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 5 June 2018 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Bremner (by video conference) (excluding items 6.12 – 7.3), Mrs I Campbell, Ms K Currie, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr J Gordon (excluding item 6.10), Mr D MacKay (excluding items 7.1 and 7.2), Mrs A MacLean, Mr C MacLeod (excluding items 6.6 and 6.10), Mr D MacLeod (excluding items 6.1, 6.2, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.12 – 7.3), Mrs M Paterson (excluding items 6.12 – 7.3), Mr A Rhind (excluding item 6.11), Mr A Sinclair (excluding items 6.4 and 6.5) and Ms M Smith.  Mrs P Munro, substitute for Mr M Finlayson (excluding items 6.12 – 7.3).

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer (Development Management)
Ms D Stott, Principal Planner
Ms L Stewart, Planner
Mr G Sharp, Planner
Ms G Webster, Planner
Ms S Turnbull, Coastal Planning Officer
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor – Planning and Clerk
Mrs C MacIver, Committee Administrator and Elections Officer
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Also in attendance:

Mr J MacKay, SEPA
Mr C Baldwin, SEPA
Ms J Milne, SEPA
Mr D MacKay, SNH

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 M Finlayson and Mr K Rosie.

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Items 6.1 and 6.2 – Mr D MacLeod (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 17 April 2018 which were APPROVED.

4.  Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN/029/18 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 Committee NOTED the current position with these applications.

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

5.1  Description: Construct a new 132 kV substation comprising platform area, control building, associated electrical plant and infrastructure, ancillary facilities, access tracks and landscape works (18/01905/PAN) (PLN/030/18)
(Ward: 1)
Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc 
Site Address: Land 1000 m SE of Dalchork House, Lairg.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/030/18 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 Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1 Applicant: Coul Links Ltd per STRI (17/04601/FUL) (PLN/031/18)
Location: Land 1700M NW Of Embo Community Centre, School Street, Embo (Ward 4).
Nature of Development: Development of 18 hole golf course, erection of clubhouse, renovation of existing buildings for maintenance facility, pro-shop, caddy hut, workshop, administration building, information booth, formation of new private access from C1026.
Recommendation: Refuse.

Declarations of Interest – Mr D MacLeod declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he had received an unsolicited email from the RSPB and had replied indicating his views on the application and as such left the Chamber during consideration of this item. 

Mr J McGillivray declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he had indicated his views on this item prior to the meeting, and therefore did not attend the meeting. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/031/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons stated in the report.  Members were shown drone footage of the site provided by the applicant. 

The meeting thereafter paused to allow copies of the photo montages circulated at the meeting to be provided to Mr R Bremner (video conferencing from Wick). 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• new information had been received from the Not Coul Group, but SEPA required further detail in order to respond, therefore if the Committee was supportive of the application, the application would require to be deferred to a future meeting to allow SEPA to respond to this information and Members to take this response into account;
• the objection received from Not Coul was received on the closing date of the last advert period which had been 25 May 2018;
• the time limit for objections had now lapsed and there was no further opportunity for objections to be considered;
• all the original objections from SEPA had been removed following mitigation by the applicants, there only remained the objection from the Not Coul Group to be considered by SEPA;
• all the original objections from SNH had been removed except for one outstanding objection regarding the effects of the development on the sand dune interest of the Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet Ramsar Site of Special Scientific Interest. The applicant had addressed this objection with mitigation detailed in the report but SNH had advised that the mitigation was not considered to be satisfactory and would not overcome the loss of some of the best quality sand dune habitat which Scotland has;
• the Environmental Statement set out a recommended programme of maintenance and coastal monitoring in this area, coastal erosion would be managed through the Coastal Management Plan; and
• there was no evidence to support the public comment stating that this was the last untouched sand dune habitat in the United Kingdom of its type, it may be one of the last but it was not the last.

Mr D MacKay from SNH responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• there were no birdwatching hides on the Coul links site;
• school groups did visit the North of Golspie but as far as he was aware they did not visit this site;
• there is some limited shooting on the land owned by Coul Farm, this would be mitigated with no further shooting permitted by the landowner;
• the forestry plantation had been planted before the area had been designated as an SSSI and had been felled some years ago, this area was now actively regenerating although there were some invasive weeds and action should be taken to control these invasive species; 
• the SSSI covered 2 dune systems and the reference to 7% referred to the percentage of the habitat over the whole Coul Links system where there would be a direct impact;
• although heather could be moved to stabilise part of the site, there was no evidence that the mosses and lichens underneath the heather could be moved;
• some mitigation would take years before the effects would be known, others, for instance the ban on shooting, could be effective immediately;
• this site is visited regularly by local people, this proposal would increase use but there was scope to improve public access and make the public more aware of what makes the site special; and
• in relation to the management of the habitat, if the application did not go ahead, SNH would go back to the landowner to encourage management of the links.

