Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 18 September 2018 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter (excluding items 6.8 – 6.10)
Mr B Boyd
Ms C Caddick
Mr G Cruickshank
Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley
Mr T Heggie
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird (excluding items 1 - 6.2)
Mr B Lobban
Mr R MacWilliam
Mr N McLean (by video-conference)
Mr B Thompson

Non Committee Members Present:

Mr J Bruce (items 1 - 6.5 only)
Mrs T Robertson (items 1 – 6.4 only)

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Principal Planner
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Ms J Bain, Planner
Mrs S Hadfield, Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
Ms C Millard, Planner
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

None.

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 8 August 2018 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/061/18 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.

In speaking to the report, the Team Leader confirmed that the application for the revised pumped storage scheme at Coire Glas, North Laggan (application reference 18/01564/S36) would be submitted for determination to the next meeting of the Committee on 23 October 2018.  The Chair reminded Members that at the previous meeting of the Committee, it had been agreed that a site visit be held in relation to this application.

During discussion, concern was expressed that the next meeting of the Committee would take place during the school holidays.  The Chair reminded Members that the decision to hold the meeting had previously been agreed by full Council in 2017 and therefore the meeting would proceed as scheduled.

Thereafter, the Committee NOTED the current position and AGREED that the site visit in relation to application reference 18/01564/S36 be held on the morning of Friday, 19 October 2018.

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

5.1
Description: Erection of a phased development including distillery with all associated and necessary infrastructure, Visitor and retail facilities, staff and limited visitor accommodation, the development will also require information of a new access of the A95, improvement of existing access, roads and car parking (18/03491/PAN) (PLS/062/18).
Ward: 20 – Badenoch and Strathspey
Applicant: Speymalt Whisky Distributors Ltd
Site Address: Land 350m SE of Lower Gaich, Dulnain Bridge.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/062/18 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 the following material planning consideration they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-

• Consideration should be given to the visual impact of the development and any bearing the development would have on the proposed Strathspey Steam Railway crossing over the A95.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.2
Description: New development of up to 111 residential units with associated roads and services (18/03564/PAN) (PLS/063/18).
Ward: 19 – Inverness South
Applicant: DMPM Services Ltd
Site Address: Land 260M SE of Simpsons Garden Centre, Inshes, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/063/18 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.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that, whilst it was likely that the proposed access into the site would be from the B9177, clarity on this would be provided once a detailed planning application had been received from the applicant.

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

• Consideration should be given to the access arrangements into the site and any impact on road safety given the current road layout and the speed of traffic traveling along Culloden Road.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

5.3
Description: Proposed Sand & Gravel Quarry (18/03732/PAN) (PLS/064/18).
Ward: 18 – Nairn and Cawdor
Applicant: Breedon Northern Ltd
Site Address: Land 575M SW of Upper Remore, Nairn.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/064/18 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.

5.4
Description: Construction of a residual waste management facility on the site of the former landfill (18/04128/PAN) (PLS/065/18).
Ward: 16 – Inverness Millburn
Applicant: The Highland Council
Site Address: Longman Landfill Site, Stadium Road, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/065/18 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.

During discussion, it was requested that the Council’s long term ambition to develop an energy from waste plant within the site should be included as part of consultation in regard to this proposed development.  In response, it was confirmed that it was the Council’s intention to produce a masterplan for the area and that it would take into account the future development of the site; however, this application would be assessed in isolation as a materials recovery facility.  The Chair emphasised that there was a process to go through in relation to waste management and that the Council was not currently in a position to decide the best location for an energy from waste plant.

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.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicants: Mr and Mrs I Wilson (18/03576/PIP) (PLS/066/18)
Location: Land 120m SW of 2 Bohenie, Roy Bridge. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development:      Erection of house and formation of access (part retrospective).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/066/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Ms C Millard presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that in relation to this application (18/03576/PIP) and the following two applications on the agenda (items 6.2 (18/03577/PIP) and 6.3 (18/03578/PIP) refer):-

• Spean Bridge, Roy Bridge and Achnacarry Community Councils had objected to the proposed developments;
• With regard to the previously permitted developments referred to within the planning history of the site, planning in principle had previously been granted without any objections; and
• Whilst Spean Bridge, Roy Bridge and Achnacarry Community Councils were not statutory consultees, the applications had been referred to Committee at the Area Planning Manager’s discretion due to the comments received from these community councils.

