Agendas, reports and minutes

North Planning Applications Committee

Date: Monday, 9 September 2013

Minutes: Read the

Minute of the site inspection meeting of the North Planning Applications Committee held on 9 September, 2013 at 10.30 am and the scheduled meeting of the Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 17 September, 2013 at 10.30 am.
Committee Members Present:
Site Inspection Meeting on 9 September:
Mr D Bremner, Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr D Mackay, Mr A MacLeod, Mrs I McCallum, Mrs M Paterson, Mr I Renwick, Mrs A Sinclair, Mr W Mackay and Ms G Coghill. 
Scheduled Meeting on 17 September:
Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Bremner (excluding items 6.3 – 6.7), Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr D MacKay (excluding item 6.3 and 6.4), Mr A MacLeod (excluding item 6.3, 6.6 and 6.7), Mrs I McCallum, Mr D Millar, Mrs M Paterson, Mr I Renwick, Mr A Rhind (excluding items 6.5 – 6.7), Mrs A Sinclair, Ms M Smith, Mr W Mackay (local member vote for items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1) and Mrs G Coghill (local member vote for Items 5.1, 5.3 and 6.1).
Officials in attendance:
Site Inspection Meeting on 9 September:
Mr A Mackenzie, Legal Manager (Regulatory Services) and Clerk 
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Development Management
Mr V Hawthorne, Team Leader, Wick 
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner 
Mr D Barclay, Graduate Planner
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant
Scheduled Meeting on 17 September:
Mr A Mackenzie, Legal Manager (Regulatory Services) and Clerk 
Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Development Management
Mr M Harvey, Team Leader 
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner 
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Mr R Patton, Principal Officer Land 
Mr G Mackenzie, Community Works Manager 
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant
Also in attendance:
Site Inspection Meeting on 9 September:  
Item 3.1
For the Applicant: Mr R Morris, Scottish Power Renewables
Item 3.2 
For the Applicant: Ms K Fox and Ms J Gascoigne, RWE Npower Renewables Ltd
Item 3.3 
For the Applicant: Mr T Surman and Mr S Grierson, Whirlwind Renewables
Landowner: Cathel Levack
For Items 3.1 to 3.3
For the Objectors: Mr S Young, Ms Brenda Herrick and Mr Alan Wilcock, Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 
Ms D Brown, Spittal Windfarm Opposition Group
For Item 3.4
For the Applicant: Mr J Bannerman
For the Objectors: Mr S Young and Ms B Herrick
Business
Mrs Isobel McCallum in the Chair
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. 
1. Apologies 
Leisgeulan
Site Inspection Meeting on 9 September:
Apologies were intimated on behalf of Mrs I Campbell, Mrs A MacLean, Mr D Millar, Mr G Phillips and Ms M Smith.
Scheduled Meeting on 17 September:
Apologies were intimated on behalf of Mrs A MacLean and Mr G Phillips. 
Local Member Votes had been granted to:
Mr W MacKay (Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1) 
Mrs G Coghill (Items 5.1, 5.3 and 6.1)
2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt
Item 5.2 – Ms G Coghill (non-financial interest due to her involvement as a Community Councillor)
3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais
There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the minute of meeting of the committee held on 13 August 2013 which, subject to noting that Councillor W Mackay was present, was APPROVED.
4. Major Applications 
Iarrtasan Mòra
There had been circulated Report No PLN-082-13 (121kb pdf) by the Head of Planning and Building Standards providing a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination. 
The Committee NOTED the report.
In relation to Items 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1, members had asked during the site visit if SNH could be contacted so that they could further define the capacity of wind farms that could be accommodated at this location with reference to the three wind farms before committee today;
Mr D Mudie read the response from SNH stating that all three wind farms could be accommodated, without exceeding the landscape capacity, in the area.  They could not comment on further developments in this area without prejudicing any future advice they would give on specific wind farm applications.  Mr Mudie further advised that a Report was to go to the Planning, Environment and Development Committee advising of the cumulative capacity of Caithness in particular.  The Report would also advise of areas of search which required to be defined further to restrict cumulative impact.
5. Continued Items
5.1  Applicant:  Scottish Power Renewables (UK) Ltd (09/00399/FULCA) (Route Map for Site Visit (613kb pdf) | Item 5.1 - PLN-079-13 Part 1 (1678kb pdf) | Item 5.1 - PLN-079-13 Part 2 (954kb pdf))
Location:  Halsary Forest, Watten (Ward 4)
Nature of Development:  Construction of a wind farm containing 15 (as amended) wind turbines, crane hardstandings, site accesses from the A9(T), fenced substation and switchgear compound, on-site underground cabling, on-site access tracks and associated pipe bridges and watercourse crossings, removal of forestry, one permanent steel lattice or tubular tower anemometry mast, two temporary power performance assessment masts, and ancillary construction development including two temporary construction compounds/lay-down areas. 