Mr J MacKay, Ms C Baldwin and Ms J Milne from SEPA responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• the objection relating to drainage had been mitigated by the applicant;
• the recent substantial body of information submitted by Not Coul had been received by SEPA yesterday and SEPA would need time to consider and appraise the submission, and the response from the applicant, before formulating a response;
• the original information from the applicant was that the development generally avoided the wetlands, the recent information received from Not Coul had suggested that the development did not avoid the wetland and time was needed for an expert to assess this; and
• if there was no development natural processes would continue to occur.

SNH and SEPA were both thanked for their attendance at this meeting, their input having been very helpful to Members.

Members’ responses included in the following:  

• there had been no objections in relation to policies 29, 31 and 43, in relation to policy 49 mitigation had been provided by the applicant, this left policy 57 and it was felt that this development did not represent a significant detriment on the SSSI;
• in relation to policy 28 this development was considered to enhance the area and improve the sustainability of the local area; 
• faced with retaining the status quo with a gradual decline in the area or improving the area, the view was expressed that the development would improve, protect and maintain the area between the footpath and the beach;
• the development would not constitute a significant impact on the SSSI and would enhance the local area;
• the natural environment was spectacular but without intervention the coast line would become eroded, in the winter the area was a wetland;
• land was being used on the periphery of this area but this mid portion of land was not at present being used;
• people were not queuing up to maintain these areas and this development would fit nicely within the coastline and would maintain the area; and
• a site visit was discounted as given the number of objectors that would require to be invited, there could be a severe detrimental effect and possible damage to the dune area.

The Committee AGREED to DEFER the application to a future special meeting of the Committee to allow SEPA to respond to the Not Coul objection.

6.2  Applicant: Coul Links Ltd per STRI (17/04404/FUL) (PLN/032/18)
Location: Land 860 m South of Coull Farmhouse, Skelbo, Dornoch (Ward 4).
Nature of Development: Drilling of two boreholes and construction of water storage reservoir (maximum capacity 20000 cu m) for irrigation of (future) golf course.
Recommendation: Grant. 

Declaration of Interest – Mr D MacLeod declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that he had received an unsolicited email from the RSPB and had replied indicating his views on the application and as such left the Chamber during consideration of this item. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/032/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

As the previous item had been deferred Members AGREED to DEFER the application to a future special meeting of the Committee to allow SEPA to respond to the Not Coul objection.       

6.3  Applicant: GEG Capital (North) Ltd (17/02231/FUL and 17/02234/LBC) (PLN/033/18)
Location: The Hostel, Earls Cross Road, Dornoch (Ward 4).
Nature of Development: (17/02231/FUL) Conversion and alteration to form 9 apartments, demolition of existing flat roofed extension, erection of 4 terraced houses and road improvements; and (17/02234/LBC)  Conversion to 9 apartments, alterations to building and demolition of extension, external fire stair and rear storage compound, erection of 4 terraced houses and road improvements.
Recommendation: Grant planning permission and listed building consent. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/033/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application and listed building consent subject to the respective conditions detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer and Senior Roads Engineer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

•  the road named as Earls Cross Gardens had been built to a modern standard and was approved for adoption but the developer had not put it forward for adoption, the majority of residents on the street wanted the road to stay private and as such it was their responsibility for maintenance;
• the development could therefore not be serviced as Earl’s Cross Gardens would require to be adopted, Community Services will not adopt remote roads at the end of an un-adopted road;
• for the safe operation of the refuge area the hedge on Earls Cross Road would have to be removed, cutting the hedge would not be sufficient;
• it was the responsibility of the landowner to cut or remove the hedge, the Council had no authority to cut the hedge; and
• Earls Cross Road, although adopted, is a more vulnerable road which would be unsuitable for construction traffic.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent subject to the conclusion of a section 75 agreement securing (i) delivery of a commuted sum for affordable housing and (ii) delivery of a sum for community facilities, and the conditions contained in the report.

At this point in the meeting, the Committee broke for lunch.