During discussion, the view was expressed that the principle of development had already been established within this site and that whilst concerns had been raised regarding a lack of development of affordable housing within surrounding villages, this was a long term issue and the proposed development was therefore considered acceptable.

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

6.2
Applicant: Mr and Mrs I Wilson (18/03577/PIP) (PLS/067/18)
Location: Land 80m SW of 2 Bohenie, Roy Bridge. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development:      Erection of house and formation of access (part retrospective).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/067/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Ms C Millard presented the report and recommendation.

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

6.3
Applicant: Mr and Mrs I Wilson (18/03578/PIP) (PLS/068/18)
Location: Land SW of 2 Bohenie, Roy Bridge (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of house and formation of access (part retrospective).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/068/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Ms C Millard presented the report and recommendation.

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

6.4
Applicant: Mr Allan Henderson (18/03023/FUL) (PLS/069/18)
Location: Land 35M West of Sealladh Na Gleann, Culloden Moor, Inverness. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Erection of detached house and garage, formation of access and associated services.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/069/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Ms J Bain presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The application site was located within the Hinterland of Inverness and the Culloden Moor Conservation Area;
• When the outline planning permission for three plots had previously been granted in 2006, the site was located outwith the Culloden Moor Conservation Area; however, following a review in 2015, the Leanach crossroads housing group, in which the site sits, was subsequently brought within the Conservation Area;
• All of the traditional cottages within the Leanach crossroads housing group were of a rough cast white/off-white design;
• Historic Environment Scotland (HES) was satisfied with the white/off-white rough cast design proposed for the house;
• The ridge height of the proposed house was similar to that of the existing housing within the group.

During points of clarification, concern was expressed by Members regarding the process for publication of representations as there were a number of objections to the proposed development which had been listed within the appendix as having only been provided by way of an e-mail address and that there had been no indication as to whether these had been received from separate households.  It was therefore suggested that where a representation had been received by e-mail requesting the redaction of their household address, this be indicated in the documentation in order to establish whether the representation was genuine.  It was further suggested that when submitting a representation, failure to provide a contact household address should make the representation invalid.  In response, the Chair advised that the concerns raised would be taken in to consideration in terms of the overall principle regarding validity of representations and could be reported back to the Committee at a later point.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The principle of development had been well-established and the proposed house would infill a gap between the two existing dwellings;
• Concern was expressed regarding the design of the proposed house as it would be visible from the Culloden Battlefield Visitor Centre car park and it was suggested that the upper layer of glazing should be removed from the gable end to the North as this aspect was not in keeping with the existing houses;
• The proposed house would fit in with the traditional style of the existing housing group;
• Whilst concerns raised regarding the glazing on the gable end were acknowledged, the house would be of a single storey design and could be considered an enhancement of the settlement; and
• Permission had previously been granted for development within this site and the height of the proposed house was considered to be acceptable.

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

Mr A Jarvie, seconded by Mr R Laird, then moved as an amendment that the application be deferred to allow the applicant the opportunity to remove the upper layer of glazing from the gable end of the proposed development due to its proximity and overbearing feature from the Culloden Battlefield Visitor Centre car park and that the application be dealt with under delegated powers following submission of a revised design.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Boyd
Ms C Caddick
Mr G Cruickshank
Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley
Mr T Heggie
Mr B Lobban
Mr N McLean
Mr B Thompson

Amendment

Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird
Mr R MacWilliam

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

6.5
Applicant: Forrest Developments Ltd (18/00906/FUL) (PLS/070/18)
Location: Sainsbury Supermarket, Nairn. (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Erection of a Class 1 retail unit & a restaurant with drive-thru lane (Sui Generis) with associated parking & other ancillary works.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/070/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation, during which he advised of the following amendments to the recommendation:-

