Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 12 March 2019 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter (excluding items 6.5 – 7.2)
Mr B Boyd
Ms C Caddick
Mr G Cruickshank (excluding items 6.1 and 6.2)
Mrs M Davidson
Mr J Gray
Ms P Hadley
Mr T Heggie
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban
Mr R MacWilliam
Mr B Thompson

Non Committee Member Present:

Mr A Henderson (item 6.2 only)

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Mudie, Area Planning Manager – South
Mrs S MacMillan, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr S Hindson, Principal Planner
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Ms L Stewart, Planner
Miss C McArthur, Principal 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.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, congratulated Mr Ken McCorquodale, Principal Planner on his forthcoming retirement and thanked him for his contribution to the Development and Infrastructure service over the years.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence
Leisgeulan

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr N McLean.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None.

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minutes of the Committee meetings held on 29 January 2019 and 20 February 2019, both of which were APPROVED.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/020/19 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: Residential development and associated infrastructure. (19/00409/PAN) (PLS/021/19)
Ward: 12 – Aird and Loch Ness.
Applicant: Springfield Properties PLC
Site Address: Land 230M West of East Lodge, Achnagairn, Kirkhill.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/021/19 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 requested that the following material issues be brought to the applicant’s attention in addition to the material considerations referred to in the report to give an idea of the scale of the development:-

• Confirmation of where this proposed development sits within the local development plan;
• Confirmation of what had already been built within the settlement of Kirkhill to date; and
• Confirmation of how this proposed development sits with the indicative figures for housing within allocated land in Kirkhill as set out in the local development plan.

5.2
Description: Demolition of 2 storey car park and construction of a hotel development including retail units with associated landscaping infrastructure and creation of a new bus/taxi lane. (19/00693/PAN) (PLS/022/19)
Ward: 14 – Inverness Central.
Applicant: SRP Inverness Ltd
Site Address: Rose Street Hall, 24 Rose Street, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/022/19 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 requested that the following material issues be brought to the applicant’s attention in addition to the material considerations referred to in the report:-

• Consideration to be given to the access for servicing in particular concern was raised in relation to access from Academy Street either through Rose Street or Strothers Lane;
• Consideration to be given to the access for any on-site parking and directing traffic to use Longman Road from the A82 rather than directing traffic to use Rose Street, Strothers Lane, Railway Terrace or Farraline Park;
• Indication from the applicant as to whether any prospective operator intends to make use of coach tours/parties and ensure that an assessment of the impact that this would have on the vehicular access to the site is undertaken;
• Indication from the applicant as to what plans they have for Rose Street Hall which is included within the boundary of the application site;
• Consideration to be given to the height of the proposed development and any visual impact that the elevations of the building would have from Friars Bridge, Inverness Castle and any particular view from the river side to ensure it blends in with the current skyline of Inverness rather than becoming a dominant feature;
• Consideration to be given to the other major developments taking place along Academy Street and whether any joint up strategy can be used, for example when demolition works are being carried out; and
• Consideration to be given to the venal access from Academy Street to this site to ensure that an amenity benefit is continued.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Vento Ludens Ltd (18/05750/FUL) (PLS/019/19)
Location: Land 1100m SW of Glencoe Caravan and Camping Site, Glencoe. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Construction of a run of river hydro scheme, including intake, buried pipeline, turbine house, outfall, grid connection & access tracks.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/019/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Ms L Stewart presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) was keen to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact arising from the proposed development and the proposed replanting alongside the proposals set out in the FCS Land Management Plan would help to screen new infrastructure and therefore reduce any landscape and visual impact;
• Transport Scotland’s response recommend that conditions should be attached to any permission given; however, they had not provided any further comment as to why they deemed the proposed development acceptable;
• Whilst a socio-economic impact assessment had been submitted, the potential community benefits arising from the proposed development should not form part of the Committee’s consideration of the planning merits of the application;
• The intakes were located behind the Forestry Commission plantation and would be set so far down from the tributaries that they could only be visible from localised viewpoints;
• A representation had been received from the Woodland Trust; however, whilst the organisation was not a statutory consultee, concerns it had raised in relation to the powerhouse being located within an ancient woodland could be addressed by compensatory planting; and
• It was not anticipated that there would be any change in the vegetation around the access tracks and penstock following regeneration and compensatory planting.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The proposed development was considered to be appropriately sited within the area and it was highlighted that, in terms of its impact on the National Scenic Area, there were already a number of existing commercial operations located within the area;
• Whilst supportive of the proposed access to the site from the A82, concern was expressed that Transport Scotland and the Forestry Officer had been inconsistent in their approach as they had both previously objected to a separate development which required the creation of a new road access from this stretch of the A82;
• The inclusion of a condition requiring the submission of proposals for an archaeological watching brief prior to construction was welcomed;
• In response to concern raised regarding the design of the turbine house and that the finish should be appropriate to the landscape, it was suggested that an additional condition be included within the recommendation requiring that prior to the commencement of development, the applicant submit details of the finishes for the building and that these be agreed in consultation with the local Members; and
• Whilst the proposed development was of a small scale, it represented support for hydro energy and it was considered that appropriate mitigation and restoration measures had been proposed.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional condition that, prior to commencement of development, the applicant will submit details of the finishes for the building which are to be agreed in consultation with the local Members.

