Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 12 December 2017 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Boyd
Ms C Caddick
Mr G Cruickshank
Mrs M Davidson (excluding items 6.8-6.11 and 7-10.1)
Mr L Fraser (excluding items 6.9-6.11 and 7-10.1)
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley
Mr T Heggie (excluding items 6.6-6.11 and 7-10.1)
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird (excluding items 6.6-10.1)
Mr B Lobban (excluding item 6.12)
Mr R MacWilliam
Mr N McLean (excluding items 6.1, 6.6-6.11 and 7-10.1)
Mr B Thompson (by video-conference and excluding items 6.7-6.11 and 7-10.1)

Non Committee Members Present:

Mrs T Robertson (excluding items 6.3-10.1)
Mr D MacPherson (excluding items 3-5.5, 6.3-6.4, 6.11 and 7.1-10.1)

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer, Development Management
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Acting Principal Planner
Mrs S Hadfield, Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
Ms Z Skinner, Environmental Health Officer
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Miss C McArthur, Solicitor (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

There were no apologies for absence. 

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 6.1 – Mr N McLean (financial)
Item 6.10 – Mr R Laird (financial)
Item 6.11 – Mr R Laird (financial)
Item 6.12 – Mr B Lobban (non-financial)

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 24 October 2017 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/060/17 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.

During discussion, it was requested that a site visit be arranged prior to the 30 January 2018 Committee meeting for the application for the alloy wheel manufacturing facility in Fort William (application reference 17/05202/FUL)  in anticipation of the application being determined at that meeting.

The Committee NOTED the current position and AGREED that a site visit be held on 26 January 2018 in relation to application reference 17/05202/FUL.

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

5.1
Description: Mixed development: private housing, affordable housing, commercial/business premises and playing field. (17/04895/PAN) (PLS/061/17)
Ward: 11 – Caol and Mallaig
Applicant: R.E. Campbell (Joinery) Ltd
Site Address: Land 55M NW of Courdale, Station Road, Spean Bridge

There had been circulated Report No PLS/061/17 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: Refurbishment of existing school and extension. (17/05281/PAN) (PLS/062/17)
Ward: 14 – Inverness Central
Applicant: The Highland Council
Site Address: Merkinch Primary School, Telford Road, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No PLS/062/17 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 design should be in keeping with the residential properties surrounding the development and take into account the age and type of these properties.
• There should be sufficient play space retained for residential amenity.
• The potential impact on Carse Road and consideration of traffic calming measures.
• Appropriate construction handling to minimise disruption, given that the school would continue to be open, including noise management and the avoidance of spill out of construction works into residential areas of Merkinch.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.3
Description: Holiday let, leisure and hospitality facilities, 14 holiday lodges, service building, new restaurant and landscaping. (17/03566/PAN) (PLS/063/17)
Ward: 19 – Inverness South
Applicant: Inverness Paving
Site Address: Land at Treetop Stables, Feabuie, Culloden Moor, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/063/17 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.

During discussion, concern was expressed regarding the proposed development given the previous disregard to the planning process at this site and that it was understood that works were currently being undertaken at this site.  It was requested that the planning enforcement team visit the site to confirm whether any works were being carried out and whether they were related to this proposal, and if so, liaise with the local members as to the appropriate enforcement measures

Thereafter, the Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and highlighted the following material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-

• The potential impact on traffic given the concerns with the junction at the site and the B9006 road.
• Confirmation that the details of the recent traffic surveys undertaken would be available in full rather than a synopsis.
• Confirmation as to whether the site was within the Culloden Battlefield preservation area.
• Whether the recent tree clearing was permitted.
• Impact to the access to the site.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.4
Description: Residential development. (17/04393/PAN) (PLS/064/17)
Ward: 17 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: Springfield Properties Plc
Site Address: Land to South of Nairn Road, Ardersier.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/064/17 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.

