Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee which commenced at 9.30 am with a site visit to application site on Land 123M SE of Rosebank, Kingsteps, Lochloy Road, Nairn (Item 6.1) and reconvened at 1.00 pm in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday 8 August 2018. 

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour 
Mr B Boyd (excluding item 6.1)
Mr G Cruickshank 
Mr L Fraser (excluding items 8.1 and 8.2)
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley 
Mr T Heggie (excluding item 7.5)
Mr A Jarvie 
Mr B Lobban (excluding items 8.1 and 8.2)
Mr R MacWilliam 
Mr B Thompson 

Non Committee Members Present:

Mr D MacPherson (items 1 – 7.5 only)
Mrs T Robertson (items 1 – 5.2 and 7.1 – 7.4 only)
Mr P Saggers (items 1 – 7.4 only)

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mrs S Macmillan, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
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 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.

Business

1.    Apologies for Absence  
Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A Baxter, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs M Davidson and Mr N McLean.

2.    Declarations of Interest  
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None.

3.    Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the Committee meeting held on 12 June 2018 which was APPROVED.

4.    Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/051/18 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 for the application for the revised pumped storage scheme at Coire Glas, North Laggan (application reference 18/01564/S36) in anticipation of the application being determined at a future meeting.

Separately, in speaking to the report, the Team Leader confirmed that application reference 18/00760/FUL on Land 325M SW of Whitebridge Cottage, Auchteraw, Fort Augustus was a national development and would subsequently be determined by full Council at a later date.

The Committee NOTED the current position and AGREED that a site visit be held in relation to application reference 18/01564/S36. 

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

5.1    
Description: Renewal of planning permission in principle application ref: 13/01689/PIP to establish a port and port related services for energy related uses, including marine channel dredging, quay realignment, repair and maintenance, erection of offices, industrial and storage buildings. delivery and export of port related cargo and associated new road access, parking, infrastructure, services, temporary stockpiling of dredged material, regrading and upfilling of landward areas and landscaping. (18/02489/PAN) (PLS/052/18)
Ward: 17 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: Ardersier Port Ltd
Site Address: Former Fabrication Yard, Ardersier, Nairn.    

There had been circulated Report No PLS/052/18 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 further material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.2    
Description: Centre for Health Science 2. (18/03374/PAN) (PLS/053/18)
Ward: 19 – Inverness South
Applicant: NHS Highland
Site Address: Land 330M NW of Inverness College UHI, 1 Inverness Campus, Inverness  

There had been circulated Report No PLS/053/18 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 further material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

7.    Planning Applications to be Determined   
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

In accordance with Standing Order 18, the Committee AGREED that items 7.1 – 7.4 be taken at this point of the meeting.

7.1    
Applicants: Mr Niall McLean (17/01975/FUL) (PLS/054/18)
Location: Achara House, Duror, Appin, PA38 4BW. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Erection of extension and internal alterations.
Recommendation: Grant.
    
There had been circulated Report No PLS/054/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application.    

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission.

7.2    
Applicant: Mr Niall McLean (17/01976/LBC) (PLS/055/18)
Location: Achara House, Duror, Appin, PA38 4BW. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Erection of extension and internal alterations (Listed Building Consent).
Recommendation: Grant.
    
There had been circulated Report No PLS/055/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

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

7.3    
Applicant: Mr David Matzdorf (17/05916/FUL) (PLS/056/18)
Location: Land North West of Coire Dubh, Glenfinnan. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of house and formation of access.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/056/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

•    A construction management plan had been included within the recommendation to ensure that construction traffic did not block the private access lane serving a number of other properties.
•    The construction of the hard standing for the proposed house would allow room for turning of construction vehicles within the site and negate the need for vehicles to ‘back up’ the private access lane.
•    The Flood Risk Management Team had initially objected due to concerns regarding a potential increase in the flow rate of water coming across the site from the culvert under the A830 trunk road at the top of the site and into a ditch beside the private access lane; however, this objection was subsequently withdrawn, subject to the inclusion of a condition within the recommendation requiring measures to be put in place to ensure that the water flow rate would not increase through this section.
•    The Forestry Officer’s objection remained outstanding; however, following discussion with Transport Scotland regarding the impact on trees along the main road side, the number of trees proposed for removal had been significantly reduced.
•    It was proposed that an informative note be included within the recommendation to make clear the need for appropriate arrangements to be made by the developer, with the owner of the track and others with a legal interest in it, to ensure that any damage would be made good following construction work, and to contribute towards its future upkeep; however, as the access lane was privately owned, it was ultimately the responsibility of the owner of the track and those with the legal right to use it to ensure that this would be undertaken.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

•    Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised by local residents, the site was considered acceptable for the proposed development and the design was also considered to be of an acceptable standard.

