three warehouse/workshop/store buildings (Classes 4, 5 and 6), associated works and formation of access road.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/067/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.  Two further E-mails of representations had been received and the planning officer would address the issues raised in his presentation.  The meeting adjourned for approximately fifteen minutes to enable Members to peruse the information provided in the representations.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:

• It was confirmed that it would be possible to see the proposed buildings from both the public road and from housing to the south of the application site; however, sight of the buildings would only be through a filter screen of substantial, mature trees;
• It was not proposed to fell the beech trees along the southern boundary of the application site;
• Whilst the buildings currently within the site were smaller than those proposed in the application and could be seen through the screen of trees, the current buildings were much closer to public road than the proposed buildings which would be located at the rear of the site;
• It was understood that the applicant had no requirement for the material and huts which were currently stored within the site and therefore it was likely that these would be removed. It was later confirmed that there had been no indications received as to who was responsible for leaving the materials currently stored within the site;
• There were no conditions relating to the previous business’ use of the site requiring the removal of the surplus material prior to relinquishing occupancy of the site;
• It was proposed that the scots pine trees to the west of the proposed buildings would be felled and restocked and that the outer fringe of larch and deciduous trees would be retained to provide a screening function;
• It was confirmed that the mature woodland from which the scots pine trees would be felled was in the ownership of the applicant;
• The condition included within the recommendation required the restocking of trees by the applicant within the mature woodland on the western part of the site;
• Any future proposal to develop the mature woodland would require submission of an application to change the use of the land;
• The trees within the mature woodland had not been managed and were considered by the forestry officer to be in such poor condition that they had realistically reached the end of their life;
• The forestry officer was of the view that the opportunity for selective thinning of the scots pine had passed and that given the poor health the trees were in, it would be better to start afresh with new healthier trees;
• It was confirmed that the Woodland Trust had not been consulted on the proposed development as it was not one of the normal consultees; however, the forestry officer’s knowledge was emphasised and the proposals for restocking would replace the current commercial woodland with more native species of trees;
• The soil within the mature woodland was capable of being restocked immediately after felling and that it was the intention of the applicant to commence restocking once felling had been undertaken;
• Permitted activities within Classes 4, 5 and 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended, revoked or re-enacted; with or without modification) were summarised as follows:-
  • Class 4 allowed for office uses, research and development activities and light industrial uses which would not give rise to adverse residential amenity;
  • Class 5 allowed for more general industrial uses, such as the previous operation which had been undertaken within the application site; and
  • Class 6 allowed for storage and distribution activities.
• Condition 6 within the recommendation sought to limit activities permitted under Classes 4, 5 and 6 in order to protect existing residential amenity within the area;
• Whilst it was confirmed that no unauthorised commercial activities had taken place within the site, it was emphasised that any unauthorised activity, including the storage of materials, would be a separate enforcement matter and could not be considered a basis for turning down a planning application;
• Condition 5 within the recommendation required the applicant to provide a scheme for lighting that would demonstrate to the Council’s satisfaction that there would not be any spillage of light coming out from the sites which would adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and occupants;
• Whilst it had been suggested that bunding could help reduce noise generated from the site, this could have an adverse visual impact and was not considered necessary for the site.  It was highlighted that the recommendation included a condition to prevent noise above acceptable levels in relation to industrial and commercial activity;
• Whilst there was existing fencing along the southern boundary of the site, any proposal to install any new/additional industrial fencing within the site would require a further application for planning permission;
• Condition 15 within the recommendation required that all heavy goods vehicles accessing the site were required to use the A835 trunk road to approach the site and not from the south side of the U2638 unclassified road;
• Transport Planning’s assessment had identified that the U2638 unclassified road was unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles and that there would be no requirement for upgrades and additional passing places as it was anticipated that there would only be an increase of six additional vehicles using the U2638 in the afternoon peak hour;
• It was explained that the application was for three units and that whilst the applicant currently operated a storage function at its existing premises in Muir of Ord, there was no guarantee that the application would be a facsimile of this;
• It was possible that this site might not be used by the applicant and that a different occupier could potentially use it, provided their operation fitted within the restrictions set out in the conditions;
• Brahan Estate had not been consulted on the proposed development; however, Scottish Natural Heritage, as the competent authority, had been consulted and had identified that whilst one red kite nest had been located within the scots pine plantation, felling of the trees outwith a 30m buffer zone from that nest was considered acceptable provided felling occurred during the winter months;
• The proposed travel plan sought to encourage sustainable methods of travel to work;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the site was within the wider countryside, it was considered to be a suitable location as it had previously been used for employment use and therefore complied with Policy 41 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan;
• The landscape character and capacity of the site were such that it was considered that the impacts of the proposed development could be absorbed without adverse impact on existing residential amenity;
• The conditions included within the recommendation sought to ensure that existing residential amenity was adequately safeguarded and enforcement action would be imposed should any breach of the conditions occur;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the layout plan had changed, it was considered that only relatively minor changes had been made and were not significant enough to require a re-advertisement of the application;
• It was emphasised that the previous planning permission granted for the site was not a temporary permission and it was highlighted that the previous occupier of the site had undertaken works to improve the junction at the location in order to make the site operable; and
• The principle of development had already been established within the site and from the aerial photographs and photographs taken within the site it was considered that the application was within a brownfield site.