During discussion, Members indicated that a site visit might be requested when the planning application was submitted

The Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and highlighted the following material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-

• Impact on the existing settlement.
• Potential flooding impact given the issues with the north east and south east corners of the adjacent field.
• Potential impact on the access given the traffic calming measures placed on the Nairn road.
• Consideration about having two road entrances to the site, one for ingress and one for egress.
• Provision of safe routes required to the school.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.5
Description: Residential development and associated infrastructure. (17/05018/PAN) (PLS/065/17)
Ward: 12 – Aird and Loch Ness
Applicant: Springfield Properties PLC
Site Address: Land at Drum Farm, South of Fire Station, Drumnadrochit.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/065/17 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:-

• Assurance that the application, when it comes forward, will be kept in line with the local development plan.
• Assurance that the development will be phased rather than continuous in line with the local development plan.
• Assurance that the commercial element of the site will be provided alongside the residential element.
• Provision of a safe crossing on the A82 to the school and shops.
• Opportunity to reconfigure the shared surface area at the entrance to Kilmore Road.
• Provision of an entrance at the back of the site for the community owned housing for people with learning difficulties.
• Sufficient parking provision allocated per house including auxiliary off street parking areas for visitors.
• Sufficient sewage treatment capacity.
• Potential impact of flooding from the river on the residential houses.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Mr Niall McLean (17/04702/LBC) (PLS/066/17)
Location: Achara House, Duror, Appin, Lochaber, PA38 4BW. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Strip and repaint external walls with mineral-based paint, changing colour from light ochre to off-white.
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of interest – Mr N McLean, as the applicant, declared a financial interest in this item and left the chamber for the duration of the item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/066/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

