Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 30 April 2019 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr B Boyd, Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson (items 6.2 – 6.4 only), Mr J Gray, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Jarvie, Mr B Lobban, Mr N McLean, Mr C Smith (substitute), Mr B Thompson (by video conferencing) (excluding items 6.3 – 7.1)

Non Committee Member Present:

Mr A Henderson (item 6.1 only), Mr D Rixson (items 1 – 6.2 only), Mrs T Robertson (items 1 – 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
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Ms J Bain, Planner
Mr C Baxter, 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.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence 
eisgeulan

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A Baxter, Mr L Fraser, Ms P Hadley and Mr R MacWilliam.

2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None.

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the Committee meeting held on 12 March 2019 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/027/19 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: Proposed housing development with associated boundary treatment, landscaping and infrastructure. (19/01063/PAN) (PLS/028/19)
Ward: 12 – Aird and Loch Ness
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd
Site Address: Land 130M NE of 60 Newton Park, Kirkhill.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/028/19 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 no further material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.2   
Description: Proposed residential development of circa 300 units. (19/01255/PAN) (PLS/029/19)
Ward: 17 – Culloden and Ardersier
Applicant: The Highland Council
Site Address: Land 370M SE of Balloch Farm, Cherry Park, Balloch, Inverness.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/029/19 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 no further material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention other than those identified in the report.

5.3   
Description: Development of a three stream primary school with nursery provision (Ness Castle Primary School). (19/01401/PAN) (PLS/030/19)
Ward: 15 – Inverness Ness-side
Applicant: The Highland Council
Site Address: Ness Castle Primary School, Ness Castle, Dornoch Road, Inverness, IV2 6EQ.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/030/19 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 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   
Applicant: Corrigan Contractors Ltd (17/01675/FUL) (PLS/031/19)
Location: Land 3100M NW of Sallachan, Ardgour. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Construction of a hydropower scheme (up to 600kW) to include an earth dam and reservoir, diversion intakes, tracks, powerhouse and borrow pits (Coire nam Muc).
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/031/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the refusal of the application on the grounds as detailed in the report. 

Ms L Prins presented the report and recommendation, during which, additional correspondence which had been received from the applicant was distributed to Members.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The upper borrow pit would be located within the proposed inundation zone;
• Ardgour Community Council supported the proposed development;
• A new permanent track would be constructed taking access from an existing private track at Sallachan across pasture with the wooded shoulder at the foot of the hillside into Glen Gour leading to the powerhouse and over the line of the penstock towards the dam.  The track would deviate from the line of the penstock over approximately the last 900m where it would follow an elevated line to the south east side of the reservoir;
• The proposed access track between the powerhouse and dam would be reduced to 2m wide post construction and would be retained to enable access for maintenance;
• The route of the proposed access track followed the main route of the existing argo tracks which were largely generated during the stalking season and reinstated over the following growing season;
• The percentage figures provided within the report in relation to water flow rates were an indication of the likely yearly average increase of water flow into the receiving streams;
• The potential 4.5m difference in maximum and minimum water levels over the shallow water body could create a significant margin of drawdown scar, in particular, towards the upper end of the reservoir;
• The drawdown scar would equate to 70m-80m wide at points around the reservoir, and up to 240m wide at the upper end;
• The applicant had indicated that the maximum and minimum water levels would normally vary between 2-3m vertically; and
• A minimum water flow rate was required to be maintained as a condition of the CAR License.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• With the exception of the access track and the dam, the majority of the proposed development would be buried;
• The construction of new access tracks would make the area more accessible for hillwalkers;
• It was suggested that sufficient provision for tree planting to screen the drawdown area should be included as a condition if planning permission was granted;
• The proposed development could reduce carbon dioxide production from fossil fuels and make a positive contribution towards the local economy through employment opportunities;
• Scottish Natural Heritage was satisfied that the mitigation measures proposed would not disturb the eagles prey species;
• Estates were looking at ways to diversify their business operations and the proposed development provided an opportunity for reinvestment in the area;
• The mitigation measures proposed would reduce the impacts of the development to an acceptable level;
• The proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on a designated Wild Land Area;
• Whilst the proposed development could be considered small-scale, it could make a positive contribution towards energy production and a low carbon economy;
• The use of local contractors would have a positive impact on the local economy;
• The commitment by the applicant to employ  an Ecological Clerk of Works was welcomed;
• In comparison with other similar hydro schemes, the visual impact from the drawdown scar would happen slowly over time and would be much smaller in impact due to the size of the reservoir;
• Whilst the need to protect Wild Land Areas was acknowledged, it was considered that small-scale hydro schemes had a minor or moderate level of visual impact;
• It was suggested that controls in relation to archaeological protections should be included as a condition if planning permission was granted;
• There was a commitment towards the development of renewable energy and to support fragile local economies experiencing de-population;
• Whilst Scottish Natural Heritage had designated the surrounding area as a Wild Land Area, it had not objected to the proposed development;
• The proposed access track would be an improvement in comparison with the existing argo track;
• The proposed powerhouse would be buried to blend in with the surrounding setting;
• Whilst the concerns raised regarding the potential impact the proposed development could have on the Wild Land Area were acknowledged, it was considered that its visibility would be limited; and
• Whilst the proposed development could make a positive contribution towards renewable energy and the local economy, it was considered that the reservoir and dam would have a significant detrimental impact on the surrounding Wild Land Area.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr B Lobban, moved a motion that the application be refused on the grounds as detailed in the report.

