Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of the meeting of the North Planning Applications Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 23 January 2018 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Bremner (excluding Items 5.1 and 5.8), Mrs I Campbell, Ms K Currie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr D MacKay (excluding Items 5.5 and 5.8), Ms A MacLean, Mr C MacLeod (excluding Item 5.5), Mr D MacLeod (excluding Item 5.7), Mrs M Paterson, Mr A Rhind (excluding Items 5.4 – 5.8), Mr A Sinclair and Ms M Smith.

Non-Committee Member Present:

Mrs J Barclay (excluding Items 5.2 and 5.4)

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr M Harvey, Team Leader
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer (Development Management)
Mr G Sharp, Planner
Ms L Stewart, Planner
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 K Rosie. 

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.5 – Mr D MacKay (non-financial)
Item 5.8 – Mr R Bremner (two declarations – one financial and one non-financial and declared during the item) and Mr D MacKay (non-financial).

3.  Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 November 2017 which was APPROVED.

4.  Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN/001/18 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:

• a transport assessment was required in relation to the proposed mixed use development near Culcairn Farmhouse, Station Road, Evanton and it was confirmed that consultations had been undertaking with the relevant statutory consultees on the potential impacts arising from the development on the road network, including Tomich junction; and
• in relation to the proposed Coull Links golf course, it was confirmed that there were currently two outstanding objections from statutory consultees, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), which the developer was seeking to resolve and it was anticipated that if these objections could be resolved then the application could be brought to the April meeting of the Committee for determination.

The Committee NOTED the current position with these applications.

5.  Planning Applications to be Detemined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

5.1 Applicant: Mrs Marion Gilroy (17/02567/FUL) (PLN/002/18)
Location: Land 80M NE of Applecross Village Hall, Camusterrach, Applecross. (Ward 5)
Nature of Development: Erection of House.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/002/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:

• Common grazing land did not require to be de-crofted although an apportionment had to be given by Scottish Ministers;
• The alternative site suggested to the applicant for the development, was similar to this site in that it was poorer quality common grazing land;
• Supplementary Guidance on the Wider Countryside Policy advised that situations where houses were isolated in the open countryside should be avoided and the recommendation for refusal was to defend these policies;
• Officers aimed to reduce the possibilities of future conflicts by ensuring houses were not built in close proximity to halls where there could be complaints or objections in the future and planning had highlighted the hall as a possible issue;
• The principle of the house was not an issue, the issue was with the specific location and siting of the house; and
• If the application was granted the land would be taken out of crofting use and would no longer be common grazing, the applicant would then apply to either purchase or rent the land from Scottish Ministers.

During discussion, comments included the following:

• A precedent had already been set with buildings out with the normal settlement area in Applecross;
• Applecross fell within the definition of a Fragile Community as defined by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and members had to have regard to supporting communities in these fragile communities by repopulating these communities and thereby strengthening services;
• The applicants had chosen this piece of land as having the least impact in this area and they had no concerns that noise from the hall would be disruptive;
• The house would be in keeping with the development in this area;
• Policy 29 - Historic Pattern of Development and Settlement directly related to the West Coast and it became a subjective reading of the policy where houses should be sited;
• The application complies with Policy 27 in which they are not using good croft land for the development; and
• The house was acceptable in terms of siting, design, the pattern of development and the landscape character.

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

• The proposed development does not conflict with Policy 28 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan by virtue of the size, scale and setting and it is considered to demonstrate sensitive siting with regard to the countryside setting;
• The proposed development does not conflict with Policy 29 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan by virtue of the size, scale and setting in that it adds to the dispersed nature of the settlement;
• The proposed development does not conflict with Policy 36 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan in that it is acceptable in terms of its siting and is compatible with landscape character by virtue of the size, scale and setting;
• The proposed development does not conflict with Policy 61 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan by virtue of size, scale and setting in that it does reflect the landscape characteristics and special qualities of the local area; and
• Members were not convinced by the argument that the proposed development is incompatible with the existing hall given the separation distance between the hall and the proposed house.