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

6.2
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd and Tulloch Homes / Burt Boulton Holdings Ltd (17/02007/FUL, 17/02008/FUL and 17/02009/FUL) (PLS/067/17)
Location: Land between Dores Road and River Ness to South of Holm Mill. (Ward 15)
Nature of Development:
17/02007/FUL - Residential Development of 446 new houses and flats, including associated infrastructure and landscaping works;
17/02008/FUL - Residential Development of 216 new houses and flats, including associated infrastructure and landscaping works; and
17/02009/FUL - Residential Development of 105 new houses and flats, including associated infrastructure and landscaping works.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/067/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Subject to details being provided on finished floor levels of properties in the area west of the Inverness West Link and details of the drainage network throughout the site, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had no outstanding objections.
• SEPA’s monitoring station on the River Ness would not be adversely impacted by the proposed development.  However, a condition had been included within the recommendation requiring the developer to ensure that access to the monitoring station remained free from obstruction at all times during the construction period.
• There were a number of travel routes for driver access into Area C (Application 17/02009/FUL) and these were highlighted within the plans contained within the report.
• The application included provision for 20 x 1-bedroom flats across the whole development.
• A scheme for traffic calming on Dores Road would be required to be agreed prior to the commencement of development.  However, it was not proposed that this would involve the use of traffic lights.
• With the exception of buses and service vehicles, no other vehicles would be permitted access into the site from Dores Road at Inverness Pre-Cast and the access at Mill Lade Roundabout.
• Whilst the Council would take ownership of the large green spaces within the development (alongside the River Ness, running through the centre of the development and the playing field area), the remainder of the open spaces within the development would be owned by the residents and would be subject to a factoring agreement between the residents and a factor.
• The recommendation included a condition requiring a residents association to be formed to take over the maintenance arrangements.
• Whilst it was proposed that the boardwalk could be constructed from timber, the final proposed materials to be used would require to be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and could take into consideration any concerns regarding maintenance requirements.
• There were no areas within Inverness considered as prime agricultural land and in general this was taken into consideration when allocating sites for development.
• It was considered that sufficient provision for car parking had been included within the proposed development and could be delivered in accordance with the standards as set out in the Council’s Roads and Transportation Guidelines.
• The inclusion of lifts within the flatted properties was a requirement of building standards.
• The proposals included a mix of landscaping to allow for wildlife to travel through the site.
• In addition to the retention of existing tracks beside the riverside, it was proposed that further paths and enhancements to the riverside area could be undertaken both by the developer and the Council as part of the West Link project.
• The Flood Risk Management Team had removed their objection as the original proposal to use bio-retention basins for management of surface water had been replaced by proposals for swales, detention basins and filter trenches.
• The proposed development included a mix in the density of affordable housing throughout the site.
• The proposal for active frontages to the West Link was to ensure that back gardens were not adjacent to the road and that front doors opened onto greenspaces.
• A subsidised bus service currently operated within the area and discussions were at an early stage regarding developer contributions towards a subsidised bus route to service the proposed development.
• Figures in relation to provision of education had been produced by Education Services using the Pupil Product Ratio and had been increased from 0.25 to 0.30 in recognition of younger families seeking to move in to the proposed development.
• Buildings had been consented for within the proposed development that could be used for community use, such as a GP surgery.
• The proposed new Church was subject to a separate application by the Church of Scotland and was currently under consideration.
• There could be an opportunity for further community facilities within the proposed new primary school at Ness Castle.
• Whilst the kick pitches were not full sized sports pitches, they could accommodate 7-a side.  It was also highlighted that were a number of full size pitches in relative close proximity to the site at the canal parks and also at Inverness Royal Academy.
• A condition requiring the formation of a community liaison group could be included within the recommendation.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Whilst Holm Community Council was currently in abeyance and therefore unable to make representations, it was highlighted that the neighbouring Lochardil and Drummond Community Council had provided comments regarding the potential impact on traffic arising from the proposed development.
• The proposed development included an improved mix of housing types from what had originally been put forward and also proposed a higher proportion of affordable housing to what had previously been built in similar developments over previous years.
• It was highlighted that the proposed development was on the opposite side of the distributor road from the new primary school at Ness Castle.
• The importance of developing a community liaison group during the construction phase was emphasised.
• Whilst there was a lack of a community centre within the site, there was potential for community facilities to be provided within the proposed new church.
• The increase in population could make bus routes more viable within the area and it was emphasised that there should be some dialogue with the bus companies to ensure that people’s transport requirements were taken into consideration.
• The proposed development could provide an opportunity for people to live in a desirable part of town with greenspace and with close links to sports and outdoor facilities.
• There could be an opportunity in the future to provide a safe off-road cycle route for people in the area to travel into the city centre and for a safe route to the new school at Ness Castle.
• The increase in developer contributions towards the provision of education in Inverness was welcomed.
• Whilst concern over the height of some of the buildings close to the West Link road had previously been expressed, this would only be in relation to a small number of properties.
• The importance of establishing an agreement that clearly identified who was responsible for factoring arrangements and for the community to be consulted on this was emphasised.
• The benefit of having a community-led development brief with emphasis on community engagement was emphasised.
• The proposed development could help to address a housing shortage in Inverness.
• It was requested that a physical control such as a camera or barrier be used for the bus link into the site in order to deter drivers using the link as a shortcut.
• It was emphasised that the proposed development should take into consideration the evolution of the community and reflect any changes in requirements as residents moved in.
• The proposed development reflected the differing requirements of people and provided an opportunity to provide housing for people in Inverness.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report together with a further condition requiring the formation of a community liaison group and the prior conclusion of a s.75 agreement to secure the developer contributions as set out at 8.67 of the report.

6.3
Applicant: Tarmac Caledonian Limited (17/02898/FUL) (PLS/068/17)
Location: Dunain Mains Quarry, Inverness. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Extension to Dunain Mains Sand and Gravel Quarry including relocation of site office and weighbridge.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/068/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a s.75 agreement.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a legal agreement to secure the matters detailed at paragraphs 8.26 – 8.28 of the report.

6.4
Applicant: Tarmac Caledonian Limited (17/02899/S42) (PLS/069/17)
Location: Dunain Mains Quarry, Inverness. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Section 42 Application for Non-Compliance with Condition 1 of Planning Permission Ref No 01/00796/FULIN.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/069/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a legal agreement to secure the matters detailed at paragraph 8.10 of the report.