• the wording of Condition 1(b) to read as “food” rather than “convenience”; and
• three additional conditions being included for waste collection, play area fencing and control of noise as set out at paragraphs 8.29 and 8.40 respectively of the report.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• Information used to assess whether Nairn was a suitable town to have a retail unit operating on a 24 hour basis included whether there were any major businesses with employed staff that provided 24 hour services, such as a hospital, or whether there were any premises with extended licensing hours that operated within the town;
• Nairn was not deemed to be a community which had businesses, retail and licensed premises operating on a 24 hour basis and the assessment sought to be consistent with the opening and closing times of other business premises located within the town;
• In relation to the operational hours proposed for the drive thru restaurant, it was the impact on the residential amenity of the area that was being assessed by the Committee at this stage and that any proposed hours in relation to a late hours catering licence for the premises would be a matter for the Licensing Committee to consider at a later date should an application come forward;
• The report sought to provide guidance as to what operating hours could be considered appropriate in the context of the amenity of the surrounding community;
• This application followed on from the original planning permission for development on this site which was granted on appeal by the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers.  The Reporter had included a condition restricting the hours of operation for the premises on the site given the proximity of residential properties and the potential for noise disturbance.  It was therefore considered appropriate to restrict the hours of operation for the premises relative to this application.
• The applicant could seek to extend the opening hours of the business by submitting a Section 42 application to vary the terms of the condition so long as they provided justification as to why they deemed it appropriate to do so;
• Consultation with the Flood Risk Management Team and other planning officers had identified a known risk of flooding at Auldearn Burn; however, as there was currently a live permission already granted for a larger retail development on this site, the proposed management of surface water within the site had been deemed acceptable;
• In taking into consideration the previously granted permissions and the assessments which had been undertaken, it was unlikely that additional mitigation measures would be required within this site as surface water would be directed to the water main drainage provided by Scottish Water;
• It was considered reasonable to seek a Litter Management Plan from the operator of the restaurant to assist with the protection of local amenity and to ensure measures were being taken to educate customers on their habits in relation to the disposal of litter;
• The applicant was keen that restaurant staff assisted with clean-ups within the retail park to ensure that the impact of any litter did not accumulate;
• The operator of the restaurant had a responsibility to examine the choice of materials used in its packaging and the potential impact it could cause;
• The Council needed to act on the behaviour of people purchasing food from a specific premises and then disposing of it onto the side of the road by identifying where it had been purchased and asking the business to provide guidance to customers on how it should be responsibly disposed of;
• There were no risks anticipated to residential amenity regarding anti-social behaviour arising from the development of the proposed drive-thru restaurant;
• The Retail Impact Assessment undertaken by the applicant took into account the retail expenditure within both the catchment area of the proposed development and adjacent areas;
• The Retail Impact Assessment had considered that the proposed development would help to recover expenditure which was currently being spent outwith the area and encourage shoppers to spend locally;
• It was proposed that only the Class 1 retail unit would have permission to sell convenience or comparison goods;
• A figure of £60,000 had been estimated by an engineer as the potential cost to the Council of improvement works to the footpath on Tom Semple Road and it was considered that a sum of £30,000 seemed a reasonable developer contribution towards to the current application, given that there may be future developments within the vicinity who could also contribute towards the improvement works;
• The statement contained within the report at paragraph 8.13 “Elements of these conditions and enforceability are difficult to interpret” was in reference to Condition 3 within the recommendation;
• The £250,000 developer contribution from the initial retail application had been secured in relation to the whole site; and
• The proposed site layout did not contain sufficient land to be able to accommodate trees to act as screening.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• It was highlighted that littering was a problem across the wider area of Nairn, in particular the harbour area;
• With regard to the Retail Impact Assessment, it was emphasised that Nairn high street should not be treated as an independent operation and that it should be treated as part of a holistic shopping experience;
• In highlighting the leakage of expenditure out of Nairn which had been identified within the Retail Impact Assessment, the proposed retail development offered positive choices for people within Nairn and it was considered that the proposed restaurant was the type of business that would be popular with younger people;
• The Community Council had undertaken a survey which had identified significant support for the proposed development from respondents;
• In highlighting the development of Nairn, BID and the businesses on Nairn High Street would have to identify creative ways to improve choice it was emphasised that the proposed development could provide an alternative option for shoppers within Nairn;
• Concern was expressed regarding potential flooding from Auldearn Burn into Balmakeith Drive due to its proximity to the existing supermarket and the proposed retail unit;
• The proposed development would offer free parking and it was suggested that, in light of the introduction of parking charges within Nairn Town Centre, there was potential for charging within the car park serving the development;
• More screening of the site would have been welcomed and it was suggested that if trees were unsuitable then bushes could be used an alternative;
• It was emphasised that there was potential for a bridge across the railway linking to Balmakeith Industrial Estate;
• It was suggested that a review of the Town Centre First policy should be undertaken;
• Concern was expressed as to whether the conditions within the recommendation regarding the acceptable uses of the proposed retail unit and restaurant would be enforceable;
• In light of the potential drop in visitor numbers to Nairn should the proposed by-pass of Nairn take place, destination shops such as those proposed would help to draw traffic into Nairn;
• Concern was expressed regarding the proposed restriction on opening hours of the drive thru restaurant as it was felt that there would be no impact on residential amenity and it was suggested that the restaurant should be permitted to open as a 24hour operation;
• Whilst it had been suggested by the planning officer that the operating hours of the proposed restaurant should be restricted, the view was expressed that the decision on the operation hours of the proposed restaurant was a commercial one and that it should be for the operator to decide;
• It was suggested that the applicant be asked to provide a developer contribution for the full £60,000 estimate as a contribution towards active travel;
• Concern was expressed that extending the operating hours of the proposed drive thru restaurant could have a negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area at night;
• The amount of litter produced by drive thru restaurants in other areas such as Fort William was emphasised;
• Taking into account the comments raised regarding litter and waste generated by similar developments, it was emphasised that a wider discussion was required on this issue; and
• It was requested that the Litter Management Plan set out in Condition 9 should be effective and proactive by taking into account the potential litter from a drive thru within the wider area (including the A96 Trunk Road) and not just through public education by displaying posters within the restaurant.

