Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of the meeting of the North Planning Applications Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 5 March 2019 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Bremner (excluding items 1 – 6.1), Mrs I Campbell, Ms K Currie (excluding items 6.10 – 6.13), Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr J Gordon, Mr D MacKay, Mr D Macleod, Mrs M Paterson, Mr A Rhind (excluding items 6.5, 6.7 and 6.8 – 6.13), Mr A Sinclair (excluding items 6.5 and 6.13), Ms M Smith and Mr A Mackinnon (substitute for Mrs A MacLean) (excluding items 6.4, 6.5, 6.9 and 6.13).  

Other Members Present:

Mrs J Barclay and Mr G Adam. 

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Jones, Acting Head of Development Management - Highland
Ms J Bridge, Senior Engineer (Development Management)
Mr M Harvey, Team Leader
Mrs E McArthur, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Principal Planner
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Dr S Turnbull, Coastal Planning Officer
Mrs R Hindson, Planner
Mrs G Pearson, Planner
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor – Planning and Clerk
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Business

Ms Maxine Smith in the Chair

The Chair confirmed that the meeting would be filmed and broadcast over the Internet on the Highland Council website and would be archived and available for viewing for 12 months. 

The Chair advised that this was Ken McCorquodale’s last meeting prior to his retirement.  She thanked Mr McCorquodale for all the advice and assistance he had given to Members with his invaluable wealth of experience and on behalf of the Committee she wished Mr McCorquodale a long and happy retirement.

1.  Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs A MacLean, Mr C MacLeod and Mr K Rosie.

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

There were no declarations of interest.  

3.  Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 January 2019 which was APPROVED.

4.  Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN/012/19 by the Acting Head of  Development Management - Highland providing an update on progress of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.  

The Acting Head of Development Management – Highland responded to Members queries as follows:-

• the former fish factory site in Conon Bridge was still progressing, there had been long standing issues and information was still required, this would be brought to Committee when the information had been received;
• the development of 104 houses in Muir of Ord was awaiting further information and would also be brought to Committee when the information had been received;
• the 33 house development in Culbokie had just received consultation responses and was likely to come to the next Committee in April; and
• the section 75 for the development at Novar, Evanton had been concluded and the permission had issued therefore it was no longer on the list.

The Committee thereafter NOTED the current position with these applications.

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

5.1 Description: A mixed use development comprising housing, affordable housing, community uses and open space, a new village and development site access will be formed with the trunk road and the old road stopped up, a replacement car park for the school and bus turning circle and access will also form part of the development (18/05397/PAN) (PLN/013/19).
Ward:  5
Applicant: Lochalsh Estates Ltd 
Site Address:  Land 130 m NE of Auchtertyre Primary School, Auchtertyre, Balmacara.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/013/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland 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 local Member’s concern about school capacity and infrastructure in the vicinity of the application site and also requested that the applicant clearly define what is meant by “public housing”.

5.2 Description: Proposed wind turbine development comprising up to seven wind turbines with tip height up to 149.9 m, including access tracks, a substation, energy storage systems and other related ancillary components including temporary construction compound  and on site borrow pits (19/00695/PAN) (PLN/014/19)
Ward: 4
Applicant: Wind 2 Ltd
Site Address: Land 1700 m South of 43 Farlary, Rogart.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/014/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland 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 local Member’s concern about overprovision of wind farm developments in the area and the potential impact on residents. Together with the existing Kilbraur Wind Farm this development would be in danger of encircling a number of residential properties.

6.  Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1 Applicant: Mr Phil Davidson (17/02436/FUL) (PLN/015/19)
Location:  Land 3,290 m NE of Church of Scotland, West Helmsdale (Ward 4).
Nature of Development: Navidale wind farm comprising 5 wind turbines (3 mW each) with a tip height up to 125 m and associated infrastructure.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/015/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons detailed in the report. 

Members, with the exception of Cllr Mackinnon, confirmed that they had all received the email from Greencat Renewables Ltd emailed in advance.  Cllr Mackinnon was provided with a copy of the email.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• pre-planning advice had been sought;
• turbines had been reduced from 12 to 5;
• Scottish Government’s SPP 2014 spatial framework identifies as follows: Group 1 – Areas where wind farms will not be acceptable, Group 2 – Areas of significant protection and Group 3 – Areas with potential for wind farm development. The application site is within Group 2;
• surveys of the peat bog had been undertaken with the turbines being kept to the shallower areas of peat, if the peat bog was pristine and deep it had been avoided as far as possible;  
• this was a small highland estate, planning officers could not dictate the scale of the development they had to take applications as they came forward; and
• there would be a satisfactory link to the grid.

