Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 11 June 2019 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr B Boyd (excluding items 6.8 – 7.1), Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank (excluding item 6.4), Mrs M Davidson (excluding items 1 – 6.2 and 6.8), Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Ms P Hadley (items 6.3 – 6.7 only), Mr A Jarvie, Mr R MacWilliam (excluding item 6.5), Mr N McLean (items 1 – 6.4 only) and Mr B Thompson.

Non Committee Member Present:

Mr A Henderson (items 5.1 – 6.4 only), Mr D Macpherson (excluding items 1 – 6.1, 6.5 and 6.8), Mrs T Robertson (items 1 – 6.4 only)

Officials in attendance:

Mr D Mudie, Area Planning Manager – South
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr B Robertson, Team Leader
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Principal Planner
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Mrs S Hadfield, Planner
Mr J Kelly, 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 
Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A Baxter, Mr T Heggie, Mr R Laird and Mr B Lobban.

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 30 April 2019 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/037/19 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.

In speaking to the report, the Area Planning Manager - South confirmed that an application had recently been submitted in relation to the construction of a hotel development at Rose Street Car Park, Inverness (application reference: 19/02357/FUL) and it was anticipated that the application would be submitted for determination by the Committee at its meeting on 17 September 2019. 

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. (19/02244/PAN) (PLS/038/19)
Ward: 12 – Aird and Loch Ness
Applicant: Springfield Properties PLC
Site Address: Land Adjacent to Fire Station, East End, Beauly.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/038/19 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: Mr Paul Nicoll (18/05901/S42) (PLS/039/19)
Location: Balnagowan Island, Duror. (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Application under Section 42 for non-compliance with Condition 3 of planning permission 11/00990/FUL.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/039/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application under Section 42. 

Ms L Prins presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion, the concern raised by Duror and Kentallen Community Council regarding the potential impact the proposed development could have on the nesting habits of birds and sea life in the surrounding waters was acknowledged; however, the proposed development was considered to be in compliance with development plan policy and therefore was deemed acceptable.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the application under Section 42 for non-compliance with Condition 3 of planning permission 11/00990/FUL.

6.2
Applicant: The Highland Council (18/05939/MSC) (PLS/040/19)
Location: Land 400M NE of Blar Mor Industrial Estate, Lochyside, Fort William. (Ward 11)
Nature of Development: Erection of 117 unit residential development and associated infrastructure - approval of matters specified in conditions 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 of Planning Permission 18/03647/PIP.
Recommendation: Approve the matters specified.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/032/19 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.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• Whilst provision had been included within the site layout design to accommodate a direct pedestrian access through the Health Centre to the High School, the applicant had been unable to reach an agreement with the Health Centre to facilitate this;
• A 350 metre segregated cycle/footpath from the South East of the site to the A830 would provide pedestrian access from the residential development site to the High School;
• It was considered that the applicant had met the required standards in relation to sustainable design;
• It was proposed that a compound area would be located within the site for the storage of underground liquid petroleum gas tanks to provide heating to the residential properties;
• Whilst it was proposed to use gas heating within the development, a final decision regarding this proposal had not yet been made and the applicant  had expressed a commitment to discuss any other potential energy and heating options available with local Members as the development progressed;
• The applicant’s assessment of the potential options for energy use within the site had taken into consideration the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) calculations for buildings standards, carbon release, usability and cost in relation to capital cost and ongoing residential running costs;
• It was the planning officer’s understanding that the applicant had used the most recent SAP ratings in the assessment;
• A sustainable drainage system (SUDS) basin, in the form of a balancing pool, had previously been created in connection with another planning development; however, this was insufficient to deal with the water surface drainage for the whole of the Blar Mor Masterplan site and a separate planning application had been submitted to ensure that the balancing pool was remodelled to enable it to handle the full capacity of the Blar Mor Masterplan site;
• Each individual phase of the Blar Mor development was required to consider whether any further mitigation measures were necessary and whether this would require the capacity of the balancing pond to be enhanced; and
• Water surface drainage features were proposed to the South of the application site and it was considered that the balancing pond had sufficient capacity at present to deal with the proposed development.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The layout of the proposed development was welcomed, in particular, the location of the play space area and the types of play installation features proposed;
• Concern was expressed regarding the installation of gas tanks to provide heating as there was currently no gas network in Fort William;
• Alternative sources of heating, which had been installed in recent social housing developments, such as air source heat pump, solar and biomass should be installed instead of gas heating;
• It was unclear as to whether the SAP ratings provided sufficient justification to permit the use of gas heating in the proposed development;
• The application site was located directly above the potential route of a proposed gas pipe line in connection with a supply to the Lochaber Smelter;
• The applicant’s proposal to use gas heating could only be supported with good documented evidence and it was requested that the applicant submit a full statement setting out their reasoning for their choices of viable heating options for the development;
• It was further suggested that the last two sentences of paragraph 8.16 of the report should be deleted to emphasise the Committee’s desire for the applicant to look at alternative options for heating;
• The benefit of using ground source heat pumps in future social housing developments was highlighted as these were more efficient that air source heat pumps;
• Demand for housing in Lochaber had been well established and, therefore, the provision of 117 affordable houses as proposed within the development was to be welcomed;
• Reassurances had been received that appropriate measures would be put in place to avoid carbon release from disturbance of peat within the site;
• The proposed development promoted active travel and linked up well with the shared cycle/footpath surfaces provided on both sides of the A830;
• It should remain an aspiration of the applicant to provide a direct pedestrian link from the development site through the Health Centre to the High School;
• There was potential to tie in the Council’s promotion of active travel with the work being undertaken by HiTrans and Sustrans in relation to sustainable transport within the Lochaber area; and
• Whilst gas heating might not be the preferred choice, it was important to keep all options open and there could be potential in the future to retrofit houses with alternative heating models.