No consensus having been reached between the members regarding the operating hours of the drive thru restaurant, Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr B Lobban, then moved a motion that the restriction in operating hours be removed from Condition 3.

Mr T Heggie, seconded by Mr L Fraser, then moved as an amendment that the operating hours of the “drive thru” restaurant as outlined in Condition 3 be retained.

On a vote being taken, five votes were cast in favour of the motion and eight votes in favour of the amendment, with three abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr A Baxter
Mr B Boyd
Ms C Caddick
Mr A Jarvie
Mr B Lobban

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley
Mr T Heggie
Mr R MacWilliam
Mr B Thompson

Abstention

Mr G Cruickshank
Mr R Laird
Mr N McLean

The amendment to retain the operating hours of the drive-thru restaurant as outlined in Condition 3 was AGREED.

There then followed a vote as to whether to defer the application or approve the recommendation and Mr R MacWilliam, seconded by Mr N McLean, moved a motion that the application be deferred to allow further discussions with applicant on increasing the developer contributions from £30,000 to £60,000..

Mr T Heggie, seconded by Mr L Fraser, 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 eight votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mr B Boyd
Mr G Cruickshank
Ms P Hadley
Mr R Laird
Mr R MacWilliam
Mr N McLean

Amendment

Ms C Caddick
Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr T Heggie
Mr A Jarvie
Mr B Lobban
Mr B Thompson

There being an equality in votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of the AMENDMENT, which was therefore carried and the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission, subject to the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement to secure a developer contribution of £30,000 towards Active Travel to be used for improving approximately 240 metres of footpath on Tom Semple Road within Balmakeith industrial estate as set out at paragraphs 8.35 and 8.43 of the report, and the following:-

• the wording of Condition 1(b) to read as “food” rather than “convenience”; and
• three additional conditions being included for waste collection, play area fencing and control of noise as set out at paragraphs 8.29 and 8.40 respectively of the report.