Mr N McLean, seconded by Mr B Boyd, moved as an amendment that the application be granted, subject to conditions to be drafted by the planning authority, in consultation with local Members and to include conditions for the sufficient provision of tree planting to screen the drawdown area and for archaeological protections, for the following reason:-

• The mitigation proposed would reduce the impacts of the development to an acceptable level and would therefore be in keeping with Policies 57 and 67 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan and paragraphs 200 and 215 of the Scottish Planning Policy. Therefore, on balance, the proposal based on the renewable energy and economic opportunities for the area outweighed any adverse impact on the qualities of the Wild Land Area.

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

Motion

Mr J Gray
Mr T Heggie
Mr A Jarvie
Mr B Lobban

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr B Boyd
Ms C Caddick
Mr G Cruickshank
Mr N McLean
Mr C Smith
Mr B Thompson

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

6.2   
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Stephen & Katrina Gannon (18/04989/FUL) (PLS/032/19)
Location: Land 50M North of Rigsden, Achnabobane, Spean Bridge. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of House.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/032/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Ms L Prins presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• a planning application for full planning permission rather than an application for matters specified in conditions had been received two days prior to the expiration of the previous permission for planning in principle which had been granted for this site; therefore, the Committee could re-consider the principle of development on the site as part of its determination of the application;
• the application had been recommended for approval for a number of reasons, including that the plot had previously been granted planning permission in principle;
• it was considered that the commencement of building of a house was the stage at which it would contribute to the 10 additional homes threshold available within this housing group;
• the proposed development would not mean that further permissions for houses would be granted within the Achnabobane housing group with any new applications unlikely to be supported as the criteria set out in Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance for further housing within this group had now been reached.

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

6.3   
Applicant: Miss Laura MacGregor (18/02572/PIP) (PLS/033/19)
Location: Land 280M NW of Rigsden, Achnabobane, Spean Bridge. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/033/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the refusal of the application on the grounds as detailed in the report.

The Committee NOTED that the applicant had requested that their application be withdrawn.