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

7.4    
Applicant: Mr David Matzdorf (17/05917/FUL) (PLS/057/18)
Location: Land West of Sruth A' Mhuilinn, Glenfinnan. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/057/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.    
    
Mrs S Macmillan presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

•    The front elevation of the proposed development was considered to be of sufficient distance from the nearest neighbouring house “The Cabin”.
•    A condition had been included within the recommendation to secure boundary treatments and an adequate level of privacy to the occupants of The Cabin to mitigate any overlooking from the proposed development.
•    The proposed drainage works would lead the surface water flow from one side of the private access lane to the other in order to prevent water from running down the private access lane onto the public road and dragging material onto it.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

•    Whilst it was acknowledged that the Council could not enforce the recommendations of the informative note regarding maintenance of the private access lane, concern was expressed that the lack of a formal legal agreement could lead to protracted disputes between neighbouring properties.
•    With reference to comment within the report stating that “it would be beneficial to develop this site in preference to another less sustainable location”, it was emphasised that the Committee should not be agreeing permission for planning applications on the basis that they were better or worse than another location and that each application should be dealt with on its own merits.

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

6.    Continued Item
Cuspairean a' Leantainn

6.1    
Applicant: Springfield Properties PLC (17/05667/FUL) (PLS/047/18)
Location: Land 123M SE of Rosebank, Kingsteps, Lochloy Road, Nairn. (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Residential development and associated infrastructure.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/047/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

A site visit had taken place earlier that morning attended by the following Members: Mr R Balfour, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Ms P Hadley, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Jarvie, Mr B Lobban, Mr R MacWilliam, Mr B Thompson, Mr D MacPherson (as an observer) and Mr P Saggers (as Local Member). Only those Members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

•    Construction traffic into the site from the A96(T) road would use the existing access via Montgomerie Drive and through Averon Street, making use of the existing roads serving the Meadowlea area, and would not be permitted to access the site from Kingsteps.
•    Developer contributions from developments at Lochloy towards a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the Inverness to Aberdeen railway were estimated to be in the region of around £2k per house; however, the design and location of the proposed bridge had not yet been confirmed.
•    There was a degree of topography within the application site and the water course had cut an incision in the landscape; therefore, the cutting of the embankment of the river had risen over time.
•    Water catchment further upstream from the application site was not considered significant as it extended around 5-6 kilometres further back from the site and proceeded through a relatively flat agricultural plain with ample agricultural drainage which had been directed through water courses and ditches in this area.
•    The Flood Risk Management Team was satisfied that the proposed development would not be at risk of flooding from the watercourse running through the site during a 1:200 year (plus 30% allowance for climate change) fluvial flood event.
•    The transport assessment submitted by the applicant’s agent included two analyses of the potential trips which the proposed development was likely to generate and included manual road traffic surveys at the junctions from Montgomery Drive and from Suters Way onto Lochloy Road.
•    The information collated from the road traffic surveys was compared against vehicular movements during peak periods from existing housing developments in the area to produce an assessment of the anticipated trips that would be generated from the remainder of development currently being built, but not yet occupied, and also the proposed development contained within the application.
•    The final analysis of the transport assessment was based on industry software which was used as a comparison with the information collated from the road traffic surveys and had produced more onerous vehicle trip generations than the actual traffic surveys.
•    The Highland-wide Local Development Plan 2012 HWLDP identified a number of areas within Nairn either allocated for development or as land with amenity and recreational value and also identified the boundary of the Nairn settlement area, which included Kingsteps.
•    Clarification was provided on the use of the terms “grey land” and “green land” development within the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan (IMFLDP), during which it was explained that grey areas of land were within the settlement boundary where there was potential for development and green areas of land were protected from development.
•    Whilst the report recognised that there was evidence of an active clan of badgers within the wider area, it was confirmed that there were currently no active badger setts within the area to be developed within the application site. This excluded the area around the existing watercourse. 
•    Should any badgers setts be identified prior to and during construction, the applicant would be required to obtain a species license from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) in order to move these into the wider countryside and to provide appropriate mitigation.
•    The projected capacity for this site, as allocated within the IMFLDP, was 90 houses.
•    The figures contained within the road traffic assessment were based on the projected number of vehicular movements that would be created from the proposed development.
•    The survey of current vehicular movements had been undertaken during the peak traffic times of between 07:00 – 10:00 and 16:00 – 19:00.
•    The land proposed for development and which lay outwith the allocated housing site had been identified as grey land within the IMFLDP and therefore as land with potential for development.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