Therefore the application was not considered to be contrary to Policies 28, 29, 36 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, 11 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 2 in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions, as follows:

For the motion (11)

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

For the amendment (2)

Ms A MacLean and Ms M Smith.

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

5.2 Applicant: Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd (17/02707/FUL) (PLN/003/18)
Location: Site 2130M East of Sconser Quarry, Sconser. (Ward 10)
Nature of Development: Marine Fish Farm - Atlantic salmon - New site consisting of 12 x 120m circumference circular cages plus installation of a feed system.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/003/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:

• The critical factor in noise issues would be the distance to the noise receptor, there would be several hundred metres to the nearest dwellinghouse so there should be no noise impact in this case;
• The potential impact of sea lice on wild stock from farmed fish is very much a material consideration for the planning authority, numbers of sea lice are currently collated by the fish farm and monitored by Marine Scotland;
• There is always an aspect of cumulative impact in any development and this area of inland water is reaching a point where it is nearing capacity;
• Passive acoustic deterrents can be used to manage seals rather than culling;
• In future completed Environmental Management Plan proposals will be submitted with an application, this application does contain a considerable amount of the EMP in relation to the treatment system to be utilised and the sea lice monitoring;
• In terms of sea lice treatment there are chemical treatments and there are also fresh water and warm water treatments which cause the sea lice to detach themselves from the fish; and
• Sites that have a strong tidal flow are viewed positively in relation to the nutrient enrichment of the site, SEPA monitor the deposition of fish waste on the sea bed taking tidal flow into consideration.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr C MacLeod, seconded by Mrs M Paterson, moved that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• The development was considered to be contrary to Policy 28 of the HwLDP on the grounds that it was judged to be significantly detrimental in terms of the following Policy 28 criteria: the development does not demonstrate sensitive siting; and
• The development was considered to have an adverse visual impact both individually and cumulatively with the existing fish farms (Maol Ban, Cairidh and Balmenach Bay) on residents and visitors to the area.

Ms M Smith, seconded by Ms A MacLean, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

On a vote being taken, 8 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 6 votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion (8)

Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr C Fraser, Mr D MacKay, Mr C MacLeod, Mr D MacLeod, Mrs M Paterson and Mr A Sinclair.

Amendment (6)

Ms K Currie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr R Gale, Ms A MacLean, Ms M Smith and Mr A Rhind.

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

5.3 Applicant: Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd (17/02976/FUL) (PLN/004/18)
Location: Fish Farm Site in Loch Duich, North of Leachachan, Letterfearn. (Ward 5)
Nature of Development: Alteration from 12 x 100m circular pens to 12 x 120m circular pens.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/004/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• The original proposal had not been considered acceptable as it did not comply with Policies 28, 50, 57, 58 and 59 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, nor did it comply with Development Criteria 3 of the Highland Council Aquaculture Planning Guidance or the Council’s Biodiversity Duty under the Conservation of Nature (Scotland) Act 2004; however, following discussion with the applicant, an amended application was submitted, taking into consideration concerns raised regarding the original proposal and the existing development;
• Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) was a technology which had been increasingly used by the applicant in its other fish farms to maintain a cleaner water environment for fish and prevent the spread of sea lice;
• Whilst two formal complaints which had been raised regarding noise were understood to be currently outstanding, no further complaints had been received in this regard;
• The National Trust for Scotland had raised an objection to the proposal due to concerns regarding biodiversity issues, in particular, the potential impact from sea lice arising from the proposed development; and
• Whilst the National Trust for Scotland had raised concerns regarding the use of medicinal treatments on fish stocks, this matter was regulated by SEPA, who had deemed the proposal acceptable, and not the Council.

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

 

5.5 Applicant: Scottish Power Renewables (UK) Ltd (17/04827/S42) (PLN/006/18)
Location: Halsary Forest, Watten, Caithness. (Ward 3)
Nature of Development: Construction of a 15 turbine wind farm (Halsary Wind Farm) without compliance with Condition 1 of the planning permission granted by Scottish Ministers on 10 May 2016 (Appeal (PPA-270-2143) in respect of planning permission 15/01857/S42) to enable an increase in maximum turbine height from 112m to 120m.
Recommendation: Grant.