6.5
Applicant: Mr Richard Keeves and Laura Main (17/04558/FUL) (PLS/070/17)
Location: Dunedin, Ballifeary Lane, Inverness. (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Change of use from house to House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO).
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/070/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• There was a clear distinction between the aspects of a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) which fall within the planning remit and what was to be considered by the licensing authority.  Licensing considered the suitability of the accommodation for the use as an HMO taking into account the internal layout and fittings whereas planning considerations should take into account the potential impacts of the use of the property as an HMO on the wider community.
• There were currently no other HMOs located within the census output area.
• An application for an HMO licence for the building could not be made until the required planning consent for HMO use had been granted.
• The building was located outwith Inverness City Centre and was in accordance with the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.
• Any application for an HMO licence would be dealt with by delegated powers unless there was an objection or adverse representation, in which case it would be submitted to the Licensing Committee.

In response to a number of questions regarding anti-social behaviour, it was confirmed that this was not a material consideration on which a planning application could be refused.  It was emphasised that HMOs covered a multitude of different types of residential properties and it was considered that there was no reason to believe that the occupants of an HMO could be any more anti-social than the occupant of a single house.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The proposed occupancy rate of between 7-13 people within the development was of considerably higher density in comparison with existing housing within the surrounding neighbouring area.
• Whilst parking provision was proposed within the site, the proposed development could create additional traffic at a junction which already had a number of road safety issues in relation to on street parking and poor visibility.
• There were a number of outstanding issues which had been raised locally regarding water pressure and drainage within the street.
• The importance of providing a mixture of homes within Inverness was emphasised.
• Whilst a number of concerns which had been raised locally with regard to anti-social behaviour were acknowledged, it was emphasised that these issues were not a material consideration for planning and that these could be dealt with by enforcement under the licensing regime (should a licence be granted) at the appropriate time.

In response to comments made regarding concerns raised locally as to the standard of accommodation within the building and the potential for anti-social behaviour arising from a lack of shared space for socialising within the property, the Clerk confirmed that maintenance of the interior of the building would be a matter for licensing and that, notwithstanding the sharing of some facilities within the building, the provision of areas for socialising within an HMO was not an expectation given the property would contain separate households, albeit living within the same building.

In response to concern regarding parking and access, it was confirmed that the Council’s and Scottish Government guidelines did not specify the number of car parking spaces required for HMO developments.  However, based on the Council’s housing guidelines which required two car parking spaces for up to four bedroomed properties and three car parking spaces for five or more bedrooms, it was considered that the seven car parking spaces proposed was appropriate for a development of this type and size.

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

6.12
Applicant: Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd (17/03214/FUL) (PLS/077/17)
Location: Site 310M South of Managers House, North Ballachulish, Onich. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Alterations to reposition 3 pen groups, add 4 pens to create 16 x 24m pens.
Recommendation: Grant

In accordance with Standing Order 18, the Committee AGREED that this item be taken at this point of the meeting.

Declarations of interest:

Mr B Lobban, as a Commissioner of the Northern Lighthouse Board, declared a non-financial interest in this item and left the chamber for the duration of the item.