6.2
Applicant: Vento Ludens Ltd (18/03110/FUL) (PLS/023/19)
Location: Land 2400M NW of Ardechive Cottage, Achnacarry, Spean Bridge. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Construction of a 950kW run of river hydro scheme, including intake, buried pipeline, turbine house, outfall, grid connection & access tracks (Allt Mhuic).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/023/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs S MacMillan presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The extent of the proposed development within the context of the Wild Land Area and the location of a number of existing hydro schemes within the Loch Arkaig area were identified;
• There would a be retained access track from the existing forest track up to the intake along the line of the penstock;
• The retained track would be restored down post construction to a running width of 2m wide, with corner sections 2.5m wide;
• No track would be retained on the lower section of the scheme towards the loch;
• The CAR licence had been processed without SEPA being aware of the kayaking interest; however, as kayaking in this area was generally only possible during spate condition, the proposed development was unlikely to have an impact as hydro schemes tended to only affect low to medium flows;
• The applicant has been asked to provide live information on a website of flow conditions by way of condition;
• The recommendation included a condition requiring the applicant to provide live flow data to inform recreational users of the Allt Mhuic, to off-set any loss of canoeing/kayaking days;
• The applicant had sought to keep a 4x4 vehicular access to the intake for future maintenance purposes and health and safety of personnel given the inclement weather conditions and terrain;
• Whilst alternative routes for the penstock had been discussed, this could be difficult due to the location of the outflow which required water to be returned into the Allt Mhuic at a point upstream of where the substrate provided spawning habitat for fish;
• It was acknowledged that remedial work had been sought at Cia-Aig and Allt Dubh hydro schemes due to issues regarding the landscape and visual impact of the tracks installed; however, it was anticipated that with the planned mitigation measures the proposed development should contrast with these other schemes; and
• In response to comment that some non-statutory organisations had specifically objected to the proposed development but had been noted in the report as having concerns would be recorded appropriately as either being for or against a development within the officer’s report.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The inclusion of the local community council’s comments within the report was helpful and whilst they had raised concerns regarding construction, this could be dealt with by condition;
• In highlighting that two similar hydro schemes at Cia-Aig and Allt Dubh had not remediated well, the further extent of control proposed for the development, in particular, the Environmental Clerk of Works, Landscape Clerk of Works and Arboriculturalist reporting to the Council on a weekly basis was welcomed;
• Whilst in the context of other renewable energy developments the proposed hydro scheme might be considered small, it would help contribute to the Council’s renewable energy ambitions and could power a large number of houses;
• Concern was expressed that the contribution renewable energy schemes made to provision of energy should not outweigh any potential damage arising from the proposed development;
• Concern was also expressed that Scottish Natural Heritage had not objected to the proposed development despite having set out the Wild Land Area designation;
• The requirement for a permanent access track, as opposed to an all-terrain vehicle track on the grounds of the height, altitude and length of track was  not justified as there were examples of tracks within the Cairngorms at all-terrain vehicle track level in more remote and higher terrain than that within the proposed location;
• In highlighting the scars left from other hydro scheme developments within Loch Arkaig which had required remedial action to be sought by the Council, concern was expressed at the potential for similar disruption to occur in a Wild Land Area as a result of the proposed development;
• It was acknowledged that wild land at a higher altitude took time to recover and whilst the applicant had provided assurances that the track would be remediated, this could be difficult to achieve;
• Concern was expressed regarding the impact of the track in the context of the surrounding landscape and that there was no requirement for the track to be retained at 2.5m in width as it would only be periodically used for maintenance;
• Concern was expressed that the track was unlikely to return to its original state prior to construction and would leave a scar across the landscape in perpetuity;
• Attention was drawn to the industrial appearance of the powerhouse and its sitting which it was considered would detract from the character and quality of visitors’ experiences of the reserve and it was suggested that details of the finishes for the powerhouse should be looked at again by the applicant;
• Whilst acknowledging the potential impact of the tracks on the landscape, the benefits of the proposed scheme outweighed these concerns and it was unfair to compare the damage caused by existing schemes when the applicant had taken measures to ensure remediation;
• It was suggested that in order to alleviate some of the concerns raised regarding the remediation of the track, greater emphasis should be made on the timescales proposed for remediation work and how the Council intended to enforce this if the work did not meet the standards required;
• It was further suggested that the width of the access track be reduced to a 1.8 m all-terrain vehicle track post-construction;
• Caution was expressed against making significant amendments to the conditions, in particular, as the applicant had indicated that the width of the track as proposed was necessary for the purposes of health and safety and access; and
• Members were supportive of the use of drone footage during the presentation of the report and it was requested that it was used where possible as an alternative to site visits in future applications.