•    Concern was expressed that the capacity of Lochloy Road was insufficient to deal with the potential extra traffic generated by the proposed development.
•    Concern was also expressed that the traffic lights and junction at Lochloy Road were incapable of dispersing existing traffic quickly enough to permit the freeflow of vehicles along the A96(T) road and that it was not uncommon for traffic from Inverness to be backed up through the whole of Nairn town centre.
•    The road to the east of Nairn was single track at Kingsteps and was not suitable for general vehicle use.
•    It was suggested that a bigger buffer-space was required between the proposed development and the existing housing development at Kingsteps.
•    The entire Kingsteps site represented an over-development in houses.
•    Some areas of Nairn suffered from low-water pressure during peak usage times and concern was expressed that the proposed development would further exacerbate this problem.
•    In highlighting concerns with the current sewage system and the capacity of the sewage station, concern was expressed that these issues could be increased with the proposed development.
•    It was highlighted that raw sewage continued to be forced directly into the River Nairn during heavy rainfall.
•    It was suggested that further housing should not be built until a new bridge crossing from the A96 to the estate was in place.
•    The current level of demand for affordable housing was questionable as around 950 affordable houses and flats had been built within Nairn over the previous 30 years.
•    In acknowledging the concerns raised regarding development on Lochloy Road, it was highlighted that police opinion was that Lochloy Junction was not considered dangerous.
•    Mitigation measures recommended within the report to deal with speeding on Lochloy Road were welcomed.
•    In acknowledging the concerns raised regarding water pressure and waste water in Nairn, it was suggested that Local Members and the Council needed to emphasise to Scottish Water these issues if further development was to take place in Nairn.
•    Whilst the future development of the A96(T) bypass was welcomed, concern was expressed that, unless current issues regarding infrastructure were dealt with, the bypass could be further delayed until the appropriate infrastructure was in place.
•    The lack of affordable housing in Nairn was emphasised.
•    Concern was expressed regarding the results of the road traffic survey and that it may have failed to accurately show the potential impact from the proposed development.
•    Unnecessary grievance had been caused within the community due to the zoning of the whole of Nairn as an area for housing development and that a balance needed to be struck between identifying the whole of Nairn for housing development and the separate communities located within Nairn
•    The creation of a buffer zone could alleviate some of the concerns raised regarding the proximity of the proposed development to the existing community at Kingsteps.
•    There was a need for housing within Nairn and the proposals represented good development.
•    It was highlighted that the main problem with traffic flow in Nairn was due to the A96(T) road and that this could be alleviated in the future with the development of a bypass.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr B Lobban, then moved a motion that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr L Fraser, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that: 

•    Notwithstanding the traffic impact assessment, Mr Fraser was not convinced that the traffic that this development will generate will not exacerbate the current delays along Lochloy Road at the junction leading onto the A96(T) road, and consequently considered that this application is contrary to policy 2 of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan in so far as it fails to provide the necessary infrastructure required to support the development.
•    The houses on the area of land outwith the NA2 allocation boundary were unacceptable by reason of insufficient separation between the houses at Kingsteps and the new proposed development, and the development was therefore contrary to policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan by reason of unacceptable impact on individual and community residential amenity.

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

Motion

    Mr J Gray
    Mr T Heggie 
    Mr B Lobban 
    Mr R MacWilliam 
    Mr B Thompson 

Amendment

    Mr R Balfour 
    Mr G Cruickshank 
    Mr L Fraser 
    Ms P Hadley 
    Mr A Jarvie

There being an equality in votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of the MOTION, which was therefore carried and the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission.

7.    Planning Applications to be Determined (continued)
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

7.5    
Applicant: Mr Sean Kelly (18/00852/PIP) (PLS/058/18)
Location: Land 220M West of 8 Cradlehall Court, Cradlehall, Inverness. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Development of commercial units, formation of access.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/058/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the refusal of the application on the grounds as detailed in the report.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation.
    