Mr A Baxter advised that he was a member of the National Trust for Scotland which had objected to the application.  However, Mr Baxter 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/077/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Dr S Turnbull presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The impact of the proposed development on the River Coe and other rivers within swimming distance for salmon and trout was taken into consideration during assessment of the application.
• The degree of change to the sea lice burden approximated from the proposed development in comparison to the existing site was not considered significant enough to support an objection.
• Whilst the applicant could be responsible for undertaking the monitoring under the Environment Management Plan (EMP), the Planning Authority would seek to ensure that any relevant parties, such as the district salmon fishery board, could be involved in the preparation of the EMP prior to its final approval.
• It was considered that there were no rivers designated for salmon or fresh water pearl muscle that could be affected by the level of change proposed.
• It was in the applicant’s interest to avoid a sea lice bloom and discussion could be held with the applicant on measures to address any rise in sea lice levels.  However, it was emphasised the effects of biomass was assessed by SEPA and was not under the Planning Authority’s control.
• The inclusion of an EMP within the recommendation could help to address the concerns raised regarding the Council’s Biodiversity Duty under the Conservation of Nature (Scotland) Act 2004.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• It was requested that in areas where the potential impact from future expansions of fish farms could extend into surrounding water catchment area or rivers outwith the application site that those community councils be notified of any fish farm applications out of curtesy.
• Whilst the scale of the proposed development did not raise any significant issues, concern was expressed that by having already issued a licence for increased biomass, SEPA had made it difficult to object to the application despite there being outstanding concerns regarding the potential impact on wild fish populations in surrounding areas.
• The concerns raised by the Fisheries Board, the Fisheries Trust and the National Trust that the presence of the fish farm had negatively impacted on wild fish populations and generated a significant increase in sea lice infestation were highlighted.
• Whilst the applicant had stated there was no data to suggest there had been an increase in sea lice infestation, they had not provided any data themselves to support their view.
• Sea lice infestation rates had exceeded the industry code of practice limits over the past two years.
• The Council had a duty not to jeopardise the conservation of bio-diversity by decisions taken as part of the planning process.
• The proposed development could potentially harm the wild salmon stock in three rivers and the sea trout population in an inland loch which was subject to strong currents and was likely to carry sea lice further afield.
• Whilst the cause of a decline in wild salmon had not been fully demonstrated, the effects of fish farming could have a long lasting effect on the tourism industry through a lack of salmon present for fishing
• There was no evidence to support the applicant’s statement that the success of the proposed development would ensure that sea lice numbers to decline on the farm site.
• Any potential financial success arising from the proposed development should be reinvested in sea lice control.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr N McLean, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:

• The increase in bio-mass, taking into consideration existing and consulted aquaculture sites, would have a potentially significant adverse effect, either directly, indirectly or cumulatively on wild fish populations and therefore contrary to Policy 50 of the HwLDP
• The increase in bio-mass, in that it was potentially significantly detrimental in terms of its impact on both species and marine systems would be contrary to Policy 28 of the HwLDP.

The Chairman, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

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

Motion

Mr A Baxter
Mrs M Davidson
Ms P Hadley
Mr N McLean
Mr B Thompson

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr B Boyd
Mrs C Caddick
Mr G Cruickshank
Mr J Gray
Mr T Heggie
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R MacWilliam

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

6.6
Applicant: Mrs Catherine Brown (17/03503/FUL) (PLS/071/17)
Location: 67 Tomnahurich Street, Inverness, IV3 5DT. (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Change of use of shop to class 3(5) to Chinese hot food takeaway and alterations to door.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/071/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Transport Planning had objected to the proposed change of use due to a lack of information on car parking.
• Whilst there were car parking spaces for permit holders on Tomnahurich Street, there was no dedicated parking space for users of the proposed takeaway.
• The opening hours of the proposed takeaway could be conditioned.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The dedicated parking space identified within the location plan belonged to Highland Birchwood Charity; therefore, there was no dedicated parking for users of the proposed takeaway.
• Whilst Transport Scotland had raised no objection, they were in the process of undertaking a road safety survey due to the concerns raised locally regarding pedestrian safety on Tomnahurich Street.
• Concern was expressed regarding the process for disposing of grease, smoke and noxious odours from the proposed takeaway and could be a nuisance to neighbouring properties.
• The proposed takeaway could increase traffic, parking and pedestrians with the potential for late night noise.
• Concerns regarding smells generated by the proposed takeaway could be a consideration.
• Concern was expressed regarding the safety of children crossing the road on Tomnahurich Street as the proposed opening hours of the takeaway would include during school lunch breaks.
• There was a lack of suitable parking provision outside the property for deliveries.
• Whilst there could be sufficient parking available during evenings on Tomnahurich Street and adjacent streets, concern was expressed regarding the impact the proposed takeaway could have on pedestrians during the lunch time opening hours.
• Whilst acknowledging concerns regarding road safety, this was an issue that should be emphasised to Transport Scotland in order to provide safer roads in the area and to enable better access for deliveries to businesses.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the objection from Transport Planning was in relation to a lack of information on what the likely parking demands would be in order to determine whether the operation of the proposed takeaway would result in any road safety issues in the area.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr A Jarvie, seconded by Mr B Boyd, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the applicant had provided insufficient information to demonstrate compliance with Policy 56 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and, by reason of this, had failed to demonstrate that the development had been designed for the safety and convenience of all potential users.