During discussion, comments included the following:

• Whilst the application site was located within a rural area, the photographs clearly showed that it was a brownfield site;
• It was acknowledged that the A835 trunk road was the best route to the site rather than the U2638 unclassified road;
• The bunding which had previously been put into the site was to stop noise and the view was expressed that additional bunding would not be appropriate in respect of the proposed development;
• The importance of having a condition regarding external lighting generated form the site given it’s rural location was highlighted;
• It was highlighted that the trees intended for felling would have to come down anyway.
• Whilst acknowledging the emotive nature of planning and the concerns raised regarding the rural location of the site, the Council was supportive that planning should be accommodating to potential developments;
• The proposed development accorded with Polices 28, 41 and 42 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and the conditions included within the recommendation had taken into consideration all the relevant issues raised;
• The site was considered to be a brownfield site as precedent had already been set in terms of the site’s use and it was therefore reasonable for the applicant to come forward with the proposal to the use the site in a different way;
• It was highlighted that the Community Council had previously complained in the past that it did not have access to the planning weekly list due to poor broadband connectivity in the area;
• The proposed development was considered to be of too large a scale in the context of the character of the surrounding woodland area and the adverse impact it could have on wildlife;
• Concern was expressed that the travel plan proposed would not prevent vehicles using the U2638 unclassified single track road to access the site.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mr D MacKay, moved that the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Ms M Smith, seconded by Ms K Currie moved as an amendment that the application be determined.

On a vote being taken, 6 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 7 in favour of the amendment, with 1 abstention, as follows:

For the motion (6)

Mrs I Campbell, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr D MacKay, Ms A MacLean and Mrs M Paterson.

For the amendment (7)

Mr R Bremner, Ms K Currie, Mr R Gale, Mr D MacLeod, Mr A Rhind, Mr K Rosie and Ms M Smith.

Abstention (1)

Mr A Sinclair

The Committee therefore agreed to proceed to determine the application.

Ms A MacLean, seconded by Ms M Smith, moved the recommendation to approve.

Mrs M Paterson moved as an amendment that the application be refused, there being no seconder the amendment fell.

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

6.2 Applicant: Mr Roderick Wiseman (17/03690/PIP) (PLN/068/17)
Location: Land 100M SW of 31 Mellon Charles, Aultbea. (Ward 5)
Nature of Development: Erection of House.
Recommendation: Refuse. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/068/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:

• It was confirmed that no objections to the proposed development had been received from the dwelling house, The Old Drying Green;
• It was acknowledged that some properties located within the area had not been included within the plans; however, officers had looked at the application site on the ground in their assessment of the application and were of the view that; whilst permission for other housing had been granted within the area, the proposed development’s proximity to the existing dwelling house made it a discordant feature within the existing settlement pattern.

During discussion, comments included the following:

• Planning permission had already been granted for another building beside The Old Drying Green;
• The site of the proposed development was not considered to be in close proximity to The Old Drying Green;
• It was considered that the proposed house would accord well with the existing settlement pattern within the Mellon Charles Township;
• Just beyond  the Mellon Charles Township, there were a number of properties within close proximity of each other;
• The Council should be trying to encourage people to move into small rural crofting areas; and
• The Old Drying Green could also be considered to be highly visible in the landscape and therefore the proposed development was considered acceptable in this context.

It was commented by several Members that no objections had been received in relation to the proposed development.  In response, the Clerk reminded the Committee that the lack of any objections to a planning application was of itself not a material consideration in Members determination and that it was for Members to determine the application on its planning merits.

