Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 29 January 2019 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter (excluding items 6.5 and 6.9), Mr B Boyd, Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson (excluding items 1 – 4), Mr L Fraser (excluding items 6.6 – 6.9), Mr J Gray, Ms P Hadley (excluding items 1 – 6.2), Mr T Heggie (excluding items 1 – 5.1), Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban (excluding item 6.5), Mr D MacPherson (item 6.9 only)

Non Committee Members Present:

Mrs T Robertson (excluding items 6.2 and 6.3)

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Mudie, Area Planning Manager South
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr S Hindson, Principal Planner
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr R Dowell, Planner
Mrs S Hadfield, Planner
Mr J Kelly, 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

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A Jarvie, Mr R MacWilliam, Mr N McLean and Mr B Thompson.

2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 6.5 – Mr B Lobban (non-financial).

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the Committee meeting held on 5 December 2018 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/001/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South, which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

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

5.1
Description: Housing development with associated landscaping, boundary treatment, SUDS and infrastructure. (18/04935/PAN) (PLS/002/19)
Ward: 20 – Badenoch and Strathspey.
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd
Site Address: Land 80M SE of 2 Carr Place, Carrbridge.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/002/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South on the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN), describing the site and setting out likely relevant policies and potential material planning considerations.

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

• Consideration given to the access to the site from the existing Carr Road; and
• The density of development within the site given the original site was much larger and allocated for the same number of houses.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Lochaber Housing Association (18/02761/FUL) (PLS/003/19)
Location: Site South of Tigh Aran, Spean Bridge. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Housing development – 20 no. units.
Recommendation: Revise the previously agreed developer contribution.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/003/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the Committee agree to revise the previously agreed developer contribution.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, reassurance was sought and received, that a procedure would be put in place to ensure that calculations, in relation to developer contributions, would be double checked prior to their circulation in light of the recent adoption of a revised developer contributions supplementary guidance by the Council.

The Committee AGREED to REVISE the previously agreed developer contribution for the reasons set out in the report and NOTED that the updated conditions agreed at the previous meeting would still be put into place.

6.2
Applicant: EE (18/02223/FUL) (PLS/004/19)
Location: Land 290m NE of Keepers Croft, Glenlia, Foyers (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of 30m tower, ground based equipment cabinets, electrical generator, satellite dish, ancillary equipment, formation of access.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/004/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs S Hadfield presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed that local residents and Stratherrick and Foyers Community Council had not been involved during initial discussions regarding the proposed siting of the mast;
• The stretch of road for which the proposed tower would provide emergency coverage was so infrequently used that there was grass growing in the middle of it;
• Whilst the applicant had been instructed by the Home Office to cover every area for emergency service coverage, it was considered more appropriate to install a mast to serve this purpose in a location which was  closer to people such as at Inverfarigaig;
• In highlighting the visual intrusion the mast would have on a local dwelling, it was emphasised that this could be an opportunity to discuss with the Forestry Commission the potential to locate the mast in an alternative site as felling was taking place in the area;
• The applicant had provided reasonable analysis for potential alternative locations for the siting of the proposed tower;
• It would be contradictory to refuse an application which would provide emergency service telecommunication coverage in a rural area given the demands which had previously been made for greater service coverage in the Highlands by the Council;
• As the road was so infrequently used, very few people were likely to see the mast; and
• The importance of providing improved emergency services telecommunication coverage in the area was emphasised.

The Chairman, seconded by Mr A Baxter moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs M Davidson then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the infrastructure was not sited sensitively to avoid adverse impact on residential properties and was therefore contrary to Policies 28 and 46 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan but having failed to find a seconder the amendment failed.

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

6.3
Applicant: Swallowfield Smallholding Ltd (18/03526/PIP) (PLS/005/19)
Location: Land 60m NE of Teandalloch Farmhouse, Beauly (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of 4 houses.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/005/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the refusal of the application on the grounds as detailed in the report.