Mr L Fraser, seconded by Mr B Lobban, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr B Boyd
Mrs C Caddick
Mrs M Davidson
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R MacWilliam

Amendment

Mr A Baxter
Mr G Cruickshank
Mr L Fraser
Mr B Lobban
Mr B Thompson

The motion to REFUSE planning permission for the reason stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.7
Applicant: EE UK Ltd (17/03251/FUL) (PLS/072/17)
Location: Land 300m East of Compass, Whitebridge. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Installation of EE Telecommunications Apparatus.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/072/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mrs S Hadfield presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised of a correction to the distance of the application site from Compass, Whitebridge and confirmed that the location should read: Land 300m East of Compass, Whitebridge.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The application site was the applicant’s preferred location as it could provide the required communications coverage whilst minimising visual disruption to the surrounding area.
• Following an objection from the neighbouring household, the possibility of relocating the proposed within the field had been discussed with the applicant.  However, whilst the mast could be relocated, it would require an increase in the height due to ground levels, trees and other intervening structures.
• Stratherick and Foyers Community Council had not been made aware of the proposed development as it had not received the weekly list of new applicants due to a lack of up to date contact details at the time the application was submitted.
• Whilst pre-application consultation with the local community was not a requirement for small applications, the applicant had sought the views of communities in other areas where they had proposed to install similar masts and would continue to be encouraged to approach communities for their views.
• The identification of preferred locations by the applicant had gone through a consultation process with Planning to ensure that any sites in sensitive locations or special areas of designation had been filtered out and alternative sites sought in those areas deemed to be unsuitable.
• Disguising the mast as a tree could make its appearance incongruous in the context of the surrounding landscape.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• It was in the best interest of applicants to come forward and discuss proposals with local communities prior to submission of an application.
• The proposed mast was considered a significant development due to its size and scale and did not demonstrate sensitive siting in the context of the surrounding landscape.
• Whilst the difficulty in identifying suitable locations for communication masts without affecting local amenity was acknowledged, there was a need to provide masts in order to improve communications infrastructure within the Highlands.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr B Lobban, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:

• The application did not demonstrate sensitive siting due to its size and location and would be significantly detrimental in terms of residential and community amenity.  It would therefore be contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP)
• The proposed development had not been sited and designed sensitively to avoid adverse impacts on the landscape character and views and therefore contrary to Policy 46 of the HwLDP.

The Chairman, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mrs M Davidson
Mr B Lobban

Amendment

Mr A Baxter
Mr B Boyd
Mrs C Caddick
Mr G Cruickshank
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R MacWilliam

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

6.8
Applicant: The Highland Council (17/03078/FUL) (PLS/073/17)
Location: Inverness Museum and Art Gallery, Castle Wynd, Inverness. (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Refurbishment of urban environment, placement of metal fins with integrated lighting access routes, external improvements to facades and public toilets.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/073/17 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 discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed that the proposal did not represent effective use of Council funding.
• The staircase was currently a deeply uninviting place for people to use and the installation of lighting could help to encourage people to use them.
• The Council was not in a position to demolish the existing building and any proposals to improve its appearance should be considered.
• Whilst the proposed street lighting was welcomed, the proposal to add cladding was not considered to enhance the appearance of the building.
• Concern was expressed that the visualisations provided during the presentation were not an accurate reflection of how the building would actually look.