The Committee AGREED to REFUSE planning permission in accordance with the reasons contained in the report

6.2  Applicant: Miss Natalie Bayfield (18/02046/FUL) (PLN/016/19)
Location: Land 55 m East of 19 Colbost Dunvegan (Ward 10).
Nature of Development: Erection of 2 letting chalets and associated works at.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/016/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

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

• the travel plan stated that the new access was acceptable, visibility was measured against road speed, the speed here was 30 mph and there was therefore sufficient visibility for this road speed;
• tarmac would not be required as this was a long access, an artificial surface would have drainage implications, therefore it would be a gravel drive; and
• a shared access would have been preferable but as this hadn’t come forward the access was considered acceptable.

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to the conditions contained in the report.

6.3  Applicant: The Ben Loyal Hotel (18/02420/FUL) (PLN/017/19)
Location: Ben Loyal Hotel, Tongue, Lairg, IV27 4XE (Ward 1).
Nature of Development: Erection of 6 glamping pods and associated works.
Recommendation: Refuse. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/017/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons detailed in the report. 

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

• No pre-planning advice had been sought. The  site had been visited, a speed restriction of 20 mph would require visibility splays of 25 metres and only 9 metres could be achieved, no solution could therefore be found;
• mirrors were not a recommended solution as it was proven hard to judge distance with road mirrors;
• if the hotel had come forward as an application now it would not have been given planning permission in its current built form;
• the scale of the increased traffic from the pods was significant;
• the hotel’s lean to extension was the main cause of the problem, if this could be brought back 2 m it would increase the visibility splays; and
• although the traffic speed in the vicinity of the hotel was generally low the additional traffic from the development would exacerbate the road safety problem caused by inadequate sightlines from the hotel car park onto the public road.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• areas were suffering financially and everything had to be done to enable businesses to be economically viable;
• the pods would generate a maximum of six extra cars;
• the existing access had been there for many years; and
• traffic was slower at this junction as cars on the road were decreasing their speed for the road junction.

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to conditions to be agreed by the Chair and the local Member.

Reason to overturn recommendation: the proposed development fits well with the Council’s Tourism policies contained in the HwLDP in that it will meet local need for tourist accommodation and will provide a boost to the local economy. Poor visibility when exiting the access to the application site is acknowledged but as traffic speeds in the locality are low, this is not considered to be a sufficient reason to refuse the application

6.4  Applicant: Dr W Fraser (18/03570/PIP) (PLN/018/19)
Location: Ness Gap, Fortrose (Ward 9).
Nature of Development: Erection of 12 houses (PIP).
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/018/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

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

• the VISSIM microsimulation model was a computer model of the traffic calming that had been put in place, which reduced, through the shuttle working one lane, the traffic and which had shown the Fortrose High Street to be acceptable for a certain volume of traffic and this further development would be within those levels;
• the development did not have a conventional footpath but areas had been identified for pedestrians; and
• Any further development generating traffic in excess of that of a residential development of 4 houses or the equivalent which will utilise Fortrose High Street should be required to demonstrate that the vehicular traffic generated will not have a detrimental impact on the operation of the High Street. The assessment must be based on observed traffic flows and committed development current when any application for planning permission is submitted and on suitable traffic modelling of the High Street as complex evaluation of issues such as queues, delays and road safety will be required. Any scheme of mitigation on the High Street which might be necessary to reduce the impact would also require a suitable model to demonstrate its acceptability

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• concern expressed in relation to the traffic on Fortrose High Street, however it was not possible to widen the road; and
• safety concerns about  the B9169 junction with the A9.

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

6.5 Applicant: Compass Building and Construction Services Ltd (18/04315/FUL) (PLN/019/19)
Location: Land 30 m SW of Ginn Park, Gairloch (Ward 5).
Nature of Development:  Erection of 8 bungalows, associated infrastructure and services.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/019/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to the conditions contained in the report.