Mrs S Hadfield presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• One of the exceptions to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) (Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland Areas)) is that affordable housing is required to meet a demonstrable local affordable housing need;
• Whilst the site layout was indicative, the proposed site access would have to remain in its intended position as visibility splays could not be achieved at the rear of the development; and
• A proposal to move the position of the four house plots within the site to along the frontage would increase the density and give the impression of a linear development.  There is a general presumption against linear development within the Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the comments within the report that there was no local affordable housing need given local people could not afford to live locally as it was too expensive;
• Whilst the layout of the site was not ideal, it was considered that there could be an opportunity to make alterations as the application was for planning in principle;
• Negotiations with the applicant regarding improvements to the road and layby could be undertaken;
• It was emphasised that a lack of affordable housing did not deter people from wanting to live in the countryside and there was a lack of opportunities for people to live in the countryside;
• There was a clear presumption against housing in the Hinterland and no exceptions to policies within the HwLDP had been identified which could support the proposed development;
• There required to be supporting evidence from an affordable housing provider indicating that they would build these houses as currently there was no information provided as to how the proposed development would be operated;
• It was suggested that further general discussions regarding Policy 35 - Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas) policy was required and how it should be interpreted in terms of affordable housing;
• The inclusion of two affordable housing plots within the proposals was not enough to outweigh the concerns raised regarding the layout and design of the proposed development; and
• The proposed development required alterations to the design and more certainty was needed regarding the affordable housing element of the proposal.

In response to discussion regarding affordable housing in the countryside, the Area Planning Manager – South recognised there was a need for affordable housing in rural areas but confirmed that, in this instance the applicant had not demonstrated a demand for affordable housing as was required to meet the justification for the development under the policy and that had the application been submitted by or with support from a Registered Social Landlord then it might have been justified.  Whilst it was considered that there was demand for affordable housing, this demand would be taken up by the development in Muir of Ord.

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons detailed in the report.

6.4
Applicant: Innogy Renewables UK Ltd (18/05083/S42) (PLS/006/19)
Location: Land 6000m West of Findhorn Bridge at Glen Kyllachy, Tomatin (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Construct and erect windfarm without compliance with Condition 1 attached to Glen Kyllachy wind farm (13/02441/FUL) as approved on appeal (Appeal Ref PPA-270 -2115) to allow operation of the turbines for 30 years.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/006/18 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the updating of the s.75 legal agreement to reflect the longer period of operation.

Mr K McCorquodale presented the report and recommendation.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the applicant had given a commitment to commence development of the windfarm and that the purchase of the wind turbines would require decisions to be made, such as the choice of manufacturer, whilst keeping close scrutiny of the finances required for the project.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the updating of the s.75 legal agreement to reflect the longer period of operation.

6.5
Applicant: Mr Alistair Wighton (18/04400/FUL) (PLS/007/19)
Location: Land 40M South of Mains of Curr Farmhouse, Dulnain Bridge (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Erection of new dwelling house and detached garage.
Recommendation: Grant.

Declaration of Interest – Mr B Lobban declared a non-financial interest in this item as he had been contacted by a member of the public and it had been suggested that he might not be able to be impartial in determining the application and therefore left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/007/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the upfront payment of a £1250 affordable housing contribution or, alternatively, a legal agreement to secure this sum.

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the upfront payment of a £1250 affordable housing contribution or, alternatively, a legal agreement to secure this sum.

6.6
Applicant: Dr Alison Wagstaff (18/03656/FUL) (PLS/008/19)
Location: Ord Cottage, Feshie Bridge, Kingussie, PH21 1NG (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Demolition of existing house and erection of replacement property for holiday let.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/008/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr R Dowell presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• Condition 1 within the report sought to control the use of the replacement property as a holiday let;
• Any future application to change the use of the replacement property from a holiday let to private residential use would require an affordable housing contribution from the applicant;
• Due to the location of the application site, no associated education contributions would be required if an application for a change of use  to private residential use was submitted in the future; and
• Council guidelines in relation to car parking recommended that two parking spaces should be provided for housing developments with up to four bedrooms and three parking spaces for housing developments with five or more bedrooms.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The proposed development was a replacement for an existing holiday let and was considered a better design than the existing building; and
• Whilst small communities could benefit economically in a minor way from tourist accommodation, it was emphasised that there was currently a lack of affordable housing in this area and developments such as holiday lets did not help to promote sustainable communities.