The Committee APPROVED the matters specified in conditions 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 of planning permission 18/03647/PIP, subject to the condition recommended in the report and AGREED that:-

1. the last two sentences of paragraph 8.16 of the report be deleted; and
2. prior to commencement of development, the applicant submit to the planning authority and local Members a full statement setting out their reasoning for their choices of viable heating options for the development.

6.3
Applicant: Link Group Ltd (19/00897/PIP and 19/00898/FUL) (PLS/041/19)
Location: Land at Upper Achintore, Fort William. (Ward 21)
Nature of Developments: 19/00897/PIP – New residential development of up to 325 dwellings including landscaping, access and associated site development works.
19/00898/FUL – Formation of roads, access, drainage, foundations, ground works and services for all phases of development and erection of 176 houses and associated works.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/041/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the applications, subject to the conditions detailed in the reports and the prior conclusion of a S.75 legal agreement.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The proposed Traffic Regulation Order(s) required the speed of traffic on all roads to be limited to no more than 20mph and the use of physical traffic calming measures within the residential development itself;
• Traffic calming measures proposed included the combined use of sharp bends, chicanes and raised humps which would be designed to limit traffic to 10 mph;
• The Road Construction Consent process required the submission of  detailed road construction and design to ensure pedestrian safety;
• It was considered that the typography and undulating character of the site could help to slow down traffic within the development;
• Following discussion with the applicant, it was considered that changing the current traffic priority arrangements at the junction between Ross Place and Connochie Road could be detrimental as visibility lines would be difficult to achieve looking uphill towards Connochie Road;
• It was proposed that speed limit countdown features would be incorporated on the approach to the junction between Ross Place and Connochie Road to act as a warning sign to drivers that they were reaching a point where they would have to physically stop and wait to see if they could move forward; and
• It was also proposed to create an enhanced stop line arrangement at the junction between Ross Place and Connochie Road due to some drivers failing to recognise the need to stop at this junction.

During discussion, Members considered that the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed development had been mitigated and that the proposed development could help to contribute towards addressing the current housing demand in Fort William.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the following:-

1. planning permission in principle (19/00897/PIP), subject to the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing the developer contributions set out at 8.45 of the report and the conditions recommended in the report; and
2. planning permission (19/00898/FUL), subject to the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing the developer contributions set out at 8.45 of the report and the conditions recommended in the report.