6.6 Applicant: The Highland Council (18/04459/FUL) (PLN/020/19)
Location: Land 70 m SW of 4 Wood Park, Dunvegan Road, Portree (Ward 10).
Nature of Development: Erection of 15 residential units.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/020/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• on a question about the compulsory purchase order on this piece of ground, the planning officer advised that the Council’s Housing Service and the Housing Association were currently in discussion and she was unable to clarify at this time, however ownership of the land was not a matter material to the determination of this planning application;
• the Acting Head of Development Management – Highland advised that the applicant would have to satisfy themselves as to their title  before development could commence on site; 
• Transport Scotland had not objected and preferred the proposed staggered arrangement as an improvement to this junction;  
• the SUDs ensured that surface water run-off from the site would be no worse post than pre-development;
• the SUDs retention basin would generally be dry, however, during periods of heavy rain it would fill and slow down the discharge of water into the burn;
• the flood team had accepted the detail of the SUDs retention basin;
• the development contribution to be secured is in line with other developments in the area, the development contribution applied is in line with the guidance in place at the time the application had been lodged, this is consistent with the approach taken by the Planning Authority to non-Council planning applications;
• there was peat at this development and it was a condition that the applicant come back with a peat management plan;
• a floating road consisted of a layer of terram on the peat and then the tarmac road floated above, several of these “floating roads” existed across the Highlands; and
• developer contributions in terms of school provision take account of existing capacity. As the Education Service had responded that there was sufficient capacity and therefore no contribution was required towards school provision.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Dunvegan Road required a traffic survey before any further developments utilised the road;
• a previous application for one house had been refused in relation to the additional traffic at the junction;
• there appeared to be little room between the SUDs basin and the 6 metre buffer next to the river for the new access to the existing house; and
• this was a large development on a small site.  

Members discussed the use of drone footage to view the site, however it was considered that drone footage would be limited as the site was very overgrown.  

The Committee thereafter AGREED to DEFER for a site visit on Thursday 18 April 2019 with determination thereafter in Portree. Only those members present today could participate.    

6.7 Applicant: Highland Housing Alliance (18/04659/FUL) (PLN/021/19)
Location: Land West of Kinellan Drive, Strathpeffer (Ward 5).
Nature of Development: Erection of 42 houses.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/021/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.  There had been a late submission from an adjacent landowner, and further comments from the original objectors.  The planning officer covered these points within the report and his presentation. 

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

• only poor quality trees would be removed and these would be replaced within the site;
• the speed of traffic on Kinellan Drive would be 20 mph and therefore the visibility splays would be acceptable; 
• in relation to planning gain, applicants could decide to make two payments per year or one large payment prior to planning permission being issued;
• a contribution was to be taken for the future development of Dingwall Academy;
• a contribution would also be taken towards school transport from Strathpeffer to Dingwall; 
• there was also a contribution towards the community-led Strathpeffer Community Park;
• an estimate for children in a development was taken as 0.3 pupils per house for primary schools and 0.17 pupils per house for academy schools;
• this was an allocated site in the local development plan; and
• works had been undertaken on the overall drainage in Strathpeffer and a Flood Risk Assessment had been undertaken of the site which had the approval of both SEPA and the Council’s Flood Team.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• pleased to see that safer routes to school had been carried out; and
• that a flood risk assessment had been undertaken.

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to upfront payment of the developer contributions detailed in the report  and to the conditions contained in the report

6.8 Applicant: 3B Construction (18/04941/FUL) (PLN/022/19)
Location: Land 260 m North East of the Achuvoldrach Waste Transfer Station. (Ward 1).
Nature of Development: Temporary siting of 21 static caravans and 4 portable cabins and associated services, upgrading of access and formation of temporary car park.
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/022/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to the conditions contained in the report.

6.9 Applicant: Mr Clair and Miss Helen Harper (18/05061/FUL) (PLN/023/19)
Location: Land 50 m West of Windygates, Newton Row, Wick (Ward 3).
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Refuse. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/023/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• no pre-planning advice had been sought however during the course of the application alternative sites for the proposed house had been suggested by planning officers;
• the use of a shared access was always preferable to a single access; and
• SEPA would expect a ground investigation for drainage.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Hill of Newton Farm was on a dead end road;
• driving up the A9 the house would not be visible;
• no issues with this proposal; and
• there had not been a full assessment on the drainage of the site.

The Committee AGREED to DEFER for the applicant to submit information to address SEPA’s objection re the proposed septic tank and soakaway (is it sufficient to deal with foul drainage) and to explore alternative locations within the applicants’ landownership.

The Chair advised that this was Shona Turnbull’s last meeting prior to her departure from the Council.  Dr Turnbull was thanked for all the advice and invaluable assistance on coastal planning.  The loss of her wealth of experience and knowledge would be keenly felt.  Members thanked her for the advice and assistance she had given to Members and wished her every success in the future.

6.10 Applicant: Cromarty Mussels, T/A MacKenzie Oysters (18/05344/FUL) (PLN/024/19)
Location: Cromarty Bay West, Cromarty (Ward 9).
Nature of Development: Siting of marine shellfish farm (24,000 x 1 m x 3 m oyster trestles).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/024/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• the Cromarty Firth Port Authority did not have jurisdiction in this area, navigational issues would be dealt with by Marine Scotland.