In response to questions arising during discussion, the following was confirmed:-

• An amendment to Condition 2 could be included within the recommendation to further reduce the width of the access track to a 1.8m all-terrain vehicle track post construction;
• It was acknowledged that restoration in the upper area of the development would be more difficult due to the increased height; and
• Reassurance was provided that the Environmental Clerk of Works and Landscape Clerk of Works would be in attendance on site and would be able to raise any concerns directly with the Council.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr B Thompson, moved a motion that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and to the inclusion of the following:-

• an additional condition requiring that prior to commencement of development, the applicant will submit details of the finishes for the building which are to be agreed in consultation with the local Members; and
• an amendment to condition 2 to further reduce the width of the access track to a 1.8m all-terrain vehicle track post construction.

Mr R MacWilliam then moved as an amendment that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and to the inclusion of an additional condition requiring that prior to commencement of development, the applicant will submit details of the finishes for the building which are to be agreed in consultation with the local Members, but having failed to find a seconder the amendment fell.

Mr A Baxter, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• The proposed development is contrary to paragraph 200 of Scottish Planning Policy and Policy 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as it will have an unacceptable impact on the wild land characteristics displayed in Wild Land Area 18, which is an area very sensitive to any form of intrusive human activity and has no capacity to accept this development; in particular, it would erode the sense of remoteness within the wild land area by extending built development and thereby affecting the sense of prospect towards distant, rugged mountains and sanctuary within the glen thereby challenging the integrity of wild land qualities; and
• It is also contrary to paragraph 215 of Scottish Planning Policy as the applicant has not demonstrated that any significant effects on the qualities of the area can be overcome by siting, design or other mitigation.

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

Motion

Ms C Caddick
Mr B Boyd
Mr J Gray
Mr T Heggie
Mr R MacWilliam
Mr B Thompson

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr A Baxter
Mrs M Davidson
Ms P Hadley
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird
Mr B Lobban

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

6.3
Applicant: Mr Alan Walker (18/04298/PIP) (PLS/024/19)
Location: Land 45m SW of Mains of Garten, Boat of Garten. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/024/19 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.

Ms L Stewart presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The mature trees located on the front edge of the site along the B970 would not be impacted by the proposed development;
• The more recently planted and self-seeded aspen trees were located near the existing chalets;
• Scottish Water’s response had advised that there was sufficient capacity in Aviemore Water Treatment Works; and
• The planning history made reference to applications which had previously been submitted to erect a house on the site in 1998, 2001 and 2002 and the applications submitted in 2007, 2008 and 2009 were in relation to the development of annex accommodation outwith the application site to the north east.

During discussion, it was considered that the proposed development would be adequately screened from the road and that reference to previous refusals on site was not a material consideration as the planning policy used to refuse permission had been superseded by current policy guidance.

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.

6.4
Applicant: Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (19/00323/FUL) (PLS/025/19)
Location: Land 85M North of Northern Constabulary Area Command, Burnett Road, Inverness. (Ward 16)
Nature of Development: Development of Justice Centre - Amendments to design of Planning Permission 17/03079/FUL including changes to south and west elevations and roof form.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/025/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the design of the building had been looked at by Building Standards and that any issues arising following occupation of the building in relation to the design of the roof windows and whether there was potential for water penetration into the building would be for the applicant to raise with engineers.

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

6.5
Applicant: Alexander Ross & Sons (Sand and Gravel) Ltd (18/01691/FUL) (PLS/026/19)
Location: Mid Lairgs Quarry, Farr, Inverness. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Extension to quarry.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/026/19 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.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• A settlement had been reached on a financial contribution to the Council and this could be used to address any impacts from quarry traffic as part of the overall South Loch Ness Road Improvement Strategy; and
• Developer contributions for improvements works in relation to the A9 could only be requested by Transport Scotland if there were any particular issues arising from the proposed development which required a financial contribution.

During discussion, it was commented that the applicant had been a major industrial operator in and around the Inner Moray Firth area for a number of years and there had been good liaison with the community council regarding the proposed development.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing the restoration bond and contributions as set out in paragraph 8.35 of the report.

7. Decisions on Appeal to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeal
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh agus Àrainneachd

7.1
Applicant: Mr Paul Moores (ENA-270-2026) (16/00095/ENF)
Location: Land 100m SW of River Coe Lodge, Glencoe. (Ward 21)
Nature of Appeal: The alleged breach of planning control: Unauthorised engineering works and siting of a caravan (timber structure with deck on the front) on land without the required planning permission.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and direct that the enforcement notice dated 30 October 2018 be upheld, subject to the variation of the terms of the notice by deleting the words “and should be completed by 10th March 2019” in section 4.

7.2
Applicant: Mr David Duthie (ENA-270-2025) (17/00432/ENF)
Location: 21 Crown Street, Inverness, IV2 3AX. (Ward 14)
Nature of Appeal: The alleged breach of planning control: Unauthorised removal of front garden wall, railings and gate.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and direct that the enforcement notice dated 29 October 2018 be upheld, subject to the variation of the terms of the notice by:

1. deleting from section 4(i) the words “no later than 31st March 2019” and replacing them with the words “no later than 10 May 2019”; and
2. deleting from section 4(ii) the words “no later than the 19th December 2018” and replacing them with the words “no later than 19 April 2019”.

The meeting ended at 1.15 pm