6.4
Applicant: The Highland Council (19/00503/FUL) (PLS/042/19)
Location: Longman Landfill Site, Stadium Road, Inverness. (Ward 16)
Nature of Development: Erection of a materials recovery facility to process biodegradable municipal waste; office and welfare facilities; weighbridge, access road, car parking and landscaping.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report Nos PLS/042/19 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.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The extended area of the former landfill site that fell outwith the proposed development site could take a considerable amount of time to recover before it would be capable for development;
• Extensive site investigation works had been carried out within the application site and through appropriate mitigation measures recommended by environmental health, it was considered that the site was suitable for the proposed development;
• Environmental aspects of the day to day operation of the site would be regulated by SEPA to ensure it was fit for its intended purpose given the scale of development;
• There was a cycle-way to the North side of the application site and a bus stop on Stadium Road;
• The recommendation included a condition requiring pedestrian and cyclist crossing points to be provided;
• A number of improvements had been suggested by Transport Planning for pedestrians and cyclists approaching the site from Longman Road and it was anticipated that these would be addressed by Transport Scotland during future developments to the Longman roundabout;
• It was anticipated that there would be up to 20 employees on site at any one time operating on a shift capacity from 7am to 10pm;
• The proposed development was a material recovery facility and would work in tandem with the recycling facility at Longman Industrial Estate;
• It was a long-term ambition to secure a coastal path along the eastern side of the former landfill site and it was emphasised that the proposed development would not jeopardise this;
• The anticipated traffic movements arising from the proposed development  were likely to result in approximately 52 vehicle movements in and out of the site per day and would have minimal impact on existing traffic;
• The proposed construction of a flyover at Longman roundabout was at an advanced stage of consultation;
• Whilst a Co2 impact assessment had not been undertaken, the recommendation included a condition requiring the submission of details in relation to the requirement for a comprehensive ventilation plant to be installed which would ensure that any emissions were within the relevant regulatory standards and enforced by SPEA;
• The existing arrangements for traffic leaving Stadium Road onto the A9 would remain in place and vehicles would not be permitted to use the bus lane providing access to Longman Road from the roundabout;
• It was considered that there would be adequate facilities within the yard area of the site to accommodate the number of vehicles that were anticipated during operational hours; and
• Whilst the provision of charging points for electric vehicles did not form part of the application, this could be an operational decision for the operator of the facility to look at in the future.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• It was emphasised that extensive consultation had taken place regarding the proposed development and there was a general acceptance that the way in which waste was disposed of by the Council needed to be addressed;
• The application site was a suitable location for the operation of a waste materials recovery facility given its previous use as a landfill site;
• The design of the proposed building was considered acceptable and would mask the activities taking place inside it;
• The lack of any objections to the proposed development reaffirmed the public’s desire for the Council to deal with waste disposal in the Highlands;
• The proposed development was on a well-screened site and provided an opportunity to prevent heavy waste material from being put in to landfill;
• It was emphasised that a material recovery facility had been a long-term ambition of the Council and therefore the proposed development was welcomed;
• Concern was expressed that the proposed development had not been subjected to serious consultation and that the application site did not necessarily have to be used for development as a continuation of its previous use;
• Concern was also expressed regarding the proposed development’s  proximity to a major population centre and that it was environmentally an unsuitable solution for dealing with waste from across the whole of the Highlands; and
• Concern was expressed that there was a lack of parking spaces within the site to provide electric vehicle charging facilities in the future and also to enable lorry drivers the opportunity to rest;

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mrs C Caddick, moved a motion that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr R MacWilliam moved as an amendment that the application be refused; however, following a brief adjournment to seek officer advice, he withdrew his amendment as he considered that he did not have sufficient information to challenge the recommendation to grant on planning grounds.

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

6.5
Applicant: Breedon Northern Ltd (18/05787/FUL) (PLS/043/19)
Location: Land 575M SW of Upper Remore, Nairn. (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Construction of a sand and gravel quarry.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/043/19 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:-

• The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) could include a requirement for a reduction in the speed limit from 60mph down to 40mph on the A939 and the C1175 in the Househill area;
• The proposed reduction in speed limit on the A939 was an extension of the existing 40mph speed limit for traffic leaving Nairn;
• The proposed access road from the public road into the quarry would be constructed to a width of 7.9m;
• Whilst the Forestry Officer had raised no objection, further detail was required to be submitted by the applicant on replanting and compensatory planting of trees;
• The landscape would be capable of accommodating the proposed development as it was considered that there would be minimal impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area;
• It had been calculated that, on average, approximately 28 HGV trips would take place per day to the quarry on the basis that an average of 60k tonnes would be extracted per annum, the operating hours of five and a half days per week and the amount of material an individual HGV could carry;
• Whilst discussion had taken place regarding the potential resurfacing and strengthening of the public road, this did not include any proposals to secure planning gain from the proposed development;
• Whilst monitoring of vehicle traffic associated with the site could be controlled by condition, it was emphasised that the number of vehicles accessing the site was not considered excessive and they would be using an “A” class road which was designed to handle HGVs;
• Analysis by the applicant in relation to movement of goods traffic had identified that the vast majority of goods traffic using the A939 headed North towards Nairn and therefore it was proposed that traffic should enter the site using a left turn and exit the site turning right onto the South bound main road;
• An additional condition could be included within the recommendation requiring the submission of a Traffic Management Plan to include details of proposed signage, monitoring of traffic management in and out of the site and provision for the routing of vehicles when construction of the proposed bypass was completed;
• An additional legal agreement could be included within the recommendation to require the prior conclusion of a s.96 wear and tear agreement;
• Whilst improvement works to the road surface could be sought as part of a s.96 agreement, this could only be pursued if improvements and reinstatement of the road surface were required as a direct result of damage caused by traffic associated with the proposed quarry;
• No collision “hot-spots” had been identified in relation to the site and route during the previous five years of data collection and analysis; and
• The provision of additional warning signs could be sought to warn drivers of slow moving HGVs coming out of the site and onto the main road.