Recommendation:  Grant.
Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Millar, Mr A Rhind and Ms M Smith did not take part as they had not attended the site inspection on the 9 September 2013 and left the room.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/079/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.
The Committee had held a site inspection on 9 September 2013 in relation to this item. The site inspection viewed the site from various viewpoints including: Rangag, Westerdale, Spittal and Badibister.  At the request of Ms G Coghill an additional stop was made at the layby approximately two miles from viewpoint 1 to view the site from the war memorial there.
At each stop Mr D Mudie spoke to his Report and pointed out physical features relevant to the application and those representing the Applicant and Objectors were given the opportunity to point out physical features relevant to the application.
Members had the following concerns:
Was compensatory tree replanting of 222 hectares an appropriate level of replanting? 
How successful had compensatory replanting been for other wind farms in the area?
Was the forest a commercial forest and when was it due for cropping?
That more than 222 hectares of replanting be sought and that Scottish Power Renewables should be encouraged to replant fully in the Highlands and for this to be monitored by condition.  Members also requested that planting be on sloping land and not on good agricultural land which people in the area needed to survive. 
In regard to the carbon calculation, SEPA had not responded as it was not a Section 36, how was this dealt with?
What would be the direct investment to Halsary, as mentioned in the report?
Mr R Patton stated that 222 ha was an appropriate level for replanting. Corriemoillie wind farm had had low levels of compensatory planting in relation to this wind farm.  Figures were presently being updated in terms of woodland loss.  He stated that this was a commercial forest planted by the Forestry Commission that would go through to maturity and be felled.  This forest would not be restocked to the same degree.  Although Scottish Government policy was for replanting in Scotland, the Highland Council policy was to have replanting delivered in Highland.  Recent guidelines had been issued in respect of planting on farm land and as part of that guidance any planting was to be considered following local consultation. 
Mr Mudie stated that SEPA was not responsible for carrying out the carbon calculations for planning applications but that Council officials had considered the carbon calculation at an appropriate level with reasonable payback in 5 to 7 years based on experience of similar developments where SEPA had considered carbon calculations.  The direct investment to Halsary would be in personnel on site and the servicing of the site in future years with the multiplier effect. 
Members then discussed the cluster effect over individual developments of wind farms and the cumulative and visual effects. 
Members also queried the blade tip height in condition 1 and asked that the condition be amended to read “…a blade tip of 100 m in height from ground level…”. 
Members further discussed the compensatory planting and asked for “like for like” planting.  Mr Patton responded that in terms of the Woodland Policy, the Council would look for 222ha of compensatory planting to replace the 613 ha, in a similar type of planting. 
Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mr G Farlow moved that subject to the prior conclusion of an appropriate mechanism, at the Applicant’s expense, to secure the best compensatory planting that can be achieved in terms of Policy and a bond to cover decommissioning and site restoration, to grant subject to the conditions as recommended with condition 1 amended to add “a blade tip of” before “100m” in the fourth line.
Mr D Bremner, seconded by Mr D Mackay moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the following reason:
It will have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Mybster, Spittal general vicinity. This in particular regard to the cumulative impact along with Causewaymire, Camster and Boulfruich existing windfarms and the consented Burn of Whilk.
For the Motion (7)
Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr C Fraser, Mr W Mackay, Mr A MacLeod, Mrs I McCallum and Mr I Renwick.
For the Amendment (6)
Mr D Bremner, Mr M Finlayson, Mrs G Coghill, Mr D MacKay, Mrs M Paterson and Mrs A Sinclair.
The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee AGREED that subject to the prior conclusion of an appropriate mechanism at the Applicant’s expense to secure the best compensatory planting that can be achieved in terms of Policy and a bond to cover decommissioning and site restoration, to grant subject to the conditions as recommended with condition 1 amended to add “a blade tip of” before “100 m” in the fourth line.
Mrs G Coghill had declared an interest in the following item and accordingly did not take part.
5.2  Applicant:  RWE Npower Renewables Ltd (12/02868/FUL) (PLN-080-13 Part 1 (1333kb pdf) | PLN-080-13 Part 2 (1288kb pdf) | Item 5.2 - PLN-080-13 Part 3 (1035kb pdf))
Location:  Bad a Cheo, Achkeepster, Spittal (Ward 4)
Nature of Development:   Erection of 13 wind turbines, hard standings, anemometer mast, wind farm control building, temporary construction compound, lay down area and access tracks
Recommendation:  Grant.
Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Millar, Mr A Rhind and Ms M Smith did not take part as they had not attended the site inspection on the 9 September 2013 and left the room.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/080/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 
The Committee had held a site inspection on 9 September 2013 in relation to this item.  The site inspection viewed the site from various viewpoints including: Rangag, Westerdale, Spittal and Badibister.  At the request of Ms G Coghill an additional stop was made from the layby approximately two miles from viewpoint 1 to view the site from the war memorial there.
At each stop Mr D Mudie spoke to his Report and pointed out physical features relevant to the application and those representing the Applicant and Objectors were given the opportunity to point out physical features relevant to the application.
Members had the following concerns:
It stated in the report that peat cutting could continue in specific areas of the site during the construction phase, what arrangements would there be after completion of the site?
The peat cutting was a family run business and this would put the family out of business.
Could the war memorial to the flying fortress remain where it was?
In regard to visual amenity turbines 4 and 6 on the left hand side and turbines 3 and 1 on the right hand side of the road caused cluttering on either side of the road for road users.  The visual amenity at this site was more significant than the last application.
Mr Mudie advised that the whole area would be a construction site, but that there was however an area that had been set aside for stockpiling peat which they could use during that period.  The central area would still be available for cutting post construction.  With regard to the peat business Mr Mudie advised that they would still be able to work post construction and that they could apply to cut peat in other areas of Caithness if so desired.  The Historic Environment Team had advised in regard to the war memorial, that the development could affect the setting but that the war memorial could be moved to avoid the effects on setting.  If members and local people were content not to move the war memorial, it could remain where it was.  The condition in the Report had been requested by the Historic Environment Team but could be removed or altered.
During discussion members expressed a need for compensatory tree planting and again asked that the compensatory planting achieve the best planting that could be achieved. 
Mr D Bremner, seconded by Mrs M Paterson moved refusal of the application for the following reason:
The application will have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Mybster, Spittal, Westerdale area and on A9 trunk road users. This is in particular regard to the cumulative impact with regard to the existing Causeymire, Boulfruich and Camster windfarms and the consented Burn of Whilk and Halsary schemes.
Mr A MacLeod, seconded by Mr G Farlow moved as an amendment that the application be approved with compensatory tree planting and the removal of condition 25. 
For the Motion (6)
Mr D Bremner, Mr M Finlayson, Mr W MacKay, Mr D MacKay, Mrs I McCallum and Mrs M Paterson.
For the Amendment (6)
Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr C Fraser, Mr A Macleod, Mr I Renwick and Mrs A Sinclair.
There being an equality of votes, the Chair had the casting vote and voted with the motion.  The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee agreed to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:
The application will have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Mybster, Spittal, Westerdale area and on A9 trunk road users. This is in particular regard to the cumulative impact with regard to the existing Causeymire, Boulfruich and Camster windfarms and the consented Burn of Whilk and Halsary schemes.
5.3  Applicant:  Mr Jeffery Bannerman (12/04399/FUL) (PLN-075-13 Part 1 (1816kb pdf) | Item 5.3 - PLN-075-13 Part 2 (414kb pdf)) 
Location:  Land 240 m SE of Balmore Farm, Dounreay (Ward 4)
Nature of Development:   Erection of single wind turbine 78 metres to blade tip, 49 m to hub with 58 diameter blades, formation of access track and new road junction along with ancillary electrical switchgear housing 
Recommendation:  Refuse.
Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Millar, Mr A Rhind and Ms M Smith did not take part as they had not attended the site inspection on the 9 September 2013 and left the room.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/075/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the refusal of the application for the reasons detailed therein. 
The Committee had held a site inspection on 9 September 2013 in relation to this item. The site inspection viewed the site from various viewpoints: Forss Business Park, Reay and Westfield.
At the request of an objector, members of the Committee had agreed that the planned site visit took a different route from the route notified in the papers.  At each stop Mr V Hawthorne spoke to his Report and pointed out physical features relevant to the application and those representing the Applicant and Objectors were given the opportunity to point out physical features relevant to the application.
Members had the following concerns:
The turbine proposed was very large and out of scale for the landscape, members would like to see the applicant come forward with a development more to scale.
The flicker from the turbine during low sun.
With the impact of the Bailey wind farm in the background this turbine leads to little cumulative or visual impact. 