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

Declaration of Interest – Mr D MacKay declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/006/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

During discussion, comments included the following:

• Concern was expressed regarding the over-provision of wind turbines on the existing site; however, Members were reminded that planning permission was already in place for the construction of a wind farm in this location;
• The recommendation that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) be submitted, and approved prior to commencement of development was welcomed;
• Whilst turbines of up to 120m would not have been considered acceptable in this location when the original planning permission had been granted, the subsequent development in more efficient wind turbine technology had made the proposal potentially acceptable;
• Conversely, concern was expressed that the height of the proposed turbines would not have been deemed acceptable when the original application had been made;
• Disappointment was expressed at the Scottish Ministers’ decision to remove the condition of planning permission in the original application for the applicant to provide compensatory planting to offset the loss of commercial forestry;
• Concern was expressed that heavy goods vehicles were avoiding the A9 trunk road and using the local road network to access the existing wind farm site;
• The Chair reminded the Committee that community benefit was not a material consideration in its determination of a planning application; however, planning gain, such as improvements to the road infrastructure, could be taken into consideration when assessing the merits of a planning application.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:

• All neighbouring community councils had been consulted on the proposed development;
• It was anticipated that wind farm operators were likely to seek permission for further increases in wind turbine output for wind farms with planning permission but not currently built and for repowering of long-standing existing wind farms;
• Scottish Government policy sought to ensure that repowering of existing wind farms could take place where possible; however, the potential to reuse the bases of existing wind turbines following decommissioning was limited depending on the size of turbine proposed;
• There had been a decline in Wind Farm Constraint Payments due to an increase in  capacity within the grid system following the introduction of alternative power streams;
• Developers and land owners were increasingly having to fund wind farm developments through their own means rather than through subsidy payments;
• The applicant had provided a commitment to deliver community benefit and it was confirmed that discussions between the applicant and community councils regarding the proposed development had taken place;
• Whilst it was emphasised that Transport Scotland was responsible for the maintenance of the A9 trunk road, concerns raised regarding the damage caused by heavy goods vehicles accessing the wind farm site on local roads would be examined;
• In acknowledging that there had been a wider issue in relation to wear and tear on trunk roads in Caithness and also the local road network, it was highlighted that there was an obligation by developers transporting heavy loads to enter into a Section 96 agreement and that this was actively pursued by the Council; and
• As the turbines proposed in the application were less than 150 metres in height there was no requirement for them to have lights installed.

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

5.8 Applicant:  Moray Offshore Wind (East) Limited (17/05856/S36) (PLN/009/18)
Location: MacColl Offshore Windfarm, Ulbster, Lybster. (Ward 3)
Nature of Development: Application to vary the consent granted for the construction and operation of three offshore wind farms and associated electricity transmission works in the Outer Moray Firth to increase power output.
Recommendation: Raise no objection.

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

Declarations of Interest

Mr D MacKay declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he considered he had pre-determined the application and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

Mr R Bremner declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that a relative was the secretary of Tannich and District Community Council which had objected to the application and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

As the owner of an Airbnb within the area, Mr Bremner also declared a financial interest in this item on the basis that the application contained a number of references to the economic benefits of tourism to the area.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/009/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee raise no objection to the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

During discussion, the inclusion of a condition within the recommendation requiring the submission of a TV and radio reception mitigation plan was welcomed.

The Committee agreed to RAISE NO OBJECTION subject to the following conditions:-

Condition 1:

No development shall commence on any Phase until the Council has been consulted, and given its considered opinion, on the design and layout options for that Phase having taken into consideration the design and layout of the neighbouring Phases and/or Beatrice wind farm.

Condition 2:

No development shall commence on any Phase until the Council has been consulted, and given its considered opinion, on the lighting requirements for the chosen design and layout options for that Phase having taken into consideration the design and layout of the neighbouring Phases and/or Beatrice wind farm.