Following discussion, during which Members requested a number of amendments to the recommendation, the Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the following:-

1. prior conclusion of a legal agreement securing a restoration bond;
2. prior conclusion of a s.96 wear and tear agreement; and
3. the conditions recommended in the report, subject to the following amendments:-

• The inclusion of an additional condition to provide a Traffic Management Plan for the development which will include details of proposed signage, monitoring of traffic management in and out of the site and provision for the routing of vehicles when the proposed bypass is in place; and
• Condition 8 to now read as: “No other development shall commence until the 60mph speed limit between the A939 and the C1175 Hillhouse-Raitloan-Howfor Road in the Househill area has been reduced and implemented, with full details in consultation with local members.  For the avoidance of any doubt this shall be subject to a Traffic Regulation Order, the cost of implementation and application shall be met by the developer.”

6.6
Applicant: Tarmac Caledonian Ltd (19/00542/S42) (PLS/044/19)
Location: Park Quarry, Nairn. (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Section 42 Planning Application to vary Condition 5 of planning permission 09/00089/FULNA to extend operational life of quarry.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/044/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application under Section 42, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement.

Ms L Stewart presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised of a correction at paragraph 1.1 in the report to read “The ten year expiry date is 09.10.2019”.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the application under Section 42 to vary Condition 5 of planning permission 09/00089/FULNA to extend the operational life of quarry, subject to the conditions recommended in the report and the prior conclusion of a legal agreement securing a restoration bond.

6.7
Applicant: Scottish Water (19/01909/FUL) (PLS/045/19)
Location: Land 50M South East of Tomboyach House, Nethy Bridge Road, Boat of Garten. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Installation of odour abatement measures, 2 x dosing kiosks and safety shower, scrubber unit and weather station.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/045/19 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:-

• In acknowledging that the proposed development could introduce different chemicals into the water environment, it was confirmed that SEPA, as the regulatory authority (and not the Council), was responsible for monitoring any potential impact the proposed odour abatement measures could have through the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) licence;
• SEPA had raised no objection to the proposed development;
• The Council’s Flood Risk Management Team was of the view that the proposed development would not exacerbate any existing issues in relation to potential flooding within the site; and
• The applicant’s Odour Management Plan had met the parameters as set out by the environmental health authority.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• In acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue with local residents and tourists, it was emphasised that the applicant was seeking to mitigate the impact of odour emissions from the waste water treatment works; and
• Similar odour abatement measures had recently been introduced by the applicant at its waste water treatment works in Ardersier and considered to have been successful.

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

6.8
Applicant: Forrest Developments Ltd (19/01124/S42) (PLS/046/19)
Location: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, Nairn, IV12 5QF. (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Application under Section 42 (Erection of a Class 1 retail unit & a restaurant with drive-thru lane (Sui Generis) with associated parking & other ancillary works) to vary Condition 3 (18/00906/FUL) - Amend opening hours for restaurant and drive-thru.
Recommendation: Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/046/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the grant of the application under Section 42, subject to the modification of the s.75 legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr B Robertson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• Management of the site would be the responsibility of McDonalds and any issues in relation to anti-social behaviour would be a matter for the police to address;
• The only change to the previously granted permission arising from this application would be an increase in the opening hours of the drive-thru restaurant;
• The Litter Management Plan to be submitted by the applicant would be required to address the specific points raised in Condition 9 within the recommendation and any additional points raised by Members during discussion which were deemed appropriate for inclusion;
• Any future submission of an application for a late hours catering licence would be a separate matter for determination by the Licensing Committee but could take into consideration the restriction on hours conditions contained within the planning permission; and
• It was for Members to determine the application in terms of any potential planning matters which could arise from the proposed extension to the opening hours of the drive-thru restaurant.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the potential negative impact the proposed change of opening hours could have in regard to increased anti-social behaviour and the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood;
• In welcoming the requirement under Condition 9 of the recommendation for the applicant to submit a Litter Management Plan, it was emphasised that waste litter had a detrimental impact beyond the close vicinity of the restaurant and was an issue that should be raised with the applicant during negotiations regarding the extent of financial contributions;
• The applicant should make greater emphasise to the public on the impact of waste litter originating from its premises and promote the use of compostable or easily recyclable packaging; and
• It was emphasised that waste from fast food restaurants travelled beyond the local area from which it was purchased and businesses should be encouraged to take responsibility for the waste litter produced from their premises.