6.4  Applicant: GEG Capital (North) Ltd (17/02236/FUL and 17/02239/LBC) (PLN/034/18)
Location:  Earl’s Cross Cottage, Earl’s Cross Road, Dornoch (Ward 4).
Nature of Development: (17/02236/FUL|) Demolition of former cottage and erection of 12 detached houses, formation of new access road and remote paths and improvements  (17/02239/LBC)  Demolition of former cottage.
Recommendation: Grant planning permission and listed building consent.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/034/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application and listed building consent subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• there was no affordable housing in this development, the applicant had agreed a commuted sum to be paid to the Council Housing department; and
• the developer had agreed to provide a developer contribution for community facilities.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent subject the conclusion of a section 75 agreement securing (i) delivery of a commuted sum for affordable housing and (ii) delivery of a sum for community facilities, and to the conditions detailed in the report.

6.5  Applicant: Mr A Taggart (17/02848/FUL) (PLN/035/18)
Location: Land 25 m NW of Tiriodh, Torvaig, Portree (Ward 10).
Nature of Development: Erection of House and installation of septic tank and soakaway.
Recommendation: Refuse. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/035/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons stated in the report. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• this proposal was being opposed due to the orientation of the property and the levels of the land, the property would be overlooked by the existing property;
• the majority of houses in the area were traditional houses all facing the same direction;
• outline planning permission had not been granted for this house, a decision on the application had been held up as a visit to the application site indicated the septic tank would be situated 10 feet above the house; and
• planning officers had been proactive and had tried to assist the applicant in putting forward a house that would be acceptable.

Members’ responses included in the following:  

• it was not in the applicant’s gift to build elsewhere in this area, this was a lady wishing to return to the area where very little affordable housing was available;
• the assessment of the impacts due to the proximity of the proposed house to the existing house is subjective, there are houses on the same road and in other areas of Skye, with the same proximity to another house;
• this is a quiet road and the house would have minimal impact, the three properties further up the road are holiday cottages with a similar pattern of development; and
• this style was typical of a clachan development.

Mr C MacLeod, seconded by Mr D MacLeod, moved that the application be approved for the following reason:

The proposed development is not considered to be contrary to Policies 28, 29 and 36 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan in that its position to the rear at ninety degrees and below Tiriodh (i) demonstrates acceptable siting and is not considered to have a significant and detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the property Tiriodh; (ii) achieves an acceptable level of residential amenity for the proposed house and its domestic curtilage; and (iii) makes a positive contribution to the visual quality of the area.

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

On a vote being taken, 11 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 3 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (11)

Mr R Bremner, Mrs B Campbell, Ms K Currie, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr J Gordon, Mr D MacKay, Mr C MacLeod, Mr D MacLeod, Ms P Munro and Mrs M Paterson.

For the amendment (3)

Mrs A MacLean, Mr A Rhind and Ms M Smith,

The Committee therefore agreed to GRANT subject to conditions to be agreed with the Chair and local members for the reason given.

6.6  Applicant: Lochcarron Properties Ltd (17/03808/MSC) (PLN/036/18)
Location: Land NE of Keilburn Crescent, Lochcarron (Ward 5).
Nature of Development: Erection of 6 houses.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/036/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

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

6.7  Applicant: Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd (17/04919/FUL) (PLN/037/18)
Location: Dounreay Nuclear Research Establishment, Dounreay, Thurso (Ward 2).
Nature of Development: Dounreay Phase 3 (2018 – Interim End State) comprising of the construction of a transit flask facility, shaft and silo waste retrieval facilities, a low level waste pits retrieval temporary building and a facility to repackage waste, demolition of all redundant buildings, land remediation, landscaping, dismantling of 3 nuclear reactors and continuation of ancillary infrastructure decommissioning works.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/037/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer advised that following discussion with SEPA, some of the conditions should be tightened in relation to the phasing of landscaping and reuse of the site. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that these wastes were called “exotics” and had to be returned to their point of origin, although in this case the waste would go to Sellafield and although we were not informed of every transfer the Council would be informed when it was happening.

The Committee agreed to GRANT subject to the conditions in the report and delegated authority given to the Team Leader to amend those conditions relating to restoration and landscaping/aftercare in consultation with SEPA.

6.8  Applicant: Sangster Electrical Ltd (17/05309/PIP) (PLN/038/18)
Location: Land 165 m NE of Hilton of Cadboll Primary School, Hilton of Cadboll (Ward 7).
Nature of Development: Housing Development of 32 houses (indicative) (in phases) and associated infrastructure works;  form new access from public road and construct school parking area.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/038/18 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:

• Education had been consulted and there was sufficient capacity at the school for this development as the development would be phased over a long period of time;
• the developer had agreed to delineate the playground for cycle training as a developer contribution; and
• although it was understood Councillors wanted to encourage walking to school and reduce the need for parking space, it was still a transport issue and parking for the school had to be provided.