The change in route for the site visit had been agreed but in retrospect future site visits should remain as planned and extra viewpoints can be added to the existing route.  It would have been helpful to have seen the Bailey wind farm as a backdrop to the planned turbine.
Mr D Jones stated that officers would be prepared to discuss alternative options with the applicant in relation to a revised proposal in terms of scale and siting etc. 
Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mrs A Sinclair moved the recommendation that the application be refused. 
Mr G Farlow, seconded by Mr I Renwick moved as an amendment that the application be approved with conditions to be agreed by the Area Planning Manager in consultation with the local members present and, if necessary by the Chairman for the following reason:
It does not significantly affect the visual impact or amenity of the area since it fits within the existing renewable onshore wind turbine developments and disagree with Officer’s observation of Policies 61, 67 and 28.
For the Motion (8)
Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mrs G Coghill, Mr D MacKay, Mr A MacLeod, Mrs I McCallum, Mrs M Paterson and Mrs A Sinclair.
For the Amendment (5)
Mr D Bremner, Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr W MacKay and Mr I Renwick.
The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee AGREED to refuse the application for the reasons stated in the Report.
6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh
6.1  Applicant:  Whirlwind Renewables (13/1190/FUL) (PLN-081-13 Part 1 (1577kb pdf) | PLN-081-13 Part 2 (1183kb pdf))
Location:  West of Mybster Farm, Spittal, Watten, Caithness (Achlachan Wind Farm) (Ward 4)
Nature of Development:  Wind farm (5 wind turbines) with potential capacity of 10 mw. 
Recommendation:  Grant
Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Millar, Mr A Rhind and Ms M Smith did not take part as they had not attended the site inspection on the 9 September 2013 and left the room.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/081/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application.  Recommended conditions relative to this application had been circulated at the meeting. 
The Committee had held a site inspection on 9 September 2013 in relation to this item. The site inspection viewed the site from various viewpoints: Rangag, Westerdale and Spittal.  At the request of Ms G Coghill an additional stop was made from the layby approximately two miles from viewpoint 1 to view the site from the war memorial there.
At each stop Mr K McCorquodale spoke to his Report and pointed out physical features relevant to the application and those representing the Applicant and Objectors were given the opportunity to point out physical features relevant to the application.
Mr McCorquodale circulated recommended conditions at the meeting.
Members had the following concerns at the site visit:
A “for sale” sign had been noted beside a forest during the site visit and members asked the Planning Officer if he could give more detail in relation to the sale. 
The reason the area was marked as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
The distance to the nearest turbine from the road. 
The relationship of the turbines to the watercourse.
The height of the turbines to the blade tip, could this be reduced to 110 metres. 
Mr McCorquodale advised that the forest was up for sale and that it had been bought for investment purposes and would be sold as such.  The land would continue in use as a forest until such time as it was due to be cropped.   The special area of conservation was in relation to the salmon interest.  The nearest turbine to the road was 310 metres.  The turbines would be placed well back from the watercourse and the blade tip had been amended to 110 metres.
During Mr McCorquodale’s presentation it became apparent that although the applicant had said he had notified surrounding property owners, some of these were disputed.   Mr McCorquodale advised that when applicants gave information that they had approached landowners it was not confirmed in any way.
The committee then agreed to DEFER consideration of the application to seek clarification from the Applicants as to landownership and financial interests.
6.2  Applicant:  Mr W MacInnes (11/03478/PIP) (PLN-083-13 (669kb pdf))
Location:  Site 2, Land to South West of 22 Garafad, Staffin, Portree (Ward 11)
Nature of Development:  Housing Development, revised scheme incorporating 7 dwellings (previously 9) together with associated arrangements for access and shared drainage
Recommendation:  Grant.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/083/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.
Mr M Harvey stated that if members were to approve this application, it would then require to be notified to Scottish Ministers as there had been a formal objection from SNH as a statutory consultee. 
Members had the following concerns:
A weight limit on the road for construction traffic during the construction phase would protect the road.
Conditions were very restrictive.  A condition survey was about to take place, in relation to condition 2 would it be preferable to wait for the outcome of the survey.
Clarification of the objection from TEC Services?  Had the concerns from TEC services been addressed? 
Was it in keeping with the settlement pattern?  
Urge the Crofters Commission to make clear decisions on crofting and decrofting land under the terms of the Crofting Act 2012.
Mr G Mackenzie stated that it was very difficult to impose a weight limit on general roads as they had to be applied to specific structures and that a Section 96 consent was the best way forward.