In response to further questions raised during discussion, Members were informed that:

• The application had been assessed against the same Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) as the previously refused application and it was considered that there had been no change in the surrounding area that would alter the assessment of the application against the HwLDP;
• The self-contained living unit beside The Old Drying Green had been granted  on the basis that it’s appearance would be similar to that of an out building and would be visually related to the existing dwelling house; and
• Whilst the application had previously been before the Planning Review Body as a Notice of Review, it was clarified that the local Members, under the procedures of the Review Body, were not eligible to participate in determination of the Notice of Review.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr D MacLeod, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the application be approved for the following reasons:

• The site was not considered to be in close proximity to the existing dwelling house, The Old Drying Green; and
• It was considered that the proposed house would accord well with the existing settlement pattern,

Therefore the application was not considered to be contrary to Policies 28, 29, 34, 57 and 61 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as referred to in the report of handling.

Ms M Smith, seconded by Ms A MacLean moved as an amendment that the application be refused in line with policy.

On a vote being taken, 10 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 3 in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions, as follows:

For the motion (10)

Mrs I Campbell, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr D MacKay, Mr C MacLeod, Mr D MacLeod, Mrs M Paterson, Mr K Rosie and Mr A Sinclair.

For the amendment (3)

Ms K Currie, Ms M Smith and Ms A MacLean.

The Committee agreed to GRANT subject to conditions to be agreed by the Chair for the reason stated above.

6.3 Applicant: Pat Munro (Alness) Ltd (17/04351/FUL and 17/04352/S42) (PLN/069/17)
Location: Dornoch Bridge Quarry, Cyderhall, Dornoch. (Ward 4)
Nature of Development: Extension of quarry.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/069/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein and the prior conclusion of a s75 obligation, including a financial bond.  The Planning Officer advised of amendments to conditions 2 and 13 of the Report.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• The financial bond could be reviewed over time, depending on the level of works required at any particular phase the development, and would be written into the agreement with the developer;
• The developer had recognised that the running of the existing quarry operation had not be to the standards and requirements expected and had provided an indication that it was seeking to address this in terms of the restoration and reinstatement of the whole site; and
• The inclusion of a financial bond was recommended as a precaution in the event that the developer was to go out of business in order to allow for restoration and reinstatement of the site.

During discussion, the advice and comments provided by Scottish Natural Heritage in its response to proposed development were welcomed.

The Committee agreed to GRANT subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a s75 obligation, including a financial bond, amended as follows:-

Amended Condition 2:

Prior to the commencement of any development within Phase 5, as identified on Approved Drawing No. 7976-PAC-007 of the Environmental Statement (September 2017), the developer shall have provided for the approval in writing of the Planning Authority a comprehensive restoration plan and a 5 year aftercare scheme for the site.  Thereafter, updated restoration plan(s) and aftercare scheme(s), which reflect progress of development shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Planning Authority, and at least three months prior to the commencement of operations within each subsequent phase (6, 7, 8, 9).  The restoration plan(s) and aftercare scheme(s) shall be consistent with the Restoration Phases Plan (Approved Drawing No. 7979-PAC-013 of the Environmental Statement (September 2017)) and shall include the following details:

• Existing and proposed ground restoration levels and cross sections informed by an up to date topographical survey of the site;
• Quantification of volumes of restoration materials, as to be informed by a site soils survey, detailing quality and depth;
• Planting and seeding specifications to return the site to productive agricultural use;
• Field drainage arrangements during both operational phases and following restoration;
• Maintenance and aftercare provisions;
• Timescales for the works; and
• Removal of all plant and equipment from the site

The development shall thereafter be carried out by the developer in accordance with the agreed details to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.  For the avoidance of doubt, no material other than sand and gravel shall be exported from the site.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration and after-use of the site.

Amended Condition 13:

Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the rate of materials extracted from the quarry in any year shall not exceed 85,000 tonnes or such other volume as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.  From the commencement of operations, the site operator shall maintain summary records of the monthly product sales and shall make them available to the Planning Authority at any time upon request.  All records shall be kept for at least ten years.  For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no working below the water table.

Reason: In the interests of amenity, and in order to protect the stability of groundwater hydrology and geology.

6.4 Applicant:  Mr Rob Parkes (17/04049/FUL) (PLN/070/17)
Location: Blaven, 3 Esther Place, Tain, IV19 1HN. (Ward 7)
Nature of Development: Alterations to existing house, erection of extension, formation of parking area and erection of fence (in retrospect). Erection of shed.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/070/17 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application.