6.4   
Applicant: DMPM Services Ltd (18/05593/PIP and 18/05597/FUL) (PLS/034/19)
Location: Land 260m SE of Simpsons Garden Centre. (Ward 19)
Nature of Development: 18/05593/PIP - Erection of 90 No. affordable and private houses with associated roads and infrastructure services; 18/05597/FUL - Erection of affordable housing (30 units).
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/034/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the applications, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing the developer contributions sought in relation to schools, community facilities, affordable housing and transport as set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

Prior to the presentation of the report and recommendation, Members debated whether or not to hold a site visit before determining the application.  Following a vote by show of hands, the Committee agreed to determine the planning application without a site visit.

Ms L Stewart presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• Conditions had been included within the recommendation to secure detail on the amount of open spaces and landscaping that would be included within the proposed development;
• Further detail on specific layouts and design would be determined within a subsequent matters specified in conditions application;
• The SUDS pond would provide an amenity feature within the development and would be protected by natural surveillance from the properties adjacent to it;
• Further details of how the existing right of way through the woodland could be used by the public would be required within the access management plan;
• Further information was provided on the proposed new footpath connections and the safe routes to school from the proposed development to Cradlehall Primary School;
• The provision of a pedestrian refuge island on the B9006 Culloden Road had been included as a condition within the recommendation;
• The applicant had submitted a transport statement which included predicted traffic generations arising from the proposed development which used a combination of national industry standard software which compared similar type developments from across the United Kingdom and produced an average figure;
• The applicant had also used the most recent census data available from the postcode area around the application site as part of their analysis to identify the likely additional traffic generated by the proposed development;
• Whilst the possibility of installing traffic signal control at the Drumossie Brae / Culloden Road junction had been examined, it was felt that there wasn’t enough traffic going through the junction, including the predicted traffic generated by the proposed development, to warrant this;
• No accidents or collisions had been reported over the previous 5 years in relation to the Drumossie Brae / Culloden Road junction;
• Traffic signals within close proximity of each other could interact in a negative way and have an overall adverse impact on the movement of traffic; therefore, there was concern that the installation of traffic signal control at the Drumossie Brae / Culloden Road junction could also impact on the existing traffic signals at the Caulfield Road/B9006 junction;
• It was considered unviable to seek the applicant to move the proposed Drumossie Brae / Culloden Road junction closer to the Caulfield Road/B9006 junction as the land required to attain this was not in the ownership of the applicant;
• The traffic survey data produced by the applicant identified that traffic movements on the B9177 Drumossie Brae at peak time in the morning between 8.15 and 9.15 am generated 201 passenger car units (PCU’s) and during the peak evening time between 4.45 and 5.45pm generated 209 PCU’s;
• In addition to the turning count movements at the Caulfield Road/B9006 junction, the applicant undertook an automatic traffic counter survey which identified that the number of vehicles using the B9006 Culloden Moor daily to be between 10,000 and 13,000 vehicles on average;
• The proposed car parking arrangements had been reviewed against the Council’s standards and required a minimum of 2 car parking spaces per plot;
• The number of car parking spaces required within the shared use facilities was 1.5 spaces per unit and there would also be a provision for on-street parking for visitors within the development;
• Appendix 2 of the report contained the developer contributions to be secured by a section 75 Agreement and included a contribution towards the two classroom extension at the primary school at a rate of £2,041 per house and £1,157 per flat;
• Moving the proposed site access junction further away from the Drumossie Brae / Culloden Road junction would  be problematic due to issues in relation to typography levels, visibility splays and the ability to provide a viable junction for the designated site at the opposite of Drumossie Brae; and
• It was considered that the conditions proposed in relation to the proposed development were proportionate and reasonable.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The mitigation measures proposed could address concerns regarding potential noise impact arising from the A9(T);
• Whilst concern was expressed that the proposed development could exacerbate problems with flooding, the measures proposed in relation to surface water drainage could help to address this;
• Concern was expressed regarding the potential impact the proposed development could have on school capacities at Cradlehall Primary and Culloden Academy;
• Concern was expressed regarding the additional traffic generated by the proposed development and the impact this could have on pedestrian safety, in particular, children walking to school;
• Concern was expressed regarding the current amount of traffic using the B9006 which could often  back up to Simpsons Garden Centre during peaks hours;
• Traffic delays were caused by vehicles turning right at the junction to Drumossie as the junction was not wide enough to allow two vehicles to use the space simultaneously;
• The traffic data collated by the applicant did not take into consideration user habits in the surrounding local area and had underestimated the potential impact the proposed development could have on traffic congestion;
• Concern was expressed regarding the proposed traffic modelling at the Drumossie Brae / Culloden Road junction and that it could have an impact on traffic movement in the long term;
• Whilst the proposed junction realignment could improve visibility, it would not address concerns regarding traffic management and traffic flow;
• It was emphasised that the suggested alternatives in relation to the junction realignment between Culloden Road and Drumossie Brae would not change the volume of traffic using these roads; and
• The proposed development could make a contribution towards the provision of more affordable housing and help to reduce Council house waiting lists.