Mr M Harvey advised that the conditions were standard conditions attached to applications.  When the applications came forward for individual houses the conditions could be looked at again in respect of each house.  There was a great variety of houses in this area and 110 square metres footprint restriction still allowed for a relatively large building.  TEC were content that their concerns had now been covered by condition.   This proposal is seen as completely compatible with the existing and evolving settlement pattern. 
The Committee AGREED subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 Agreement, at the Applicant’s expense, to secure affordable housing and notification to Scottish Ministers, to grant subject to the conditions as recommended with an additional informative regarding the section 96 consent. 
6.3  Applicant:  Mr Ian Butler (12/01575/FUL) (PLN-084-13 (1034kb pdf)) 
Location:  Land 40 m East of 1 Coile Dhorch, Coille Dhorch, Badachro (Ward 6)
Nature of Development:  Erection of house and garage  
Recommendation:  Grant.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/084/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 
The Committee AGREED to grant the application, subject to the conditions as recommended in the Report. 
6.4  Applicant:  Ms E Munro (13/02115/PIP) (PLN-085-13 (885kb pdf)) 
Location:  Land 105 North West of Lower Dalnaclach, Lamington, Invergordon (Ward 8)
Nature of Development:  Erection of house with access via existing track.  Installation of septic tank and treatment system  
Recommendation:  Grant.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/085/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.
Members had previously asked for a review to be undertaken by Policy and TEC Services on this area and the review had been circulated with the papers.  The finding of the review would be reported to the Community Council and the Area Committee.
The Committee AGREED to grant the application, subject to the conditions as recommended in the Report. 
6.5  Applicant:  Mr D J Graham (13/02244/FUL) (PLN-086-13 (513kb pdf)) 
Location:  6 Eyre, Kensaleyre, Portree, IV51 9XB (Ward 11)
Nature of Development:  Change of use from shed to holiday letting unit 
Recommendation:  Grant.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/086/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.
Members had the following concerns:
The applicant seemed to have a complete disregard for the planning process as work had already started on site.  The shed had been placed 9 metres from the agreed position on the previous planning application.  What is the first step in enforcement?
Planning permission for Tigh na Cnoc was granted with no windows facing Mr Graham’s property in the interests of privacy, therefore the two skylights facing Tigh na Cnoc should be removed.
The access should be taken to the standard agreed before any further development takes place.  As work was still continuing members had little confidence in the applicant.
How would the condition regarding only holiday letting be enforced?
Mr M Harvey agreed that a condition be added to enforce that no roof lights should overlook Tigh na Cnoc.  It was also possible to amend condition 2 to read “No further development shall take place until the access….”.
Mr D Jones advised that condition 1 relating to holiday letting was standard and that it was enforced usually through self-policing with neighbouring properties objections received by Planning.  The Planning Department also periodically reviewed properties when they came up for sale and checked the conditions were still attached and advertised as such.   He advised that two Enforcement Officers had recently been appointed in the Planning Department and they would ensure a stronger presence in terms of enforcement action.
The Committee AGREED:
to grant subject to revised conditions to be agreed by the Area Planning Manager in consultation with the local members present and, if necessary, the Chairman; and
to call for an update Report in 6 months’ time if the conditions were not adhered to.
6.6  Applicant:  Ardassie Ltd (13/02479/FUL) (PLN-087-13 (1894kb pdf)) 
Location:  Carrol House, 36 Golf Road, Brora, KW9 6QS (Ward 05)
Nature of Development:  Demolition of Carrol House and erection of 17 apartments in 2 x 2 ½ storey blocks with associated parking and services 
Recommendation:  Grant.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/087/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 
Members had the following concerns:
Replacement of the stone wall – would the appearance and materials be similar to the existing wall?
Mr B Robertson stated that the stone wall was covered by condition 16 stating that the wall should be reinstated to the same height as the existing wall.  It was possible to amend the condition to require the detail of the appearance and materials to be in keeping with the surrounding area. 
The Committee AGREED subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 Agreement, at the Applicant’s expense, to secure affordable housing, to grant subject to the conditions as recommended with condition 16 to be amended after consultation with the local members and, if necessary, the Chairman. 
6.7   Applicant:  RWE Npower (Whilk Wind Farm) (13/02429/S42) (PLN-088-13 (345kb pdf)) 
Location:  Burn of Whilk, East Clyth, Lybster, Caithness (Ward 04)
Nature of Development:  Amend two conditions attached to the Burn of Whilk Wind Farm planning permission 
Recommendation:  Grant.
There had been circulated Report No PLN/088/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.
The Committee AGREED to amend the two conditions as recommended in the Report.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 4.10 pm.

Meeting Downloads