In response to Members’ comments, it was confirmed that it was not proposed to light up the building and that the cladding was intended to have a soft glow that would act as a public art installation.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr A Jarvie, seconded by Mr B Lobban, then moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed development did not make a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of the place in which it was located due to the design, prominence and colouring of the cladding. It therefore created a negative visual impact and accordingly was contrary to Policy 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

The Chairman, seconded by Mr L Fraser, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr G Cruickshank
Ms P Hadley
Mr A Jarvie
Mr B Lobban

Amendment

Mr B Boyd
Mrs C Caddick
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr R MacWilliam

The motion to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.9
Applicant: Mr J Fraser (17/02238/PIP) (PLS/074/17)
Location: Land 60m West of Millcroft, Nethy Bridge. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Erection of house, installation of septic tank and soakaway.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/074/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that an informative note could be included within the recommendation requiring the applicant to work with Scottish Water to mitigate any water supply issues in the local area, in particular water pressure, when producing designs for the proposed house.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report together with an informative to the applicant to approach Scottish Water regarding the water supply and pressure within the area.

6.10
Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc (17/03830/FUL) (PLS/075/17)
Location: Land 2910M NW of 1 Garvamore, Laggan. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Amendments to the 400kV/132kV GIS electrical substation as approved to allow for an extension of the platform and installation of voltage regulation equipment.
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of interest – Mr R Laird, as a shareholder in Scottish and Southern Energy, declared a financial interest in this item and left the chamber for the duration of the item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/075/17 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 discussion, the importance of ensuring that the proposed landscaping would be retained as a permanent feature and would not be used for commercial forestry purposes was emphasised.

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

6.11
Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc (17/04217/S42) (PLS/076/17)
Location: Land 900M NW of Asgard, Tomatin. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Application to allow extended construction working hours.
Recommendation: Grant

Declaration of interest – Mr R Laird, as a shareholder in Scottish and Southern Energy, declared a financial interest in this item and left the chamber for the duration of the item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/076/17 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 discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The proposed extension in construction hours could help to reduce the timescale required to complete the project.
• The recommendation to prohibit construction and operational traffic from using the western access to Tomatin - Coignafearn road was welcomed.
• The benefit to the local economy of allowing managed transportation of staff through the western access to the substation site was highlighted.
• The importance of providing a contact phone number to residents to allow them to call during weekends to bring to the attention of the contractor or sub-contractor any noise or traffic related issues arise was emphasised.
• The monitoring of various aspects of the development, including the operation of construction traffic, undertaken by the applicant was highlighted.
• Concern was expressed that the recommendation could be seen to be seeking approval of the application on the grounds of commercial benefit to the local economy.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report together with an informative to the applicant to provide a telephone number to residents to allow them to call at the weekends should there be any noise or traffic related issues.

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: Mr Donald Donnelly and Mr & Mrs Chris Donnelly (PPA-270-2177) (11/04288/FUL, 15/02479/FUL and 15/03547/FUL)
Location: Land at Croft 104 and 105, 70M North East of Tigh A Chladaich, Glenmallie Road, Caol, Fort William, PH33 7BA. (Ward 12)
Nature of Appeal: Amended access to three approved house plots (including amendment to condition 1 of planning permissions 11/04288/FUL, 15/02479/FUL and 15/03547/FUL).

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.

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

The Committee NOTED the following dates for 2018, as agreed at The Highland Council on 7 September 2017.  All meetings will take place in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness:-

30 January
13 March
24 April
12 June
8 August
18 September
23 October
5 December

9. Exclusion of the Public
Às-dùnadh a’Phobaill

The Committee AGREED to resolve that, under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public should be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

10. Planning Enforcement Report
Aithisg Co-èigneachadh Dealbhaidh

10.1  There had been circulated to Members only Report No PLS/078/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments.

The Committee AGREED to serve a Completion Notice and undertake subsequent direct action if required as set out at section 8 of the report.

The meeting ended at 5.00 pm