The Committee agreed to GRANT the application under Section 42 to vary Condition 3 of planning permission 18/00906/FUL subject to (1) the modification of the s.75 legal agreement and (2) the conditions recommended in the report.

6.9
Applicant: Ms F Newton (19/00664/PIP and 19/00667/PIP) (PLS/047/19)
Location: Land 150M South of South Lodge, Ness Castle, Inverness. (Ward 15)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/047/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the refusal of the applications on the grounds as detailed in the report.

Mrs S Hadfield presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed:-

• The Tree Preservation Order (TPO) related to the group of trees within the grounds of ‘Drumdevan House’ (hotel) as well as trees alongside the Big Burn on the edge of the plot;
• The trees that would require removal were located within an area of regenerating woodland in the intervening area between Plots 1 and 2 and it was considered that the proposed developments would not have an effect on the trees covered by the TPO;
• Proposals for replanting of trees had been submitted within the applications;
• The commencement of the Hinterland boundary area was located just before the road junction into Torbeck;
• The existing triangle of houses on either side of Essich Road was located within the settlement area;
• ‘Drumdevan House’ and the two properties associated with the hotel were outwith the settlement area;
• Policy 35 Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas) required all houses within a housing group to have a cohesive character relationship with one another and a perceptible relationship with one another;
• The nearby Kirkwood Homes Essich Meadow housing development was located within the settlement development area and did not encroach into the Hinterland area;
• The existing houses on Essich Road had a visual relationship to the road and looked onto it; therefore, whilst they were visually separated from the road, they were considered to have a cohesive relationship with each other and were seen as a housing group and not as individual houses;
• The proposed developments were not considered to comply with the policy requirements for a housing group as there was no development on the other side of the road from the plots and there were currently only two houses that could be deemed to have a perceptible relationship with each other;
• Whilst Members might consider that there was a perceptible relationship with the existing housing on Essich road for Plot 1, consideration was also required as to whether there was a perceptible relationship with Plot 2;
• The two existing properties to the West on the location plan were visually separated by the burn and woodland;
• The applicant had indicated that the area to the side of the existing houses could be landscaped and replacement planting undertaken; and
• A condition could be included requiring the submission of proposals for boundary treatment for approval.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Torbreck was on the limits of the Inverness City settlement boundary and had become a rural ideal with many people wanting to live in the area;
• The question of cohesive relationships between buildings was pertinent to maintaining and enhancing the character of the area;
• The concerns raised regarding trees, flooding and protected species had been address by the applicant;
• Policy 35 Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas) was subjective and it could be considered that the proposed development was an acceptable extension of an existing housing group;
• Policy 35 was a prescriptive policy based on guidance and had been established to allow more housing within the countryside in a controlled manner and not to interpret it to a standstill;
• The proposed houses were located within an area which had experienced a substantial growth in the number of houses being built over the previous ten years and were considered to be an extension of an existing housing group;
• Sites around Torbreck were likely to be put forward for potential development  as part of the review of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan;
• Both of the proposed houses were considered to form an infill of an existing group of houses given the location of houses on all four sides of the applications sites;
• It was considered that ‘Drumdevan Cottage’ and ‘Drumdevan Lodge’ were not visually separate by the burn and the public road;
• Policy 35 had been established to protect the countryside by permitting  development where exceptions to the policy could be applied;
• None of the exceptions to Policy 35 could be applied to either application and the proposed developments could be seen as an erosion of the existing settlement boundary; and
• Policy 35 was based on need and necessity and whilst there were exceptions contained within the policy, none were applicable in relation to the proposed developments.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr L Fraser, moved a motion that both applications be refused for the reasons recommended in the report.