6.6
Applicant: The Highland Council (18/03272/FUL) (PLS/071/18)
Location: Land between Dores Road and Torvean, Dores Road, Inverness. (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Amended Design for Inverness West Link Stage 2 - construction of roundabout with new single carriageway road and swing bridge connection to Queens Park Roundabout, bridge control building, vehicular access to Caledonian Canal and realignments of General Booth Road and A82 plus provision of car park, associated in-canal infrastructure, drainage, earthworks, fencing, landscaping, new access tracks/paths, street lighting etc.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/071/18 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, during which he advised of an amendment to the wording of Condition 27 to reflect the requirements of Transport Scotland in relation to the finish on the bridge parapets and confirmed that this was non-material and did not affect the overall position of the other conditions within the recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• In addition to the statutory consultees, discussion had taken place between the applicant’s project design unit and Inverness Rowing Club regarding access to the canal from both sides of the bank and that this had been facilitated within the application;
• Access from Torvean Roundabout to the turning head into the car park would be through a standard single carriageway and access beyond this point to the canal would be on a track of slightly greater width than a single lane;
• A swept path analysis had been undertaken which had demonstrated that the track from the car park to the canal would be of sufficient width to enable access to both vehicles and boats on trailers  a;
• The concerns raised by Inverness Rowing Club regarding access to its clubhouse during construction hours could be dealt with within the Construction Management Plan;
• It was envisioned that a representative from Inverness Rowing Club could be included on the proposed Community Liaison Group;
• The Council’s Access Officer and the applicant’s project design unit were currently in disagreement regarding the use or otherwise of bound paths within the development and it had been proposed that clarification on the type, construction and finish of all paths proposed within the development be provided within the Access Management Plan under Condition 21(vi) of the recommendation;
• Condition 2 of the recommendation sought to ensure that Torvean Golf Course would be a fully operational 18 hole golf course and available at all times both during and after the construction of this stage of the road;
• Following discussion with Transport Planning, it was considered that the original proposal to have a bus stop between the two swing bridges would be inappropriate and it was now proposed that two new bus stops be located on General Booth road in addition to the existing bus stop to the North East of the proposed Torvean Roundabout; and
• In response to concern raised regarding the treatment of unbound paths in housing developments within the area which had been formed of hard packed gravel rather than tarmac, it was confirmed that the applicant’s project design unit had held talks with the Access Panel regarding the materials to be used in construction of the paths and the planning officer would continue to discuss this with the Access officer in terms of the proposed Access Management Plan.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• In thanking the planning service for the active consultation which had been undertaken with local Members and the public, the benefits to the local area arising from Phase 1 of the Inverness West Link, including the proposed parkland, were highlighted;
• It was requested that clarity be provided to the local Member on the retention of crossing provision for pedestrians over the A82;
• Concern was expressed that the size of the proposed car park would be insufficient to cope with the potential demand arising from outdoor activities within the surrounding area such as the proposed parkland and it was suggested that provision should be made for areas outwith Inverness city centre to have increased car parking; and
• It was requested that Condition 21(vi) of the recommendation be amended to ensure that bound paving would be used rather than unbound paving for all paths proposed within the development.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report together with an amendment to Condition 21(vi) to ensure bound paving is used rather than unbound paving for all paths proposed within the development.