Mr C Fraser personally thanked Dr Turnbull for her support over the years. 

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to the conditions contained in the report.

6.11 Applicant: Diageo (18/05564/FUL) (PLN/025/19)
Location: Land 195 m SE of Talisker Distillery, Carbost (Ward 10).
Nature of Development: Alterations and extension to existing distillery visitor centre car park. (Ward 10)
Recommendation: Grant. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/025/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. 

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to the conditions contained in the report.

6.12 Applicant: Mr and Mrs A Fraser (18/05804/PIP) (PLN/026/19)
Location: Land 90 m North East of Hopefield Cottage, Flowerburn, Rosemarkie (Ward 9).
Nature of Development: House site and entrance.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/026/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• the steading was derelict and works had not started to redevelop the steading into a house;
• a group was defined as three existing houses;
• the separation distances and absence of a relationship between the houses, did not qualify the house as part of a cohesive housing group; and
• housing in the countryside policy discouraged houses in open fields and there were no boundaries or fences to the open field.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• the steading was in the process of being built and would count as a house making this a housing group; and
• there had been no objections from the Community Council, neighbours, Transport Planning, Scottish Water or other consultees.

The Clerk then read out the Housing in the Countryside Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance as it relates to housing groups and rounding off of housing groups and circulated an extract to Members.

Ms M Smith, seconded by Mr M Finlayson, MOVED refusal of the application for the reasons stated in the report. 

Mr C Fraser, seconded by Mr J Gordon, moved as an AMENDMENT that the application be approved. 

Reason to overturn recommendation: in Members’ view, contrary to the case officer’s view, the housing in the vicinity of the application site comprise a group for the purposes of the Supplementary Guidance and the policy from which it comes (Policy 35 of the HwLDP) and the proposed development is considered to comprise rounding off of that group. Having concluded that the application was in accordance with the HwLDP, Members indicated that, in their view, there were no material considerations that would justify refusal of the application

On a vote being taken, 3 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 9 in favour of the amendment, as follows:

For the motion (3)

Mr M Finlayson, Ms M Smith and Mr A Sinclair.  

For the amendment (9)

Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr C Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr J Gordon, Mr A MacKinnon, Mr D MacKay, Mr D MacLeod and Mrs M Paterson.

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to conditions to be agreed by the Chair and the local Member.

6.13 Applicant: Mr R Wiseman (18/03848/FUL) (PLN/027/19)
Location: Land North of Boom House, Mellon Charles (Ward 5).
Nature of Development: Construction of a private way for croft access from existing way.
Recommendation: Refuse. 

There had been circulated Report No PLN/027/19 by the Acting Head of Development Management - Highland recommending that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons detailed in the report. 

The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• the Crofters Commission had objected as there was an existing route of access, they didn’t feel given the nature of the land here, that there was any operational need for this track;
• there was a legal issue with the neighbouring landowner preventing the development of the house site, however this was a private legal matter;
• to access the Southern route to his house he would manage so far by vehicle and then have to complete on a quad or on foot;
• the existing track would also be used to access the house plot;
• pre-planning advice had been that the planning service could not support the route proposed; and
• the track would be close to Boom House and would cause an intrusion to that property.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• having requested representations from the Crofters Commission, Members should take cognizance of their response;
• 80 metres of track in that area would have very little impact;
• how has the crofter managed to work his croft until now; and
• the Crofters Commission had stated that it would be a loss of agricultural land, it looked like rock and not agricultural land.

Mr D MacLeod, seconded by Ms B Campbell, moved approval of the application. 

Reasons to overturn recommendation:

1. The proposal does not conflict with Policy 28 of the HwLDP in that the proposed track does not constitute a significant intrusion into the natural environment. The extent of the track made up of cut and fill is minimal and will have little effect on the visual amenity of the area.
2. The proposal will have little effect on the visual impact within the Wester Ross National Scenic Area.
3. The operational requirement has been demonstrated in section 1.2 of the Report on Handling.
4. The proposal does accord with Policy 57 of the HwLDP in that any landscape scarring and visual impact resulting from this development will be minimal.
5. The development does not significantly alter or impact upon landscape quality by its scale or form.

Ms M Smith, seconded by Mr R Gale, moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the reasons stated in the Report.   

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

For the motion (7)

Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr C Fraser, Mr J Gordon, Mr D Mackay, Mr D MacLeod and Mrs M Paterson.  

For the amendment (3)

Mr M Finlayson, Mr R Gale and Ms M Smith.

The Committee AGREED to GRANT subject to conditions to be agreed by the Chair and the local Members.

The meeting closed at 5.45 pm.