Before any presentation of the report and recommendation took place, the Area Planning Manager drew attention to an article within the Ross-shire Journal which had erroneously suggested that the application was being recommended for approval and made reference to there being three objections to the application.  The Planning Manger confirmed that the recommendation in the report was to refuse the application and that the representations which had been received were neutral and not objections.  He further informed Members that the Ross-shire Journal had been contacted to inform them of the errors in its article.

Planning Officers responded to Members’ comments as follows:-

• Whilst the Historic Environment Team was supportive of the principle of an extension to the building, it was not supportive of the proposed design and materials which had been used during construction;
• The timber clad rear extension had been built onto the boundary wall of the adjacent property (Dunedin, Esther Place); and
• No pre-application advice was sought by the applicant prior to the commencement of the alterations.

During discussion, comments included the following:

• Whilst the Committee had previously refused retrospective planning permission in a number properties for the installation of uPVC windows as they had been installed after the implantation of Policy 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP), there were some properties within Tain Conservation Area which had not replaced the uPVC windows despite being required to so;
• It was emphasised that it was only acceptable for properties which had installed uPVC windows prior to the implementation of Policy 57 of the HwLDP to retain these;
• Approval of the application could set a precedent in other areas of conservation;
• The civic pride felt by communities in the upkeep of older buildings in conservation areas was emphasised;
• Whilst acknowledging the cost of maintaining older properties in conservation areas, there was an expectation that individuals purchasing older types of buildings were seeking to maintain them for future generations and the work undertaken on the extension and the rear garden was considered to do nothing to enhance the existing building;
• Whilst acknowledging the potential cost to the applicant of redacting the work already undertaken, there was no justification for the applicant undertaking the alterations without seeking prior advice from the Council;
• Sympathy was expressed with the applicant as there varying styles of windows in conservation areas;
• It was highlighted that the applicant had undertaken works to the front elevation of the property which had transformed it from its former state of neglect and restored it sympathetically to a high standard.

The Area Planning Manager responded to Members’ comments as follows:-

• Whilst the applicant in their statement of case had made reference to various construction methods approved by Scottish Natural Heritage on other properties, this was not considered relevant as the application had to be determined on its own merits;
• Whilst there were a number of properties within the conservation area which had uPVC windows, it was emphasised that the majority of these were installed at a time when planning permission was not required for the installation of windows in a house in a conservation area;
• A review of Tain Conservation area was currently being undertaken and there would be an opportunity for Members to discuss it at the Ross and Cromarty Committee in due course;
• Whilst the principle of an out building and workshop were considered suitable functions, the appropriateness of the work already undertaken was of concern;
• Should the application be refused, the planning authority would commence negotiations with the applicant to secure the replacement of the windows and an amended design to the extension to something more in keeping with the surrounding conservation area.  Should negotiations be unsuccessful, enforcement action would be the next required step; and
• The applicant could be afforded the opportunity to work with the Council to produce a revised application with the assistance of the Council’s planning and conservation teams.

Mr A Rhind, seconded by Mr D MacKay, moved that the application be deferred for the following reason:

To allow further discussion with the applicant to see if a way forward could be found with regard to the issues which had been raised by the planning authority.

Ms Maxine Smith, seconded by Mrs A MacLean moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the reasons given in the report.

On a vote being taken, 6 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 7 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (6)

Mrs B Campbell, Mr M Finlayson, Mr D MacKay, Mrs M Paterson, Mr A Rhind and Mr A Sinclair.

For the amendment (7)

Mr R Bremner, Ms K Currie, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mrs A MacLean, Mr K Rosie and Ms M Smith.

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

7.      Decision on Application to the Scottish Government Directorate for Energy and Climate Change
Co-dhùnadh mu Iarrtas do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Lùth agus Atharrachadh Aimsir

7.1 Applicant: Braemore Wind Limited (10/05102/S36)
Location: Braemore Wood, Lairg. (Ward 1)
Nature of Development: Erection of 18 wind turbines (amended from twenty-seven) and associated ancillary infrastructure - Braemore Wind Farm

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Scottish Ministers to approve the application for consent made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and grant deemed planning permission subject to the conditions contained in Annex 2 of the Decision Notice.  

8.      Dates of Meetings 2018
Cinn-latha Choinneamhan ann an 2018

The Committee NOTED the dates for 2018, as agreed at The Highland Council on 7 September 2017.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 1.50 pm