6.7
Applicant: Vastint Hospitality B.V. (18/01248/FUL) (PLS/072/18)
Location: Former Swimming Pool Site, Glebe Street, Inverness. (Ward 14)
Nature of Development: Erection of hotel development with associated landscaping, car parking & ancillary uses.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/072/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the reports.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The original Traffic Management Plan proposed for the site had sought to encourage traffic flow from Waterloo Place and Chapel Street into Glebe Street and for vehicles to manoeuvre at the front of the building;
• The Road Traffic Management Team had expressed concern that the creation of a dedicated right turn lane at the junction between Waterloo Place and Chapel Street into Glebe Street could require the removal of two traffic lanes running into Inverness City Centre and could subsequently have a knock-on impact on traffic queuing at Shore Street Roundabout;
• Whilst the proposed traffic route to the site from Academy Street via Friar’s Street would not prevent vehicles turning right at the junction into Glebe Street, it could provide a means of helping the facility to direct traffic towards the hotel and relieve pressure on the junction;
• The Inverness Design Review Panel had endorsed the view that a building of scale was required within this location given its location adjacent to the A82/Friar’s Bridge;
• The cost to the applicant of the materials used for the external cladding was considered relevant as the building would be viewed from 360 degrees and from different elevations; therefore, the materials used would have to be consistent around the whole building;
• The external cladding material proposed to be used on the building was considered appropriate within this setting and could also help to resolve the cost issues which had been identified;
• The design of the proposed development did not represent a significant departure from the previously granted residential development which itself had been a product of the previous version of the City Centre Development Brief;
• The proposed Traffic Management Plan sought to discourage traffic turning right from Waterloo Place and Chapel Street into Glebe Street in order to prevent potential conflict with traffic flow at the junction and that one of the  measures to address this could be through the installation of additional signage;
• The projecting aluminium fin features were an architectural detail which highlighted the depth of the surrounding window openings;
• The roof terraces had been designed to reflect the length of the corridors within the building and to respect the scale of the building;
• The creation of the roof terraces would provide a setback for the east-west block of the building and also provide an opportunity for additional outdoor guest space;
• No changes were proposed to the existing road alignment and residential parking on Glebe Street;
• Given the market-base of the proposed hotel, it was not anticipated that the hotel would generate significant numbers of people arriving by coach and that the majority of customers would arrive either on foot or by taxi;
• It was anticipated that a large coach would be able to fit into the proposed drop off area at the front of the hotel on Glebe Street; and
• Whilst the Inverness Design Review Panel might not have provided a clear consensus on what could be considered an acceptable design, the proposal had taken into consideration the response provided by the Panel and the previously granted residential development.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed that the proposed Traffic Management Plan would not work in practice as it was likely to increase the amount of traffic turning right from Waterloo Place and would also increase traffic into the already congested Academy Street/Chapel Street five lane junction as well as Friar’s Street;
• Concern was expressed that whilst the proposed design of the building had been described as contemporary, the visualisations showed a building that was similar to that of the former Inverness College which had been built in the 1960s;
• The arrangement of the windows and massing of the proposed building were not considered appropriate for this type of development and it was emphasised that local Members were keen to avoid the use of large scale, grey box designs on buildings;
• Whilst the development of a hotel could be considered an appropriate use for the site, concern was expressed regarding the massing of the building to the north west side adjacent to Friar’s Bridge;
• There was currently no site specific guidance for the application site under the Inverness City Centre Development Brief as there had been an assumption that the previously granted residential development would proceed;
• In referencing the Inverness Old Town Conservation Area Guidance, it was highlighted that the proposed development was within a conservation area and therefore, a high quality design which did not replicate previous mistakes should be sought;
• In comparison with the previously granted residential development, the changes to design were considered a step back in terms of the streetscape of Inverness along the riverside and the design of the proposed building was too similar to that of other buildings within Inverness which were deemed only suitable for demolition due to their appearance;
• Whilst the opportunity for development within what was considered to be an important site was welcomed, the proposed design was inappropriate as it resembled other examples of buildings within Inverness featuring grey concrete blocks which were no longer considered contemporary;
• The Council should not accept a design proposal on the grounds that the development might only be viable in terms of cost to the developer;
• Whilst there was a need for hotels of the scale proposed in the application within Inverness, concern was expressed that the proposed design had taken inspiration from nearby buildings such as the BT Tower and did not reflect the standard of design represented in the applicant’s portfolio of buildings;
• Whilst the building would be predominantly made out of concrete, the proposed design did not look like Inverness College and reflected the type of design expected within a vibrant city centre;
• It was emphasised that the proposed development presented an opportunity for the creation of jobs through both its construction and its use as a hotel and could contribute towards the regeneration of Academy Street through an increase in potential customers;
• It was highlighted that a lighter external finish would be ineffective as pollution and dirt from cars passing over Friar’s Bridge could turn the colour of the building grey;
• The proposed design was in keeping with the surrounding area;
• Whilst a hotel would be an appropriate use of this site and the proposed height of the block adjacent to Friar’s Bridge was considered acceptable, the design of the building was not suitable for this site and an alternative proposal should be sought;
• Concern was expressed regarding the view of the proposed development from Ness Bridge and that the proposed building could be looked at for years to come in a similar way to that of the buildings on Upper Bridge Street which were currently earmarked for demolition;
• In highlighting examples of buildings constructed by the applicant in Britain and Europe, which were much more distinctive in appearance within their surrounding environment, it was suggested that the proposed design had been let down by the poor visuals provided by the applicant;
• Concern was expressed regarding the height of the building due to its proximity to the road when viewed on the approach to Glebe Street from the riverside;
• Whilst the external finish of the building might be considered appropriate in most city centres due to only the lower levels being visible, the whole structure of the proposed development would be visible from many areas of town and was in a prominent location beside the river;
• A more imaginative use of the roof terraces such as the provision of an outdoor area for guests such as a café or restaurant would have been welcomed;
• Concern was expressed that there would be a greater level of demand than was currently anticipated for coach parties using the hotel and therefore a suitable drop-off point was required to avoid traffic queuing on Glebe Street;
• Whilst there were no objections to the principle of a hotel being constructed within the site, it was acknowledged that concerns had been raised regarding the design of the proposed building and the potential impact on traffic; and
• The cost of redevelopment of the site should be a consideration in the planner’s assessment of the proposed development.

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

Mr R Laird, seconded by Ms C Caddick, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• The proposed development was contrary to Policy 29 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan and the Inverness City Centre Development Brief as it failed to make a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of the place in which it was located due to the fact that the building was out of scale with the surrounding townscape, in particular the large mass of uniform height on the Friars Bridge elevation.