Members’ had concerns that a developer contribution towards education provision had not been requested by the Care and Learning Service given the current condition of the school. 

The Committee agreed to GRANT subject to a section 75 agreement and the conditions contained in the report.

6.9  Applicant: Ms Maggie Williams (18/00606/S42) (PLN/039/18)
Location: Creagan Ban, 4 Ellishadder, Culnacnock, Portree (Ward 10).
Nature of Development: Application under Section 42 for the removal of Condition 1 for the temporary use of the building from planning permission 15/00113/FUL.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/039/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

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

6.10 Applicant: GlenWyvis Community Benefit Society (18/00749/S42) (PLN/040/18)
Location: GlenWyvis Distillery, Scroggie Farm, Upper Dochcarty, Dingwall, IV15 9UF (Ward 8).
Nature of Development: Application under Section 42 to remove condition 1 of Planning Permission 16/00967/FUL to allow managed visitor access to the distillery and sales from the premises.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/040/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reason stated in the report. 

The Planning Officer and Senior Roads Engineer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• the work that had been completed already in terms of the access was the subject of a separate application and was still outstanding;
• if this application was approved it would only facilitate the taking of visitors to the existing premises, there would be no facilities or visitor centre as these would require a further separate application; and
• if the speed limit was to be reduced, the visibility splay at the junction would still be 20 m short of the 90 m visibility splay requirement at the junction.

Members’ responses included the following: 

• a minibus would cut down the movements to and from the distillery with signage at the bottom of the road indicating that only passengers on the minibus would be allowed access to the distillery;
• a visitor centre would help the local economy;
• the distillery had a shop window in the town in lieu of a visitor centre which was, according to the original application, to be in the town;
• there had been several near misses on this road and it was not suitable for the increased traffic this development would produce; and
• the distillery had not been designed for a visitor centre and if visitors were allowed it would open the floodgates to people visiting the distillery.

Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mrs B Campbell, moved that the application be approved for the following reason:

This proposal allows public access to be regulated and therefore would not compromise vehicular and pedestrian safety.  The use of an electric powered vehicle to accommodate 10–15 people would greatly reduce the number of vehicles on the road.  By only allowing potential customers to access the site that would manage traffic and optimise road safety, therefore the application accords with the HwLDP and policies 28 and 56.

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

On a vote being taken, 3 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 7 in favour of the amendment, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

For the motion (3)

Mrs B Campbell, Mr D MacKay and Mrs M Paterson.

For the amendment (7)

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

Abstentions (3)

Mr R Gale, Mr D MacLeod and Mrs P Munro.

The Committee therefore agreed to REFUSE for the reason stated in the Report.

6.11  Applicant: Mr Andy Harrold (18/01039/PIP) (PLN/041/18)
Location: Land 65 m North of Meadowbank, Janetstown, Wick (Ward 3).
Nature of Development: Erection of house and formation of access.
Recommendation: Refuse.  

There had been circulated Report No PLN/041/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reason stated in the report. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• the landowner had previously approached planning and requested housing for the whole field, if this house with this access was approved it would inevitably lead to piecemeal applications for other houses on this unallocated site;
• a trawl of sites is completed before the HwLDP is put forward, people are asked to submit suggested allocations and these are looked at to see which are suitable in terms of future planning of the area, in this way developers can commit to these sites and put resources in knowing they can have an approved development on these specific pieces of land;
• if this site was approved it would establish housing in this area beyond the town boundary; 
• the CAS Plan considered this site following a request by the landowner and at the Caithness Committee this site had been deemed unsuitable, a large area to the South of the town had remained undeveloped and was to be encouraged in line with the HwLDP; 
• pre-application advice had been given to the applicant and he was discouraged from putting forward a house on this site; and
• the CAS Plan allocated more than sufficient land to satisfy the demand for housing development in Wick and this development was 50 metres from the proposed Wick SDA boundary.

The Committee agreed to REFUSE for the reason stated in the Report.