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

6.7
Applicant: Springfield Properties PLC (18/03073/FUL) (PLS/009/19)
Location: Land to South of Nairn Road, Ardersier (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: Erection of 117 Houses and Associated works.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/009/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing the contributions as set out at paragraph 8.40 of the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation, during which he advised of a correction to Condition 18 to refer to ‘Ardersier and Petty Community Council’ rather than ‘Holm Community Council and Lochardil and Drummond Community Council’. 

He further recommended that the Committee agree to grant delegated powers to the Area Planning Manager to revise Condition 20 to include further details of traffic calming measures within the adopted road corridor on Fettes Road and Connage Crescent between the accesses to the development and junctions of the aforementioned roads with Nairn Road.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The Flood Risk Management Team had looked at the potential flood risks arising from the proposed development, in particular the surface water drainage system, and was satisfied with the level of drainage anticipated from the site and that the conditions proposed in relation to management and maintenance of the drainage within the site were appropriate;
• School roll numbers were constantly under review and the methodology used under the adopted Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance could be reviewed by the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee in due course if school roll numbers increased;
• The proposed development had been taken forward in partnership with the applicant and Albyn Housing Society and whilst an area within the application site had been outlined for affordable housing, the design of the affordable and private housing were considered extremely similar;
• The proposed affordable housing was located within one particular area as it was easier for the management of the properties and would be a mix of affordable tenures and not just socially rented properties; and
• Traffic calming measures in relation to Fettes Road would be taken forward by Transport Planning through the road construction consent process and could be secured by condition.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• In welcoming the 25% affordable housing allocation and the revised design of the properties proposed, appreciation was expressed that the applicant had taken into consideration comments which had been received in relation to the original proposals regarding the proposed location of some of the properties ; and
• In light of the concerns which had been raised in relation to the original proposal to access the development site directly from the B9006 and access on Nairn Road, the revised proposals to the access arrangements were welcomed.

In response to further questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The level of developer contributions identified within the report was in line with the required amount as set out by the adopted Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance and would be combined with developer contributions from other local developments into a cumulative pot for the replacement or extension of Culloden Academy;
• A condition had been included within the recommendation requiring provision of a pedestrian crossing of Nairn Road; and
• Discussions with Transport Planning could take place as to whether the calming platform at the east end of Nairn Road could be refurbished.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing the contributions as set out at paragraph 8.40 of the report and the conditions recommended in the report (subject to the amendment of condition 18 to refer to ‘Ardersier and Petty Community Council’ rather than ‘Holm Community Council and Lochardil and Drummond Community Council’).

The Committee also agreed to GRANT DELEGATED POWERS to the Area Planning Manager to revise condition 20 to include further details of traffic calming measures within the adopted road corridor on Fettes Road and Connage Crescent between the accesses to the development and junctions of the aforementioned roads with Nairn Road.

It was further agreed that the case officer would have discussions with Transport Planning as to whether the calming platform at the east end of Nairn Road could be refurbished.