In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

•    It was the planning officer’s view that the design and arrangement of the proposed development lacked integration with the existing local neighbourhood centre.
•    The use of the strip of land between the existing neighbourhood centre and the development site, to create better integration with the existing neighbourhood centre, would have been welcomed; however, the application did not set out any proposals to achieve this.
•    Information provided at the meeting by the local member regarding ownership of the “ransom” strip by Cradlehall, Westhill Community Council and the speed of traffic on Caulfield Road would have been welcomed when the application had been submitted; however, as this information was not provided by the applicant or consultees, the planning officer could not use it in his assessment of the application.
•    The 20mph speed restriction signs on Caulfield Road only flashed during school opening and closing times.
•    The applicant had undertaken speed surveys which indicated that 85% of vehicular movements were either at or below the speed limit heading north in the direction of the proposed entrance to the application site.
•    The application was for planning in principle; therefore, a full application would be required in due course should permission be granted.
•    A range of traffic calming measures could be included as a condition within planning permission.
•    Transport Planning had not raised any objection; however, there was a need to include a package of measures to mitigate concerns regarding the spacing of the proposed junction with other junctions in the area.
•    Activity regarding the removal of recycling bins at the adjacent neighbourhood centre was not relevant to this application.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

•    The potential use of the commercial unit as a pharmacy was highlighted.
•    Whilst the preference was for the access road to the proposed commercial unit to come from the existing local neighbourhood centre, the proposed separate junction was a suitable compromise.
•    The application presented an opportunity to improve road traffic safety and management on Caulfield Road.
•    Precedent had been set by developments in the surrounding area which had roads going through a buffer zone as opposed to where the ransom strip was located.
•    Given the expansion of the Cradlehall area with new housing and also a care home being built, the need for further commercial units in Cradlehall was emphasised.
•    There would be merit in an application that proposed an access to the commercial unit though the “ransom” strip.

In response to further questions raised during discussion, it was confirmed that the application was for planning in principle and set out within a red-line boundary an application for potential use of commercial units with road access from Caulfield Road.  In response to comment regarding the potential use of one of the units as a pharmacy, it was explained that no defined use of the units had been proposed within the application and that the issues raised in the report were in relation to the integration of the existing land with the existing local neighbourhood centre and how best this could be achieved.

Following a brief adjournment to seek officers’ advice, the Chairman, seconded by Mr B Lobban, then moved that the application be refused for the reasons recommended in the report.

Mr A Jarvie confirmed that whilst there wasn’t anything in the application itself to state in planning terms that he was happy with, he would welcome submission of the proposed development as a full application, knowing that there was the demand and desire for it within the community.

The Committee thereafter agreed to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds recommended in the report.

7.6    
Applicant: Mr Richard Howie (17/01652/FUL) (PLS/059/18)
Location: Land South of Craigellachie Cottage, Wester Galcantray, Cawdor. (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Erection of house and self-contained living accommodation.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/059/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation. 

During discussion, it was acknowledged that flooding had previously occurred within the area; however, this was attributed to problems with drainage on the road to the north of the application site and it was considered that any reccurrence of this was unlikely to impact on Craigellachie Cottage.

Therefore, it was considered that the conditions recommended within the report, which included the installation of foul water and surface water drainage prior to commencement of development within the site, would address any concerns regarding potential flooding.

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

7.7    
Applicant: Mr Timothy Allan (17/01255/FUL) (PLS/060/18)
Location: 4 Mill View, Tomatin, Inverness. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Erection of Garden shed (Retrospective).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/060/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation. 

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission.

8.    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

8.1     
Applicant: Mrs Catherine Brown (PPA-270-2189) (17/03503/FUL) 
Location: 67 Tomnahurich Street, Inverness, IV3 5DT. (Ward 13)
Nature of Appeal: Change of use of shop to Class 3(5) Chinese hot food takeaway. 
    
In response to a question, it was confirmed that it would be for local residents to report to the Council any failure by the applicant to comply with Condition 5 and that any allegations of breach of this condition could be investigated.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the 6 conditions listed at the end of the decision notice.

8.2     
Applicant: Mrs Catherine Brown (PPA-270-2189) (17/03503/FUL) 
Location: 67 Tomnahurich Street, Inverness, IV3 5DT. (Ward 13)
Nature of Appeal: Change of use of shop to Class 3(5) Chinese hot food takeaway.
    
The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.

The meeting ended at 3.30 pm