On a vote being taken, seven votes were cast in favour of the motion and eight votes in favour of the amendment, with one abstention as follows:-

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr B Boyd
Mr G Cruickshank
Mr L Fraser
Mr J Gray
Mr T Heggie
Mr R MacWilliam

Amendment

Mr A Baxter
Ms C Caddick
Mrs M Davidson
Ms P Hadley
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr B Thompson

Abstention

Mr N McLean

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

6.8
Applicant: Ms Kim Haywood (18/00296/FUL) (PLS/073/18)
Location: Land 205M NE of Lyne Cottage, Gorthleck. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/073/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the reports.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the existing vehicular access to Purple Lodge was not tarred; however, this application presented an opportunity to upgrade the surface of the access.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Whilst concerns which had been raised locally regarding the design of the proposed house were acknowledged, the proposed development was for a single house and the siting and design of the house was considered acceptable in the context of the adjacent Purple Lodge; and
• In regard to Condition 5 of the recommendation, it was requested that the existing vehicular access be brought up to the standards requested by Transport Planning prior to the commencement of development.

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

6.9
Applicant: Mrs Susan Cameron (17/05702/PIP) (PLS/074/18)
Location: Land 60M SW of 10 Easter Street, Caiplich, Kiltarlity. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/074/18 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 a question, it was confirmed that Kiltarlity Community Council had objected to the proposed development.

Comments raised during discussion included the following:-

• It was emphasised that whilst substantial development had taken place on the Street during the previous decade, this had brought the number of houses established on the Street up to a similar level that would have been there a century ago;
• Whilst the proposed house represented an infill of an existing housing group, it was important to ensure that further development would not take place when the limit for constructing within a housing group had been reached;
• It was requested that alterations to the passing place and the new access be undertaken prior to the commencement of development due to the narrowness of the road and poor drainage;
• It was further requested that discussions regarding a landscape plan be commenced as soon as possible to ensure the retention of trees along the road to act as screening; and
• Whilst supportive of the proposed development, concern was expressed regarding a lack of passing places near houses built on single track roads.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to the following:-

• Condition 7 should be amended to a visibility splay of 2.4m x 60m; and
• Condition 8 should be amended to ensure that the existing passing place is upgraded prior to development of the house rather than prior to occupation of the house

6.10
Applicant: Mr Keiran Ferguson (18/02691/FUL) (PLS/075/18)
Location: Land 210m NW of Ancarraig Holiday Cottage Park, Bunloit, Drumnadrochit. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of house and self-contained unit.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/075/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the reports.

Mrs S Hadfield presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Assurances had been received from the applicant that the one bedroom annex would be ancillary to the proposed dwelling and would not be a separate self-contained house;
• Whilst a number of planning consents had previously been granted on this site, only one of these had commenced (application reference: 13/00357/FUL);
• Given the location of the proposed development within the plot, it would only be physically possible to construct one of either the proposed development referred to in this application or the previously consented permission (application reference: 13/00357/FUL);
• The recommendations contained within the report in relation to protected species took into account the issues which had previously been raised within the previously consented permissions granted in 2013 (application reference: 13/00357/FUL) and 2017 (application reference: 17/00338/FUL); and
• The previously consented permission granted in 2007 (application reference: 13/00357/FUL) had been constructed.

Comments raised during discussion included the following:-

• Whilst there did not appear to be any reason to refuse the application, concern was expressed regarding the submission of multiple applications within the same site and it was requested that all prior planning permissions granted be checked to ensure that the applicant could only build one house; and
• It was requested that a restriction on the number of houses on the road between Bunloit and Ancarraig be implemented due to a number of bends and steep inclines going up this road.

In response to comments made during discussion, the Area Planning Manger confirmed the following:-

• all prior planning permissions granted could be checked to ensure the applicant could only build one house and that if this is not the case, the appropriate planning permissions could be revoked; and
• whilst not applicable to this application, the concerns raised regarding the number of houses located on the road between Bunloit and Ancarraig could be looked at and reported back to the local Member.

Thereafter, the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and subject to the following:-

• all prior planning permissions granted for this site are to be checked to ensure the applicant can only build one house.  If this is not the case, the appropriate planning permissions are to be revoked.

The meeting ended at 3.35 pm