6.8
Applicant: NHS Highland (18/04829/FUL) (PLS/010/19)
Location: Land 330M NW of Inverness College UHI, 1 Inverness Campus, Inverness (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: Construction of a new Centre for Health Science 2 including an Elective Care Centre (NHSH), Life Science Business Incubator (HIE) and Health Innovation Facility (UHI).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/010/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation, during which he recommended that the Committee agree to grant delegated powers to the Area Planning Manager to attach additional conditions to (1) address the mitigation measures requested by Transport Scotland and (2) to set out the operational arrangements for car parking on site as required by Transport Planning.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The proposed development included provision for 245 car parking spaces;
• Whilst the total number of users of the building was not known at this stage, Transport Scotland had advised that any potential traffic impacts would be contained wholly within the site rather than spilling out onto the main junction and the trunk road;
• The proposed additional condition to address the mitigation measures requested by Transport Scotland had been recommended so as to ensure more effective control over the operation of the car parks within the proposed development and to clearly identify which car parks were specifically allocated for either public or staff use;
• The applicant had provided trip generation analysis to create a profile of the number of people likely to be coming to and leaving the site which had been evaluated to peak at 370 people trips at the busiest time;
• It had been proposed that the new bus gate would provide access to the Raigmore Hospital site from Raigmore estate through the existing Centre for Health Science complex;
• The proposed bus priority lane would be installed from the back of the Raigmore estate to the junction on Old Perth road;
• It was recognised that there was currently a lack of sufficient public transport provision within the Raigmore Hospital site and it was intended that the completion of the North Bridge would provide a direct route for buses to the site and also into the Inverness Business and Retail Park; and
• There was an expectation that there would be interest from bus companies in operating commercially viable routes through the campus site; and
• A travel plan was in the process of being developed by the applicant and business users with participation from Stagecoach.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the transport planning proposals submitted by the applicant as junctions in this area were already over capacity and the site could become overwhelmed by cars;
• Concern was also expressed regarding the potential impact the transport planning proposals could have on in-patients using the medical facility;
• Whilst welcoming the proposed development and the collaborative work undertaken between organisations, concern was expressed that the proposals for car parking within the campus had been designed on the basis that active travel would be facilitated;
• There were currently ongoing issues in relation to bus times to the UHI College not suiting the needs of staff or students and it was likely that more private cars would be used to access the proposed development than currently anticipated; and
• Concern was expressed regarding the volume of traffic generated at the Inshes Junction during peak hours from people travelling to Raigmore Hospital and the UHI Campus and that whilst the proposed A9/A96 East Link road could help to mitigate this, traffic problems were likely to increase if the proposed development was completed prior to the construction of the East Link road.

In response to a further question, it was confirmed that NHS Highland had advised that in terms of the potential impact on Raigmore Hospital and the elective care centre arising from the proposed development, care services would transfer over from the existing Raigmore complex.

During further discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Whilst supportive of the proposed development, the management of transport was of concern, in particular to the east of Inverness and the impact parking at Raigmore Hospital had on Raigmore estate and Drakies;
• The issues and concerns which had been raised during discussion in relation to traffic problems and public transport were not the applicant’s problem but were for the Council and Traffic Scotland to address;
• Transport Planning were commended for their stance in retaining the requirement for a bus lane in the proposals;
• The provision of a bus gate in the Raigmore estate was welcomed as it would enable better public transport from the estate into the hospital and could improve the general public transport network in Inverness; and
• The proposed development did not represent a simple transfer of existing services from Raigmore Hospital onto a new site and its purpose was to increase day to day health provision in the Highlands.

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

It was further agreed to GRANT DELEGATED POWERS to the Area Planning Manager to attach additional conditions to (1) address the mitigation measures requested by Transport Scotland and (2) to set out the operational arrangements for car parking on site as required by Transport Planning.

6.9
Applicant: Ardersier Port Ltd (18/04552/PIP) (PLS/011/19)
Location: Former Fabrication Yard, Ardersier, Nairn (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: 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, re-grading and upfilling of landward areas and landscaping (Renewal of planning permission 13/01689/PIP).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/011/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and NOTED that if Members wished to visit the  site, this could be arranged outwith the planning process.

7. A.O.B.

The Chair confirmed that a site visit and Special Meeting of the Committee would be held in conjunction with the proposed Glen Etive hydro-electric scheme on 18 February 2019 (Site Visit) and 20 February 2019 (Special Meeting).

The meeting ended at 1.05 pm