Condition 3:

No development shall commence on any Phase until a TV and radio reception mitigation plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority.  The plan shall provide for a baseline TV reception survey to be carried out prior to the commencement of turbine installation, the results of which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority.  Within 12 months of the Final Commissioning of the development on each Phase, any claim by any individual person regarding TV picture loss or interference at their house, business premises or other building, shall be investigated by a qualified engineer appointed by the developer and the results shall be submitted to the Planning Authority.  Should any impairment to the TV signal be attributable to any development Phase, the developer shall remedy such impairment so that the standard of reception at the affected property is equivalent to the baseline TV reception.

Condition 4:

The applicant shall maximise the amount of GVA in terms of employment and associated economic activities that comes to the Highlands, as a result of the construction phase of the project.

Condition 5:

The applicant shall continue dialogue with the Highland’s renewable energy supply chain and its ports and harbours, including Wick as a potential operation and maintenance facility.

Condition 6:

The applicant shall continue to work with the relevant public and private sector bodies in the Highlands to ensure that the area achieves maximum socio-economic returns from the development.

Condition 7:

The applicant shall continue to examine the potential for a turbine manufacturer to locate in the Highlands.

Condition 8:

The applicant pursue opportunities for a visitor centre within Caithness and/or visitor interpretation facilities along the East Caithness/ Sutherland coastal route.

5.4 Applicant:  Mr Roger Mahabir (17/04807/FUL) (PLN/005/18)
Location: Triskele, 5A Upper Milovaig, Isle of Skye. (Ward 10)
Nature of Development: Erection of 3 letting units, 1 unit ancillary to house.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/005/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:-

• Whilst it was recognised that the undue loss of agricultural land should be avoided, the land of the Glendale estate was not considered as croftland and therefore, Policy 47 of the Highland-wide Development Plan (Safeguarding Inbye/Apportioned Croftland) did not apply to the proposed development;
• Reassurance was provided that the provision of a foul and surface water soakaway requiring building warrant approval prior to the commencement of development was included within the recommendation;
• The use of timber clad walls on Unit 2 had been proposed so as to both differentiate it from Unit 3 and to appear as a subsidiary structure;
• With regard to future ownership of the proposed development, it was confirmed that units 2 and 3a and 3b could only be use holiday letting in perpetuity and that any future request to change their use to residential accommodation would require the submission of a Section 42 application for approval;
• It was considered that holiday letting resulted in a less intensive use of the road network in terms of vehicle movements than the equivalent residential use;
• In highlighting a recent example of an individual using a holiday let accommodation for more than three months during the year, it was confirmed that Condition 1 was a standard recommendation for this type of accommodation; and
• Whilst concerns had been raised regarding the uncertainty as to the survival rate of trees planted as part of the prosed landscaping, the recommendation included a condition which could enable the Council a degree of control over the landscaping undertaken on site.

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

5.6 Applicant: Global Energy Nigg Ltd (17/5176/FUL) (PLN/007/18)
Location: Nigg Fabrication Yard, Nigg, Tain. (Ward 7)
Nature of Development: Extension to Assembly Shop 7 to provide new blast and paint facility, erection of compressor building and use of land for the storage of raw materials & fabricated products in connection with manufacturing for the offshore renewables sector.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/007/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments as follows:

• The applicant had been made aware that a further application for an amended design could be required in relation to the installation of flues to deal with any potential odour emissions.

During discussion, Members welcomed the proposed development and highlighted the potential creation of 300 jobs in Eater Ross which could provide a significant boost to the local economy.

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

5.7 Applicant: Mr Neil Maclean (17/05345/FUL) (PLN/008/18)
Location: Land West of Eight Acres, Smithfield, Culbokie. (Ward 9)
Nature of Development: Erection of house and formation of new access.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/008/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

During discussion, it was emphasised that the granting of planning permission would not remove the liability position of the applicant in relation to flood risk.

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

There being no further business the meeting closed at 2.55 pm