In response to a suggestion that the traffic modelling at the Drumossie Brae / Culloden Road junction should be moved closer to the Caulfield Road/B9006 junction, it was confirmed that this did not form part of the proposals contained within the applications and that it was not within the gift of the applicant to provide a new route for a potential alternative junction linking up with the existing Caulfield Road/B9006 junction.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr B Lobban, moved a motion that the applications be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing the developer contributions sought in relation to schools, community facilities, affordable housing and transport as set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

Mr A Jarvie, seconded by Ms C Caddick, moved as an amendment that the applications be refused on the grounds that, despite the Transport Planning Team assessment, he was not satisfied that the proposed junction on and off the B9006 / B9177 was sufficient to cope with the increased traffic flow generated by this development, it was therefore not compatible with the public service provision requirement of Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

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

Motion

Mr G Cruickshank
Mrs M Davidson
Mr J Gray
Mr T Heggie
Mr B Lobban
Mr N McLean

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr B Boyd
Ms C Caddick
Mr A Jarvie
Mr C Smith

The motion to GRANT planning permission in principle (18/05593/PIP) and planning permission (18/05597/FUL) for the development accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.5   
Applicant: Hazeldene Group (18/05949/MSC) (PLS/035/19)
Location: Land at Stratton and East Seafield, Inverness. (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: Development of a new public park - approval of matters specified in conditions 2(i), 2(j), 2(k), 2(l), 2(m), 2(o), 2(r), 2(s), 35, 36, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of planning permission 16/02161/S42.
Recommendation: Approve the matters specified.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/035/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the approval of the matters specified in conditions, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, comments included the following:-

• The high specification build of the public park was commended and would make an attractive centrepiece to the Stratton Farm development;
• The submission of applications for both the public park and the residential development (item 6.6 on the agenda) at the same time was welcomed as it could enable construction of both developments simultaneously; and
• The illustrations contained within the plans of the proposed development should be used as an example to other developers of the standard expected when submitting planning applications.

The Committee APPROVED the matters specified in conditions subject to the condition set out in the report.

6.6   
Applicant: The Highland Council (18/04550/MSC) (PLS/036/19)
Location: Land 345M East of Churchfield Cottage, Barn Church Road, Culloden, Inverness. (Ward 17)
Nature of Development: Erection of 150 unit residential development and associated infrastructure - approval of matters specified in conditions 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(g), 2(h), 2(i), 2(k), 2(l), 2(m), 2(n), 2(o), 2(q), 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 13, 28, 30, 31, 35, and 46 of Planning Permission 16/02161/S42.
Recommendation: Approve the matters specified.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/036/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the approval of the matters specified in conditions, subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee APPROVED the matters specified in conditions subject to the condition set out in 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: Vastint Hospitality B.V. (PPA-270-2204) (18/01248/FUL)
Location: Former Swimming Pool Site, Glebe Street, Inverness, IV1 1RF. (Ward 14)
Nature of Appeal: Erection of hotel development with associated landscaping, car parking and ancillary uses.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.

 

The meeting ended at 1.20 pm