6.12  Applicant: NHS Highland per Ryan Nelson/Scott Kirby (18/01067/FUL) (PLN/042/18)
Location: Lawson Memorial Hospital, Golspie (Ward 4).
Nature of Development: Installation of 6 LPG tanks.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/042/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Area Planning Manager responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• the existing tank would not be linked as there was insufficient room beside the existing tank for the new tanks, these tanks had been positioned behind the hospital to avoid vehicle movement beside the tanks; and
• the tanks would be linked to the boiler house.

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

6.13  Applicant: Grieg Seafood Shetland Ltd (18/01106/FUL) (PLN/043/18)
Location: Gob Na Hoe Fish Farm Site, Loch Dunvegan, Isle of Skye (Ward 10).
Nature of Development: Marine Fish Farm - Atlantic Salmon - Relocate the Gob Na Hoe Fish farm site and replace 14 x 80 m circle cages with 8 x 120 m circle cages.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/043/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Coastal Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• clarity was given on the Council’s responsibility for fish farms;
• although it may be given in the Environmental report, the mortality of the fish in the cages was not a planning issue and was covered by other agencies; and
• the larger cages would include more fish and would retain jobs rather than increase jobs. 

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

6.14  Applicant: Mr Drew Sim (18/01263/FUL) (PLN/044/18)
Location: Land 16 m North West of The Pier House, Elgol, Isle of Skye (Ward 10).
Nature of Development: Siting of portable building for use as hot food takeaway and siting of LPG cylinders.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/044/18 by the Area Planning Manager recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer and Senior Roads Engineer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• clarity was given on the existing and proposed opening hours of the building as detailed in the Report;
• the nearest house would be 25 m from the portable building; 
• this was a working harbour with several similar buildings to the building proposed;
• the principle of this development had been approved as there was an existing permission for the previous building on this site, this permission was only to increase the size of the building and should be determined in that context;
• the objection from SEPA had been withdrawn following the Flood Team response;
• Environmental Health had originally objected , the applicant had then confirmed it would be a public water supply and Environmental Health had thereafter withdrawn their objection;
• advice had not been sought from the Harbours Committee but congestion issues had been addressed in the report;
• many people went to this area to view the scenery and it was unlikely that there would be any increase in traffic due to this development;
• Environmental Health would enforce any issues in relation to rubbish;
• the pressure on parking was acknowledged but in terms of a survey by Community Services, which would only consider a 10% increase in traffic already visiting this location to be significant, this development would not significantly increase traffic; and
• deliveries would be unlikely before or after the times set by condition due to the remoteness of this area.

Mr J Gordon, seconded by Mr C MacLeod, moved that the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development is considered to be contrary to policy 28 of the HwLDP on the grounds that it is incompatible with the existing public service provision, namely roads and parking, that are already congested.  The application is considered to be significantly detrimental to the criteria within policy 28.

The Area Planning Manager did not support the reason for refusal.

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

On a vote being taken, 4 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 7 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (4)

Mrs B Campbell, Mr J Gordon, Mr D MacKay, Mr C MacLeod.

For the amendment (7)

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

The Committee therefore agreed to GRANT subject to the conditions in the Report.

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

7.1  Applicant: Caplich Wind Farm Limited (15/00197/S36) (WIN 270-7)
Location: Caplich Estates, land 450 metres NW or Beinn An Eoin Bheag, Caplich, Lairg (Ward 1)
Nature of Development:  Construction and operation of Caplich Wind Farm. 

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.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Scottish Ministers to refuse the application for consent made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and to refuse planning permission for the reasons stated in the Decision Letter.

7.2 Applicant: Scottish and Southern Energy Generation Limited (07/00263/S36SU) (WIN-270-2)
Location: South of Strathy, Strathy, Sutherland (Ward 1)
Nature of Development:  Construction and operation of Strathy South Wind Farm comprising 29 wind turbines, maximum tip height of 135 metres, access tracks, temporary borrow pits, nemometer masts, control building, switching station and underground cabling. 

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 deemed planning permission under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) subject to the conditions contained in Annex 2 of the Decision Notice.

7.3 Applicant: Mr Rob Parkes (17/04049/FUL) (PPA-270-2188)
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.

The Area Planning Manager indicated his surprise at the decision as the summing up by the Reporter in this instance, and the conclusions reached, were at odds with previous appeals decisions and the planning service would be writing to the Scottish Government for clarification.    

The Committee NOTED:

1. the decision of the Scottish Ministers to allow the appeal made under Section 47 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997and to grant planning permission subject to the condition and advisory note at the end of the Decision Notice;
2. that the Area Planning Manager would write to the DPEA re the decision of the Reporter.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 6.05 pm.