Mr R MacWilliam, seconded by Mrs M Davidson, moved as an amendment that the applications be granted on the grounds that both of the proposed developments were in accordance with Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan by reason that they both met the Council’s criteria for acceptable expansion of a housing group on the basis that the existing houses within the vicinity could be viewed as one wider housing group.

i. Application Reference 19/0064/PIP

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray

Amendment

Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R MacWilliam, Mr B Thompson

ii. Application Reference 19/0067/PIP

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray

Amendment

Ms C Caddick, Mrs M Davidson, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R MacWilliam, Mr B Thompson

Decision

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle for 19/00664/PIP and 19/00667/PIP subject to:-

1. either the upfront payment of the developer contributions set out at 8.37 of the report or the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing these contributions; and
2. the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement for the costs of the extension of the existing 30mph zone as set out at 8.38.

The Committee further agreed to GRANT delegated powers to the planning officer to draft appropriate conditions for both developments.

6.10
Applicant: Mr Peter Roy (19/00703/FUL) (PLS/048/19)
Location: Land 150M NE of Larisa House, Bunloit, Drumnadrochit. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Refuse.

There had been circulated Report No PLS/048/19 by the Area Planning Manager – South recommending the refusal of the application on the grounds as detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the proposed house was approximately 21 metres in length, 8 metres in depth and 10 metres in height from the base of the garage to the peak of the roof.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Support was expressed for the recommendation to refuse planning permission for the reasons given in the report;
• The applicant’s existing house was too large for his current requirements and he was therefore seeking to erect a new smaller house within his garden ground;
• The field immediately adjacent to the existing house was not suitable as an alternative site for the proposed development as it contained a large septic tank;
• It was also considered that the adjacent field was unsuitable as it was located on the corner of a double bend in the public road at the foot of the hill where there had been a frequency of accidents which had resulted in regular destruction of the boundary fence on the road side of the field;
• In highlighting that there was a bench at the top of the hill and a footpath leading down towards the application site, it was considered that this was garden ground within the property holding and therefore should be classed as formal garden ground;
• It was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, conditions for the development should include a requirement for the applicant to produce a tree planting plan and provide a financial contribution towards improvements to the public road, such as an additional layby;
• The materials proposed to be used in the construction of the house would break up the appearance of the design as it would consist of a garage on the base of the property formed of natural stone and a small cottage design on the top;
• Concern was expressed that the applicant had not provided any justification for the proposed development and as there was no formal evidence of a garden ground having been established and maintained, none of the exemptions to Policy 35 Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas) could be applied in this case;
• The proposed development did not demonstrate sensitive siting as it would not be built into the slope and required engineering of walls to create platforms for the house;
• It was emphasised that a lack of evidence by the applicant to justify  potential development in Hinterland areas had previously been used in a number of other applications as a reason to refuse planning permission and that decisions must be based on planning grounds;
• It was suggested that if the applicant had gone to the extent of mowing the grass within the application site prior to the determination of the application, the land would be considered as garden ground and therefore would have complied with policy;
• The proposed development’s location on a slope did not detract from its appearance and was considered to demonstrate sustainable design.

No consensus having been reached between the members, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr G Cruickshank, moved a motion that the application be refused for the reasons recommended in the report.

Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr A Jarvie, moved as an amendment that the application be granted on the grounds that the proposed development was in accordance with Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan by reason that it met the Council’s criteria for development within garden ground and that the proposed development demonstrated sensitive siting without significantly and insensitively altering the local landscape character and the natural environment and therefore in accordance with Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

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

Motion

Mr R Balfour, Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr J Gray

Amendment

Mrs M Davidson, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R MacWilliam, Mr B Thompson

Decision

The Committee agreed to GRANT:-

1. planning permission, subject to either the upfront payment of the developer contributions set out at 8.12 of the report or the prior conclusion of a s.75 legal agreement securing these contributions; and
2. delegated powers to the planning officer to draft appropriate conditions for the development including conditions for the provision of a layby and details of visual landscaping for the development.

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: Highland Housers Ltd (PPA-270-2206) (18/04143/FUL)
Location: Land on Telford Road to rear of Rockburn Cottage, 58 Lochalsh Road, Inverness, IV3 8HW. (Ward 14)
Nature of Appeal: Erection of 2 semi-detached houses.

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

 

The meeting ended at 3.20 pm